When making judgements like this, it is good to remember that your experience of a place depends not only on that place, but even more so on your own state of mind. When you see confusion all around you, you should honestly ask yourself how much of it is coming from your side.
> you should honestly ask yourself how much of it is coming from your side.
That may be true. But I still think that candid, unapologetic appraisals of what's wrong with developing countries may be just what the doctor ordered for things to change.
I myself am an Indian and while I'm yet to see someone covered in his or her own feces in India, I'd agree with the general sentiment of that article: it's an honest, heart-felt piece. I'd like to change the state of affairs in my country, but the task is so f*cking huge that you don't know where to start or even whether you can do anything at all. If perhaps more Indians start feeling that things are NOT acceptable here, maybe we might see the beginnings of change, just like how it was with India's own independence struggle.
India probably needs more startups; startups that are solving Indian problems, employing Indians and if relevant expanding the solution to places outside.
Despite the corruption and incompetence of the government, I believe that the government also finds itself in the same conundrum--"where to start, or what to fix first, or in what order".
This may sound like a cliche but the it's what you do for your country that matters more.
I too was faced the same dilemma a few years back and on a whim I joined a small volunteer organization that teaches street children. Being a one trick pony I decided to teach them computers. In just 2 months those kids, who did not know the English alphabet learned to use MS-Paint doing stuff like Undo/Redo/Copy/Paste, etc. Seeing those kids learn was one of the happiest feelings of my life. I later heard that one of the girls got admission in a govt. school because of what she learnt in that org.
Anyway, the reason I say this is because I read an article a few months back (will link it if I can find it) about how in Western societies there is a very strong emphasis on giving back to the country. Even people who are doing well generally volunteer on weekends for community service, etc. They have a very strong feeling of patriotism and an in built societal structure that makes them want to give back.
Now I have never lived outside of India so I cannot say if the above is true or not but having lived in India all my life I have never seen anyone, any relative, friend, etc do any sort of community service ever (unless of course there is religious angle). So all in all we have a lot of people complaining but very few doing anything.
I think every person who has completed college has the ability to make a difference but because the problem seems to be so "huge" nobody wants to do anything about it or is maybe waiting for others to lead them the way. The thing is you don't have to change everything, you only have to realize that anything you do no matter how big or small still makes a difference.
I don't know how much truth there is in this from the foreigner's point of view, but a lot of us believe (me and a lot of my friends included) that a vast majority of tourists who come to India want to witness this very same upon coming here.
It also fits one of the many reasons why the density of foreigners is maximum in areas like Pahar Ganj and Old delhi (the dirtiest parts of Delhi IMO). So when some "gora" (typically white people) complains that Delhi is so dirty the biggest wtf going on in my head is.. then why the hell are you staying near Pahar ganj or traveling by a cycle rickshaw in 42 deg near Nai Sadak. The place near the Airport is cleaner than New York ( at least after the common wealth games) but nobody wants to see that. Who wants to come here all the way to see some old glass building in neat and clean surroundings. What's unique about that right?
I think it is valid to judge a society on how it treats its least fortunate. You are certainly unlikely to learn much about a country from its suburbs and its CBDs, they are (relatively speaking) alike the world over in my experience.
Well, then why complain about it? When tourists come to US they may go to Disneyland, the Statue of Liberty etc. Most tourists don't take pictures of American ghettos, prisons etc.
Why is it that when you guys go to other countries you constantly focus on why that country is somehow different in a bad way? India: too filthy and chaotic. China: no freedom. Middle East: too oppressive. I could go on.
I've noticed that Europeans have a more nuanced approach to the world compared to Americans. They seem to appreciate differences instead of being smug in their superiority.
I haven't met any fellow USians that _constantly_ do this. Then again, I guess that's the problem with making wide generalizations about an entire group of people.
This is a fairly honest unflinching piece.
A visit to India can induce severe "Cognitive Dissonance" in the unprepared. There is obscene display of super affluence right next to shocking Poverty. I see this every single day -
A beggar & her naked child begging at the window of an Audi R8.
The salesman in a high-end TV shop taking the bus to work.
The Marriot main-gate where super high priced cars drive out to be greeted by a forest of beggars.
Mumbai City simultaneously houses the most expensive residence in the world [1] and the largest slum in the world [2]
The leaders and the bureaucrats of the Govt. of India deserve to be shot in a public square for their sheer corruption and incompetence. They rob the country blind; feather their own nests and manage thru coercion to get elected (or posted to plum postings) over and over again.
Guess I was thinking more from a standpoint of the social status of taking public transport versus having your own car. But you're right, those considerations are irrelevant next to the aforementioned heat and overcrowding.
Come on, that picture is more exception than the norm. I travelled by bus for years when I was in school and college. There are definitely people hanging near the doors but nowhere as close as to what you mentioned in the picture.
That picture is definitely o lot busier than average but in my experience the majority of urban buses were unpleasantly hot and crowded in India, particularly during the rush hour. I avoided using them if at all possible, and I generally really enjoyed most of the other forms of transport on offer there, especially the more dirty and dangerous ones.
I mean, the central point of the original comment was the stark contrast between rich and dirt-poor, who often sit side-by-side, and how we better hide these differences in Western nations.
I had just wanted to nitpick that the bus example is actually a very good one to highlight why "riding the bus" is not a bad indication of poverty, which I think we agree on!
None of this detracts from the fact that riding the subway during the summer is miserable for everyone, but isn't (in my mind, or in the parent's) quite the same as an Indian bus!
Though I have never seen the bent buses in Bangalore yet in the 5 years I have been here. That is not to say public buses are pleasant here - you still deal with being densely packed with other commuters of varying degree of hygiene.
I was in Delhi a long time back(9 years), and when I came to Chennai, the Delhi buses started to look pleasant in comparison. The only buses which ran on the route my college was on were skewed to the side owing to the hanging passengers. In Bangalore, at least the damn door closes and no one is falling to his death.
When I was in Delhi, I was a broke student and took buses most of the times. Some routes were quite pleasant. Some were outright hell. The one that runs between south Delhi and Najafgarh is packed(especially after 8 in the evening), and people are knowingly and unknowingly thrusting their crotches into each other.
You guys should come by the Mission district or China Town or Lower Haight ( here in San Francisco ) or take public transit (any of the BART stations - 16th, 24th, Civic Center or Glen Park).
The foulest stench of excrement anywhere.
Some blame the Hispanic population and some blame the Hmong and others blame the street urchins. But I never expected to smell anything so odious in a major metropolis in the U.S.
Every time I go to SF, I take the BART from SFO, and travel through many of those stations. It's nothing like what you allude to; it's also completely underused.
Well, you may be exaggerating, but I found my stay in SF similarly disorienting.
We were staying at 4th and Mission, surrounded by luxury stores and hotels. At night, though, it was like Dawn of the Dead, with street-zombies wandering around talking to themselves.
Sadly (to me), they were almost all black. In Toronto, the homeless have the decency to be fairly racially inclusive (with Native Americans somewhat over-represented).
I always just blamed the systemic paralysis of sf bay government caused by poor design of the intersection between public power and private power over the commons.
Its not that bad, I took public bus to school as a thirteen year old. It was as crowded as an MTA bus. Except there is no Air Conditioning, otherwise it is not that bad. Trains however tend to be much worse, since the doors never close.
When I was growing up in Chennai I would lean out the bus doors (with one hand) primarily to impress the young hotties walking along the side of the road.
> The leaders and the bureaucrats of the Govt. of India deserve to be shot in a public square for their sheer corruption and incompetence.
The Indian public deserves an equal or greater share of the blame. Government is the people's responsibility in a democracy. If governance sucks, the citizens are not doing their job.
You are living in a developed country, right? You got many years of language, writing, speaking, thinking and maybe higher education. You don't know what illiteracy means (when you can't read/write; and don't understand anything about democracy or the banking system).
Your average person in a developing and poor country is not Arun2009. It's a fairly ignorant person who doesn't know either his rights or his duties.
Yesterday an article made it to our frontage about what 'bubbles' we live in. By bubbles the author meant assumptions that shape how we see and interpret everything.
I think literacy & education is one of the biggest bubbles. I had to spend a lot of time thinking about it, and talking to people with experience in the subject before the vast idea of what it means to be illiterate started to dawn on me.
For example, teaching a class on how to use computers to people at the library. They all want to know how to 'look for a job' online. Show 'em how to use the mouse, what icons represent the internet, how to get email, and see they're having trouble. Slowly begin to understand they're only memorizing shapes and patterns of letters, and don't really know how to read or write.
We're all so hyper literate, I can say that about everyone here. We're practically a different species than people who don't know how to wirelessly communicate through space and time. It's impossible to hold poor people in india who basically only have spoken word communication, and oral tradition historical context, to our standards.
Easier said than done. You know it is more complicated than that. India is a namesake democracy, same families get elected all the time. With about 30% illiteracy rate, people don't even know they have a choice, thousands of years of oppression of majority of the population, ... so on.
The average Indian is likely making less than $2 a day [1] and likely illiterate with not having the ability to read or write ANYTHING[2]. Is a dirt poor, illiterate person "politically empowered"?
Why does one have to be literate to be politically active? Do you think that most US voters base their political decisions (or their decision whether or not to vote) on something they read?
I don't know why this got down-voted to hell. You raise a very valid point. That democracy has to be representative is one of its basic tenets, and you cannot have that if you shut out a large fraction of your citizens. It is very patronizing to assume that the uneducated do not know what is good for them and the educated class knows what is better for them.
Another basic tenet of democracy is that its citizens must be informed. I think it's fair to assume that those who lack access to written knowledge are at a disadvantage in this respect. For what it's worth, I upvoted the comment. Downvoting it to the point of invisibility strikes me as rather undemocratic.
You shouldn't have been downvoted to hell because you were right on some account. Literacy is only part of the problem. Even if you have 100% literacy it won't stop corruption. Case and point: Kerala -> The only state in India with about 94% literacy and yet there is still a good amount of corruption! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala
bad example. Relatively speaking, Kerala has pretty low amount of corruption. I'm not sure that high literacy is the cause. I have a hunch that the high literacy is a byproduct of the common cause (whatever it is). Most people in Kerala have strong political opinions, politics is debated in an intellectual atmosphere. Isn't just literacy, the median Keralite is also a graduate (Bachelor's degree).
As the son of a military officer who has stayed everywhere in India (north/east/west/south) from childhood to adulthood, I can confidently and un-equivocally state that Kerala is amongst the _least_ corrupt states in India. My personal view is supported by several reports of corruption in India (Google them).
If you shot every corrupt person in the country , their would not be many men left. We have become a nation of people who would rather pay someone a little money than wait for our turn in a queue.
Corruption is a two handed process , one hand gives and the other takes. Both should be stopped.
Actually, a lot of the time, the child is not hers. It's rented from the child's real mother, so that the beggar can earn more money. But I'm sure you already knew that.
an Indian will lie to your face ... they’ll hand you fake business cards and offer to sell you something that they don’t actually have, so that you’ll voluntarily empty your wallet to them on your own accord.
As opposed to DecorMyEyes.. sure
A couple Indians stopped him on the street, and with perfect English convinced him they worked for a travel agency.
No shit. It's not like any Indian travel sites are listed on Nasdaq as MMYT right ?
Everyone of the problems has happened to me in various parts of South East Asia. India is not unique with these issues.
With all due respect, I think the author had a "Gautama" experience. An experience of extreme helplessness when confronted with extreme poverty at a national scale. I completely empathize with him, but lets not get too hysterical with helplessness here.
It's hard to herd a billion people along... but we're trying.
It's hard to be sympathetic when walking through Paharganj in Delhi and have hundreds of con artists just outright lying and trying to scam well meaning tourists. I won't go back to India because of it. It's one thing to pay a guy to take pictures of you at Taj, it's another to have someone be helpful then demand a tip for it.
China has a billion people too, but life there is far less horrid, dirty and bureaucratic. While the Chinese government is pretty deplorable, something is going right there, compared to India.
Another problem with India is the mind-numbing Colonial-era bureaucracy -- to start a small business in India it takes months of paperwork just to get a business license. You have to get papers signed, resigned, rubber stamped by ten different offices and then pay crazy expensive bribes to everyone along the way. The problem is the government. It's an obsession with administivia at the expense of entrepreneurs.
The comparison with china is, IMHO, pretty much apples to oranges.
You are comparing industrialized portions of China with India's countryside (notwithstanding the forced removal of Beijing's slums for the Olympics http://olympics.scmp.com/Article.aspx?id=1419§ion=in...).
If you need to find fault with the slow pace of reforms, I give you democracy and cite US Health Reforms as an excuse - imagine if you had one billion rather than 300 million to work with.
As India's MoS-Small Scale Industries' Sachin Pilot once put it - "inclusive development vs growth".
Hoping that people will not cheat you at Bangkok's KhaoSan road is a bit too optimistic. Existence of ThornTree and Tripadvisor with their "Tourist Trap" sections is indeed because this is a human, not a regional phenomena.
I'm sad that you wont go back to India because of it - I really wish you had not stayed at Paharganj, but instead stayed somewhere inside Delhi.
I wish you had skipped Taj Mahal altogether and instead taken a walk to Hauz Khas Village, bang in the middle of New Delhi - which completely epitomises India's bohemian kitsch, shopping, food, music along with monuments that predate the Taj Mahal by atleast 300 years. Maybe you could have dropped in to have a cup of coffee at one of the cafe's there that operate on an honor system rather than a bill.
Your tourist trap experience, colored the rest of your viewpoints and I'm truly sad at that.
Comparing downtown Delhi with downtown Shanghai is no comparison. I've lived an traveled in the Chinese countryside and that poverty is not even in the same ballpark as India.
Sorry about the long post. The post by the author stirred up a strong emotion from me.
The author is right. It's an extremely honest account of the state of chaos that is India. There has been a culture of dishonesty that has grown over the last few decades, because that is the only way many people can afford to live middle-class lifestyles.
If you take an auto-rickshaw or a taxi, the only thing that goes through the drivers head is, whether he can scam you for more money, and if so how. It's quite sad, because on one hand dishonesty is the norm, but on the other that's the only way he can feed his family, send his kids to school, take care of his ailing parents and drink away his miseries at night. The middle class ignore this because they know it's all a game with winners and losers (even if by pure chance). They would be better off trying to achieve a comfortable standard of living, than to try and reform India. But these people are often really honest, and as courteous as the average busy employee in nyc.
Then you see the rich folks who live in walled gardens (literally and figuratively). They have comfortable lives and are protected from the stark realities by security guards whose sole job is to prevent beggars from entering places where they live.
The police here do not have resources to work on most of the civil problems that happen here. On the plus side, they are less corrupt than what they were before, maybe because of the fear of irrelevancy. The politicians care more about the gold in their coffers, than to try and find ways to reform society.
The authors' account, it seems, came from a person who expected India to be a basket of spirituality, but was then struck in the groin by reality. It's all well and good. That is the real India, unfortunately. Not the Ashrams or the Taj hotels or the private resorts.
The situation is changing. The spending power of the middle class is increasing, along with the awareness that they are the ones who can and should start the change. The population needs to be decreased or the population densities should be more evenly spread. People living below the poverty line need to find some way to sustain themselves, and elevate themselves to a situation where they can think about tackling societal challenges. These are hard problems, and need capable minds to solve.
I think I understand now why India has historically been the place that produced enlightenment, at a greater rate than other countries have.... Out of necessity.
It's hard to live in an environment like that without witnessing the game of life (the suffering), and hopefully, existing out of it.
And I don't mean the suffering of the poor, but also of the rich, the middle class, and everyone else there, that's a piece on the gameboard.
I would like to point out that the extreme poverty that India is known for today is pretty much a legacy of the British Raj.
The 'enlightenment' you are talking about came much before that, when India was a much more peaceful and prosperous area.
So the 'Out of necessity' argument you made is pointless.
I would like to point out that the extreme poverty that India is known for today is pretty much a legacy of the British Raj.
Today (2012) is sixty-five years since the independence of India from British rule (1947). As an American, I have to agree with the general proposition that British colonial rule is not the best form of government, but as an observer of the great variety of former British colonies in the world that are now independent countries, I invite readers here to think about why some of those countries (including some that became independent more recently than India) are now prosperous and free. Perhaps there are details about life in India and policies of the independent government of India that kept India comparatively poor and backward even after India won independence. It's a backward-looking set of excuses to say "British rule was bad for us," as it may indeed have been, without also being curious about "How have other countries thrived since winning independence from Britain?"
As far as the bad influence of colonialism goes, I think in general French or Spanish colonial rule have been even worse for most countries than British colonial rule. And it appears that one way harm was mediated to many places of the world by colonial rule is that socialism (especially hard-left socialism like Marxism) was transmitted to colonies by Western colonial officials, and then many countries pursued ineffective policies for national development for decades after independence, because they were stuck in socialist ideology for too long.
British rule in the Dominion countries went like this: exterminate or wholly subjugate the natives, then flood the place with whiteys from Blighty. Same thing happened in the US, but they took the subjugation a step further into crusade territory with 'manifest destiny'. In effect, Britain was able to transplant its culture and laws directly in these places.
British rule in India couldn't do this - half a billion people is a bit too many to simply overrun. Instead they played factions against each other, one trick being to give a smaller faction superior arms, they keep the peace and a slice of the pie, but are wholly dependent on the supply of arms. British rule in India was a massively different beast to the Dominion countries.
Well, keep in mind that India was fairly rich till before the colonisation. From wikipedia[1], according to the Indian Prime Minister:
"There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income."
This mostly has to do with the gap introduced by the Industrial Revolution the second half of the 19th century. If you follow the rise of Germany leading up to World War I, you will notice that the country was steadily becoming richer as industrial machinery was introduced from Britain (where most of the early inventions took place). Something similar occurred in the United States as well. India, on the other hand, is in many respects still a pre-Industrial country (nevermind that the government has access to nuclear weapons).
Even during the french revolution, the largest manufacturing districts in the world were still the Yangzi Delta and Bengal.India alone produced one quarter of the world manufactures.
"It is very likely that, in the middle of the eighteenth century, the average standard of living in Europe was a little bit lower than that of the rest of the world" - Bairoch.
The viewpoint that European countries surged ahead due to the industrial revolution rather than colonial oppression has been widely debunked.
The relevant question is not so much why the industrial revolution occurred first in England,Scotland and Belgium, but why other advanced regions of the eighteenth century failed to adapt their handicraft manufacturers to the new conditions of production and competition in the 19th century.
The looms of India and China were defeated not so much by market competition as they were forcibly dismantled by war,invasion, opium and a Lancashire-imposed system of one-way tariffs.
It is indisputable that from about 1780 or 1800 onward every serious attempt by a non western society to move into a fast lane of development or to regulate its terms of trade was met by a military as well as an economic response from London or a competing imperial capital.The victorians according to Brian Bond's calculations resorted to gunboat on at least 75 different occasions.
India was the greatest captive market in world history, rising from third to first place among consumers of British exports in the quarter century after 1870."British Rulers" writes Marcello De Cecco , "deliberately prevented Indians from becoming skilled mechanics, refused contracts to Indian firms which produced materials that could be got from England, and generally hindered the formation of an autonomous industrial structure in India"
Thanks to a Government Stores policy that reserved most government purchases to British products and by the monopoly of British agency houses in organizing the import-export trade, India was forced to absorb Britain's surplus of increasingly obsolescent and non-competitive industrial exports.By 1910 this included two-fifths or the UK's finished cotton goods and pharmeceuticals.
As a result observes de Cecco, Britain avoided "having to restructure her industry and was able to invest her capital in the countries where it gave the highest return".Thanks to India, "British financiers were not compelled to 'tie' their loans to British Exports because the Imperial outlet was always available for British products."
But how in the age of famine, could the Indian subcontinent afford to subsidize its conqueror's suddenly precarious commercial supremacy?.In a word it could'nt and India was force marched into the world market by revenue and irrigation policies that compelled farmers to produce for foreign consumption at the price of their own food security.By the turn of the century, India was supplying nearly a fifth of Britain's wheat consumption.
References
1. Late Victorian Holocausts: El nino famines and the making of the third world - Mike Davis
2. An economic history of India - Dietmar Rothermund
3. The international gold standard: Money and Empire - Marcello De Cecco
> The viewpoint that European countries surged ahead due to the industrial revolution rather than colonial oppression has been widely debunked.
Neither the Austrian-Hungarian Empire nor Germany had colonies, yet their standard of living had improved dramatically over the second half of the 19th century. One could argue that these countries initially had feudal-style serfdom, yet in both of them serfdom was abolished earlier than in the Russian Empire (1770-1830 in Germany, 1848 in Austria-Hungary, 1861 in Russia), and the standard of living continued to increase after the abolition of serfdom.
I am not a huge lover of big empires, yet I consider the typical postcolonial argument which goes basically "white people are responsible for everything" as politically motivated and leading to victim mentality, which further inhibits progress. If you want to see a true example of exploitation, look at Congo under King Leopold. The British regime was lollipops and roses by comparison. If you look at hubs of economic activity in South-East Asia, and which in no small manner are still influencing Asian economic growth -- Singapore, Hong Kong -- all of them are former British colonial outposts.
If you take a country/people where accumulating wealth is not a culturally-established practice, and introduce wealth to this country through trade/industry/oil exploration, you won't get a reduction of poverty -- you will get more poverty, since the wealth you introduced can now sustain more people at their previous standard of living. This is, by the way, why having a conversation with postcolonialists can be completely impossible -- they place such an emphasis on differences between cultures when talking about pretty much anything, but when you hint that willingness to save money and plan for the future can also be culturally influenced, they get red in the face.
It's too easy to blame the white man while pretending that the European and American advances were 95-99% a product of the white man's racism and brutality subjugated on the rest of the world.
The mistake the author made is that he lived in India for three weeks. Had he stayed for six months or a year, he'd have been able to figure out what makes India tick - India is the very embodiment of clever innovation to survive - it will ask you very tough questions and it will compel you to innovate, often rapidly, just in order to survive - not even succeed. This, in India, is known as "jugaad".
He missed the "jugaad" all around him - people, in their struggle for survival, do all sorts of things. Lying is jugaad, dishonesty is jugaad, the Cobra is jugaad, the marijuana in tourist places is jugaad, the beggar's strategic location is jugaad, the dump-heap is jugaad (not all jugaads are meant to make society better as a whole).
But maybe that's too naive. The most unfortunate in India are amongst the most fatalistic - they give up trying - after all, they never won the birth lottery by being born in Europe or the US, or even in a rich home in India - so why hope for social justice? Laws are meant to be broken in India, justice is meant not to be served (India is a study in legal arbitrage - it always has been). Life is meant to be tough in India, values are meant to eschewed. But even with all this, "jugaad" survives and serves its own brand of justice. The mistake most foreigners make in India is that they continue to believe in their ability to right the wrongs and make a change. A feeling of utter helplessness is very alien to them. It's coming to terms with that helplessness and digging out pockets of jugaad from that black mass of helplessness is what makes India tick.
Great comment. You have hit the nail on the head.
One has to immerse oneself into the ocean of sweat, dirt and garbage to see the real india and what makes it tick. It is like swimming in an ocean of raw-sewage with a 1000 foot, 1000-headed serpent.
>> The most unfortunate in India are amongst the most fatalistic - they give up trying.
: This is again so true. Experienced first-hand with some of my relatives. You might be initially surprised at their mindset and the self-reasoning, but then you will realize its part of their coming to terms with life.
If you consider the rain-forests of Amazon as an evolving experiment by nature, I consider the human-forests of India as an evolving experiment by nature as well.
It has been explained to me that it is common for many indians to justify another person’s plight by believing that a condition of suffering is that person’s ‘karmic destiny.’ Therefore it would be ‘bad karma’ to help such a person.
Well, that perception, if it has been presented to you, is false. In fact, in India, whenever someone is discouraged to help someone out, the most popular argument is "Why bother? It's not your problem!" or "It'll be more trouble than it's worth" - just like anywhere else in the world.
I want to nitpick slightly, if I may, albeit the point is not related to the general discussion of poverty in India.
There is also some modern, relevant benefits to identifying someone's caste: it is an indicator that someone comes from a similar cultural or religious upbringing. That you speak similar dialects of Hindi. This is important when, say, marrying.
This says nothing of the caste system as institutional discrimination, but it's worth mentioning that caste is not "purely" an economic/political bit of culture.
Yes, caste system is embedded in the culture. It is not purely economic/political in nature. It is used by politicians because it is there, socially. This form is racism exists so deep in India. You can witness this:
There is whole sect in India which is segregated, tortured everyday for being born as a lower caste and it does not even end with their death. They have to clean others' feces by their hands (yes even today) and this is considered a norm. Rich, higher caste still instill this in their own kids to be wary of the "dirty people". Kids born into Dalit families are reminded of this by not letting them eat with other kids, not letting them wear same clothes and being asked for their caste again and again. This system is kept alive.
This all still exists and is in abundance. Point to note is that this is not just in rural, uneducated parts of India. Honestly, the concept comes from Hinduism. As a major religion for centuries, it has a code-of-conduct by Manu to divide the society into 4 major parts. But now it is a part of every sect in practice.
It's going to be hard for the caste system to stay rigid because in larger cities there is no way of verifying any of this. In bigger cities like Mumbai, it's already pretty apparent with most kids growing up indifferent to the complex caste adherence of the past. Most of these kids would not be able to attribute a caste to people based on their last names as that knowledge has been lost. Going with the theme of this thread, this is definitely not true across the board but definitely applies to the large majority, at least in major towns and cities.
British found solution to the caste menace and promptly gave independence to Christians/Anglo-Indians/Sikh/SC/ST communities in 4th August 1932 Round Table Conference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award
Caste is the most insidious poison to ever walk the face of the planet, far worse than all the wars, disease, famine and genocide committed, because the people on the right side of caste find ways to justify it.
Justifying someone's misery as 'bad karma' was told to me by Eileen Weintraub, the founder of http://www.helpanimalsindia.org. She tries to teach local indian communities how to organize local community animal shelters... which helps with the cut down as animal dung littering the streets, among other things.
Anecdotally, about ten years ago, when walking down a street once, a poor girl started following me around. I reached into my pocket and gave her a handful of whatever loose change I had lying around in there. She continued to badger me for the next 10min, even while I tried crossing the street multiple times to get her off my trail.
I once got stopped by a couple that gave me a story about being left away from home and no means to get back etc...
I gave them Rs.50 and they kind of stared at me with bewilderment like "that's all you're giving me"
(And keep in mind that I'm not a white guy standing out in the crowd - I look just like every other Indian on the street :) )
Small things like this make me slightly more reluctant to give money to people on the street. I prefer to donate via charities that I help out with instead.
I have been discouraged from helping people, mostly for the reason that it could turn out to be more trouble that it's worth, but I have never been given this reason. Also, your explanation makes no sense from a theological perspective. I've always been taught that helping people will earn you karma, so it's in your selfish interest to help those in need.
Here's an excerpt "If someone is born in an unfortunate situation, for instance into a very poor family, we explain it as due to past bad karma. We try to do more good karma this life in order to ensure we have a better rebirth. Is this chasing after happiness in life after life correct?
Some people say, "Those people are poor because of their bad actions; therefore they are morally inferior. We shouldn't try to improve their situation because that would interfere with their karma. Rather, they should accept being in a lower class and try to create positive actions so they will be rich in future lives."
Besides the point others have made that many Indians don't think like this anymore, I just want to point out that it is possible to believe in karmic destiny and not use that as an excuse to not help people.
The 'therefore' part of your observation doesn't necessarily follow from the premise and is more of an excuse used by people to justify behavior.
I'd argue that this "jugaad" happens everywhere when people are under extreme pressure and have no good expectations of getting anywhere following the rules.
Here in Brazil there are lots of young people that gets into drug dealing just because they don't have nothing better to do. The grow up in extreme poverty and society would very much like them to be dead or in prision, so they take their chances... sometimes its better to risk a bullet to the head to get rich and respected than to know that you'll be always poor and risk getting killed by police or drug dealers.
And of course, this is just an example. I don't know if this qualifies as "jugaad", but sounds a little similar.
I would say you're off slightly. I think it's basically improvising very frugally to make stuff work when it should've been close to impossible. It can be dangerous, It can hurt others, selfish or just plain useful, but there's no way you can deny the ingenuity.
This is an universal trait of people trying to cope with limits. I've always know it as "ingenio mexicano" or "mexicanada", roughly translated as mexican wit. It is a matter of national pride and accepted wisdom that nowhere in the world people are as cleaver as we are.
The most amazing thing is that most of these images are probably not Mexican at all, but stolen from redneck sites (search for: Look, I fixed it). That is 100% in character with the spirit of mexicanada. Why actually fix anything when I can find someone else who did it and steal the credit!!!
> He missed the "jugaad" all around him - people, in their struggle for survival, do all sorts of things.
What a colossal waste of human resources.
Imagine if all those poor people were instead lifted up to the middle class so that they wouldn't have to focus on surviving each day, and could put that "jugaad" to something actually useful - research, science, arts, creating things and doing work that benefits others as well.
If you've been to India lately you would see that this is already happening. There is a new, massive, middle class forming. Nothing happens overnight but it has certainly been improving over the last decade.
All the con men the author seen in India, they are all jugaads. His post mentions several types of jugaads he saw in India.
Do you realize that majority of Indian population has no jugaad to provide food for their family. Well we "The Pizza Hut Kings" choose to overlook it and pretend that everything works.
I think we call that "hustling" in America. It is common amongst poor folks around the world and can lead to run-ins with the authorities. It seems more like treading water than a path to independence, to me.
It appears to me that the most unfortunate people eventually give up regardless of country. I don't blame them. Being poor is discouraging especially if you are older.
Still sounds a lot like "the hustler mindset" to me.
I like the comments from that page. Here's one I'll cherry pick:
Indranil Roy Chowdhury wrote:
Seems like Jugaad has become a fad these days as I keep hearing the term every now and then in conferences and beyond..But the very essence of the term has been highly misplaced..To start with 'Jugaad' has a negative connotation to it and shouldn't be seen as innovation..I suggest Innovation should be kept away from the ambit of 'Jugaad'.
The problems with confusing Jugaad with innovation are;
(1)Jugaad is a short term mindset and doesnt serve anyone, while Innovation should be something that can have long term impacts
(2)Jugaad is a Tactic used in daily life, while Innovation is a long term Strategy..
(3)Jugaad is a way which corrupts the system or makes use of systemic loopholes, while Innovation is something that brings a solution which can in turn strengthen the system.
I shall quote an example here which is a classic example of Jugaad:
In India electricity theft remains a major problem. With govt's initiatives the problem has been curtailed to a large extent, hence the instances of theft have come down significantly. So what people have started doing is that they steal electricity from lines to TV antennas which take 49V..How? Simple solution..put a step up transformer in the way..convert 49 to 110v or 220V and light your bulb..
Now the question is would we like this to be seen as innovation ??? Or should it be left as 'Jugaad' ?????
"jugaad" is the equivalent of a 'hack'. When there are limitations imposed by circumstances, people try to 'hack' the system, without paying any attention to when they cross the legal line.
Actually, there is strong feeling in at least in North India, that Kerala is where whole India should be. I am from Haryana and though Haryana is much more developed economically than Kerala, all my friends agree that Kerala is much better.
And when comparing to Bihar, the state is way ahead. At least the statistics show that.
Kerala has the cleanest railway stations, the best sex ratio, the most literate population, second least malnutrition (after Punjab).
This is a well written article. I am an Indian based in US and biased but the fact is India is a young democracy. It has only been 20 years since economy was liberalized and middle class got jobs. The middle class grew and is at a point where we will see meaningful difference in social life.
Once the tummy is full and people see that their basic necessity food is met, they start thinking about other things, like cleanliness, civil society and other comforts which they should have. India is a powerhouse of energy, we have entrepreneurs in every nook and corner and people have learnt how to survive and excel. We educate our kids and that is the biggest power a country can have, education eradicates all ills.
If you look at states like Gujarat in India you will be surprised to find them cleaner and better maintained than any western city. Their are women who run dairy businesses which bring millions in revenue in Gujarat.
What defeats India is its political class and miracles can be head if you have a government which can act. It will happen soon and the young entrepreneurs and startups in India will change the country. I love India.
Because India is close to the equator, the environment has a greater carrying capacity than the kinds of first-world, northern nations that the author is used to.
Thus, for this reason alone, India is likely to have a different ratio of people to development, since less development is required to sustain one person's resource utilization.
Contrast this to the US where much of the country is snow covered for 1/3 of the year and without planning and infrastructure to enable it, there would be very little food available during the winter. In the US the infrastructure is a requirement for even moderate population growth.
The same applies to shelter. In India, a hut made of newspaper is adequate shelter year round. Try that in the Northern US and you'll freeze.
The result of this is that there are more poor people who do not rely as much on large scale planning and infrastructure for their basic survival.
Yes India's government is corrupt, but not all that much more corrupt than the US government.
If you want to talk about rights for the poor, in India if someone isn't using land and you set up a tent on it and start living there, you can't be evicted. The shantytowns that the author found so disturbing are actually a side-effect of India's weak property rights laws, which themselves are a result of democratic pressure from the poor to continue living where their families have lived for generations. Contrast this to the genocide the US conducted against native Americans who were in the way.
Basic infrastructure (roads, sewers) is lacking in India, but those are not easy projects to bootstrap. Bangalore has a massive sewer construction project going on now.
Frankly, it's not all that bad. Sure the garbage smells bad, but it's mostly just a matter of learning not to keep inhaling after you catch a whiff of something rank on the breeze.
If you are concerned about India's political infrastructure, notice that India's rulers are forming alliances with the US to help thwart Pakistan's nuclear ambitions. Note that once the US has a stake in one ruling party it tends to do much to prop up and empower that party, even if there are horrible human rights consequences.
When I go to India I notice the energy. People sit happily beneath a dirty tarp in a roadside food stand, enjoying Manchurian Gobi... sometimes 4 or 5 people sharing one bowl of the delicious spicy food. Smiles everywhere. These are extremely poor people. Also I notice the tiny businesses, some retail locations are only a few square feet in size but sell a variety of goods and are staffed by a single motivated shopkeeper who works 18+ hour days.
India is full of hard working people and ingenuity. I found the author's generalizations about dishonesty, etc., quite offensive.
Consider how much effort is undertaken in the US to hide poverty from view. Sadly the US ends up putting a very large percentage of its poor population in prisons and has relocated many to horrific housing projects, where the violence and horrors are contained away from view.
Consider how much effort is undertaken in the US to present the appearance of legit, non-corrupt institutions. Yet fraud abounds at all levels of government. The stuff Wikileaks exposed about the US is nothing more than fraud, dishonesty, and corruption.
Thank you for taking the time to write this. I come across articles and opinions like this all the time and always feel a little offended, but I do not know exactly what triggers that. Maybe its because I notice the progress happening, the hard work people put in, only to read articles and opinions that portray the situation so negatively.
Why are the generalizations about dishonesty offensive? The author seems to draw conclusions from his experiences and those around him. Much of your comment seems akin to "Yes, there are bad problems, but look over there, they have problems too."
The defense against the poverty or dishonesty arguments shouldn't just be a juxtaposition against the US.
Because India is close to the equator, the environment has a greater carrying capacity than the kinds of first-world, northern nations that the author is used to.
Citation?
The same applies to shelter. In India, a hut made of newspaper is adequate shelter year round. Try that in the Northern US and you'll freeze.
Yes India's government is corrupt, but not all that much more corrupt than the US government.
In India, if you walk into a govt office for anything, you will end up paying a bribe. Want a driving license? Bribe. Want a building plan approved? Bribe. Want to incorporate a company? Bribe. Maybe we can have HN'ers from different developed countries tell us if the situation is anything like this in their countries. From what I can see, corruption in developed countries is mostly big ticket, not every tom, dick and harry in the country trying to part you from your money every chance they get.
Contrast this to the genocide the US conducted against native Americans who were in the way.
Back when American natives were being killed, widows in India were being burnt alive by their own families in the name of tradition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)
Sure the garbage smells bad, but it's mostly just a matter of learning not to keep inhaling after you catch a whiff of something rank on the breeze.
My point was about carrying capacity. Hot or cold snaps do not significantly alter the base carrying capacity of the environment w/o infrastructure.
In the US things like parking tickets, DMV fees, etc. are levied with abandon. Why use this approach to generate funds to pay for municipal workers rather than just having them extract bribes? Because the US has the infrastructure to enforce the fees, fines, and penalties. Both constitute minor confiscation of resources and are abetted by the power of the officials involved.
Your point about widows being burned alive agrees with my overall argument. It shows a parity between the two civilizations that ought to give us pause when we start feeling to indignant.
Why are bribes inferior to levying fees, fines, and penalties? Seriously?
The latter involves due process. It also accrues funds to a democratic body instead of to random servants of the state. This removes conflicts of interest, e.g. I'm going to require a billion licences because each licence means I get a bribe.
Empirically, corruption hurts the economy and political system. An IIE paper showed that "a one-standard deviation (2.38 point) improvement in the corruption index is associated with over a 4-percentage-point increase in a country's investment rate and over a 1/2-percentage-point increase in the per capita [GDP] growth rate" [1]. Further, Campos and Giovannoni show in their paper Lobbying, Corruption, and Political Influence that while "lobbying and corruption are substitutes...lobbying seems to be a much more effective instrument for political influence than corruption, even in poorer, less developed countries" [2].
I have no disagreement with your point. Of course a codified system of fees is preferable to one that is completely ad-hoc and based on bribes.
But police officers and other minor officials (IRS workers, etc.) are given tremendous discretion about which violations to enforce and which to ignore. In that sense, the US system is quite ad-hoc as well.
And since the people who interact most directly with police officers are the poor, abuses of power are less likely to be reported... yet we still hear of them all the time.
I view it as a continuum of institutional evolution, with the US perhaps a small notch or two ahead of India in creating institutions that are resistant to corruption. It's definitely not a night and day distinction.
People are holding hunger strikes to stand up against the corruption. When was the last time that happened in the US?
You are rationalizing away all of the author's points, and just because there is an explanation for things doesn't make those things okay. Just because "In India, a hut made of newspaper is adequate shelter year round." Doesn't mean it's alright for people to live in a shelter of NEWSPAPER.
"Frankly, it's not all that bad. Sure the garbage smells bad, but it's mostly just a matter of learning not to keep inhaling after you catch a whiff of something rank on the breeze."
I'm sure that will fix all of the disease and sickness that comes with festering garbage lingering about in public streets.
"Sadly the US ends up putting a very large percentage of its poor population in prisons and has relocated many to horrific housing projects, where the violence and horrors are contained away from view."
Even if this is true (which I'd argue that it's not, but that is neither here nor there) how does that justify having the poor out in the open begging for a living?
"If you want to talk about rights for the poor, in India if someone isn't using land and you set up a tent on it and start living there, you can't be evicted. The shantytowns that the author found so disturbing are actually a side-effect of India's weak property rights laws, which themselves are a result of democratic pressure from the poor to continue living where their families have lived for generations. Contrast this to the genocide the US conducted against native Americans who were in the way."
Besides the blatant non-sequitor about genocide (It happened, yes, but what does that have to do with India?), giving someone the right to squat on land is hardly "rights for the poor". Congrats on not evicting people from shanty towns, excuse me if you aren't awarded the next Nobel Peace Prize.
My comparison with the US was not intended to indicate complacency about the status quo. Your comment about hunger strikes underscores my point. It is completely inappropriate for any citizen of the modern US to express any indignation about the democratic process going on in another country.
In the US we are given a standard explanation about other countries: Women are mistreated there, children and the poor are victims, governments there are corrupt and ineffective, sectarian or criminal gangs run things, etc. We as enlightened Americans are supposed to feel indignant, and we're supposed to support bold action that will free the people in question from their oppressive circumstances, since the people themselves are too dis-empowered to do it for themselves, too clueless to realize they should, etc.
The author's story was strongly influenced by this kind of explanation, right down to the indignation he ever-so-confidently expresses.
This is why I mentioned a few aspects of American society that ought to put things into perspective a bit. If someone is drawn to indignation and feels inspired to allow his life to be motivated by its sharp pangs, he should look closely at the environment he knows most about -- his own city or possibly his own country.
The narrative/explanation above is used to promote meddling in other countries and is a hallmark of neoconservative thought. The problem is that it's horribly misguided and harmful.
I think the more useful distinction between your positions is one of moral relativism vs moral absolutism, rather than neoconservatism vs (any other -ism).
Well it depends on what you focus on. Yes the differences between the two countries are relative. But they are obviously different and so it's not a stretch to realize that.
The noteworthy aspect, in my opinion, is the strong indignation felt by the author which is amplified in its absurdity by the existence of many of the very same problems in the US.
When a person has seen only a single sociopolitical system, it is easy to just shrug and say "it just is this way.". It is often only after seeing the totally different systems active in other societies first-hand that it becomes brilliantly clear that not only are the wrongs back home unacceptable, but that the other society you have found also possesses its own share of injustices that the locals are indifferent to. It is not wrong to be enraged at the suffering and petty evil everywhere. It is simply uncommon and stressful to try to do something since a single individual's effort may seem like that of an ant.
I agreed with most of your post except for this point:
Doesn't mean it's alright for people to live in a shelter of NEWSPAPER.
Why isn't it alright? Honestly, if it's adequate shelter, why isn't it alright? I'm trying to think of some reasons, and I figure it has to do with inability to withstand rain and wind, effects of rot and mold, lack of security, or who knows what. But then I keep going back to the word "adequate". What does this mean? Does adequate mean these problems actually don't exist, and therefore it's adequate? Or is there a different level of what is considered adequate in the gp, compared to what I think is adequate?
You can't just come out and say that it's not alright for people to live in a shelter of newspaper just because it's newspaper. You need to have reasons for it. And if it is indeed adequate, I can't think of any reasons why I would dislike living in a shelter of newspapers. In the same manner, I cannot think of any reasons why I would dislike caves in western China, huts in the Amazon, or igloos in the Yukon. If it's a matter of getting proper Internet, well, let's just assume that if I'm living there, I must have chosen to forgo some luxuries. For example, many missionaries throughout history easily decided to go native and live like the people they were trying to reach.
I need to understand the details behind your point.
I meant something more like:
"Just because people can live in a shelter of newspaper, doesn't mean it's okay for that to be their only resort against the elements."
You're assuming too much. It's not adequate shelter. You'd get sick living in a shack in an indian slum or in a hut in the amazon without modern medicine plus expensive and time consuming precautions--precautions a slum dweller can't take. Read up on public health in slums, particularly slums in the tropics.
"many missionaries throughout history easily decided to go native"
Err, no. Missionaries (as well as soldiers and merchants) used to have crazy high mortality in the tropics.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm questioning what is the definition of adequate here, because whatever is the definition will determine whether or not I agree with the original statement.
Whether or not those housing conditions lend themselves to proper sanitation or not, missionaries decided to go native in spite of the high mortality, also knowing the mortality rate of their peers (until modern medicine came about to make things like malaria a much smaller concern). I don't see your point. Missionaries had a crazy high mortality in the tropics? So what? It didn't stop their decisions to go native. And they certainly didn't have a crazy high mortality rate after the arrival of modern medicine. What are you saying no to?
Not sure why this is being down-voted. The over 2 million Americans that are imprisoned do count as citizens, and the prison system is as corrupt as they come, from cases of judges being paid by private prisons(1) to give harsh sentences to minors to the blind eye given to assault and rape behind bars(2).
Ok fair enough, but considering that gulags are known to us via old propaganda stories and prisons are part of the modern human rights (intellectual) blind spot that most affluent western people suffer from, it's not surprising that you consider them drastically different.
In my opinion, the notion of almost certain rape and being locked into a cell with a violent individual in a system where violence is tolerated is about as cruel a punishment as one could possibly inflict. The worst psychological torture combined with brutal physical subjugation.
I have not. I realize there are things that are more horrific on a larger scale of human suffering, but for the individuals involved at a micro level the US system is cruel and unusual to the extreme.
While I don't disagree with the validity of your statement, I feel like you are splitting hairs... I was mainly using that as a demonstration of the relative differences in corruption between the two countries.
Western countries have merely professionalised corruption. Give a politician 10 lakh rupees in a brown envelope and it's a symptom of corruption, but donate $100,000 to his campaign funds and it's the sign of a healthy democracy.
Here in the UK, we are investigating massive corruption in the banking sector, the press and government. Every day we are seeing new revelations from the Leveson Inquiry on press ethics, or the Treasury Select Committee on banking. It would take a great deal of hubris to make any claim to the high ground.
Strictly: campaign donations are a legal transaction, though previously in the US the limits were set far lower. I'd strongly recommend you read Lawrence Lessig's Future of Ideas and Republic Lost in which he first develops and then greatly expands the nature and scope of corrupting influences of money in the US, particularly in politics.
A difference of degree remains a difference, if only of degree. That said, independent third-party assessments of corruption such as the Corruption Perceptions Index as of 2010 hold the US (7.1) rather better than India (3.1) (the index uses a 10 point scale). There's room for improvement for both nations. Notably, the US is comperable with two South American countries, actually falling behind Chile (7.2) and just ahead of Urugay (6.9).
Topping the list, New Zealand and Denmark (tied at 9.3), and Finland and Sweden (tied at 9.2). Worst? Somalia (1.1), Myanmar and Afghanistan (1.4), and Iraq (1.5) (So, how's that regime-y change-y thing going for ya, Sarah?)
how does that justify having the poor out in the open begging for a living?
What would you do? You can't magically produce houses, schools, hospitals and other basic infrastructure to service several hundred million people. Forget that, I doubt you could engineer an efficient distribution system that just provides these people with nutritious food. Keep in mind these people are distributed across a fairly large country, belong to many different religions and speak hundreds (possibly thousands) of different languages. The majority of these folks are illiterate, and the overwhelming majority have no education beyond high school.
If you think you have a good solution to the problem, I am all ears, because I've been thinking about this for a long time and I can't see one.
Efficient food distribution is an interesting topic with respect to India - Mumbai has an industry based around moving food from affluent workers' homes to their place of lunch and back again, moving 200k meals a day. Even more interesting is that the workforce is largely illiterate, yet the failure rate for delivery and return is amazingly low.
this is a very good point, but remember that there is an economic incentive for this system. The people using the services are the ones paying for it. If the govt. tried to implement such a scheme in, say, a village, the guy in charge of disbursing the money wouldn't do it, he would keep it for himself. The villagers, meanwhile, don't even know of the existence of this scheme.
This comment says more about India than the original article. Corruption? America's as corrupt (it's not). Poverty? They don't need houses - it's always balmy. Terrible land rules? It's humanitarian. Terrible infrastructure? It's difficult. Garbage and pollution? Well don't breathe it!
A (very wealthy) Indian relative of mine once explained to me that while Indians may come rich and poor they all have greater pride in their intrinsic existence. Thus, the poor Indian has more dignity than a rich American.
The Indian situation isn't one that I believe will be developed out of soon because the underlying reasons for much of the filth is cultural. The problems aren't seen as problems but as a Western perspective's mis-interpretation of the essence of reality.
Indians can indeed be very proud. We're always looking to blame the corrupt politicians, the system, but we forget that the people themselves form the system. But if an outsider points this out, we quickly get defensive and use and every counter-argument that we can. You will hear the success and achievements of Indians around the globe as proof that we're not that far behind. I've seen it far too many times. Startups claiming to be 'global', yet emphasizing their 'Indianness', a Indian actor getting 5 minutes of screen time on a Hollywood movie, or even Sunita Williams, who was born and raised in the United States. We are quick to take credit, yet get up-in-arms when someone points out our flaws.
Worse, when we do talk about those flaws, we don't necessarily do anything to fix them.
My comparisons were not meant to logically refute the author's points.
I intended to point out the absurdity of focusing one's indignation on problems in another country.
Imagine if someone started expressing indignation about the bad breath of someone sitting on the other side of the room, when he himself had bad breath, though perhaps slightly fresher than the person whose breath he was outraged about.
For some reason, we don't view indignant rants about foreign political systems with the same eye for absurdity that we view indignant rants about other things.
Yes India's government is corrupt, but not all that much more corrupt than the US government.
Not really. The Transperency International which ranks countries by corruption ranks India at 95, where as U.S.A is ranked at 24[1]. Lower the rank less corrupt the country is.
"Because India is close to the equator, the environment has a greater carrying capacity than the kinds of first-world, northern nations that the author is used to."
By that logic, Russia would have been the most advanced nation in the world a long time ago, yet it's historically been lagging Europe (and later USA) in development. Many in Russia actually use a totally opposite logic: because the environment in Russia is so harsh, warmer climates of Europe and USA have greater advantage in terms of agriculture initially, and infrastructure maintenance later on.
My take on it: in the US, the climate makes it possible to rise far above the subsistence level, but only with some effort and/or ingenuity. Motivated people have historically been rewarded with better lives, and that truth has influenced our entire culture.
In equatorial island countries, it's too easy. What, you think you can spend your whole life relaxing on the beach sipping coconut milk? Well... OK, I guess you can do that.
In Russia, it's too hard. If most of your energy and focus is spent just surviving the winter, there won't be enough mojo left to move your society forward.
Problems with this climate-centric outlook: African equatorial countries with good, human-friendly climate but problematic cultures, and Nordic countries whose weather rivals Siberia's and whose cultural and technological progress is often compared favorably to that of the US.
I think climate may play some role, but it's nowhere near as important as the OP stated. You've got Canada vs Russia, Singapore vs Madagascar, South Korea vs North Korea, Australia vs Papua New Guinea, etc. Basically, there are lots of other factors.
Yes, and the US is in there too. But before Europeans came, there were Native Americans who lived in North America's varied climates, similar to Europe's, yet they were severely lagging in development.
Exaggerations abound. While I agree with aspects of poor governance and garbage accumulation and many other observations, I realized the author was out to represent a preconceived notion of a nation, when I read, "homeless people sleeping on the tarmac, the city is so crowded and disgusting that people decide they’d rather sleep on the airport runway."
I will pick on that lie to state my point. If you have been to any of the smaller metros in India, you generally get thru immigration at Mumbai before taking a flight from the domestic terminal. Getting to the domestic terminal from the international terminal is cumbersome. You are escorted in a bus operated by the Airport Authority of India, accompanied by security personel.
The aspect of the ride that is of interest is the route taken by the bus. The bus operated within the premises of the airport often running along side the tarmac and taxi way thru numerous and repeated security check-points while it meanders to or from the domestic terminal. This gives you the best view of the runways at ground level in slow speed often around 15 kmph and includes a section of the ride around the cargo terminals.
Most international airlines operate to and out of Mumbai during the night often after 12 AM. I have taken this ride on at least 3 occasions and have not seen a single individual sleeping on the tarmac on even one occasion.
What the author might be referring to could be the people you find in a semi sleep state around the terminal, more so near the cargo terminals. These are employees in the cargo section often on a break. The employees are usually uniformed and any one can observe the security batches hanging around their necks.
You would then have to assume that the intent of the author is intentional mis-representation and sensationalism. Take everything written with a large serving of salt.
I agree. May be he was confused and mistook people sleeping on the side ways of the bus route.
Another glaring bias in the observation sequence is that all negative experiences have been told in a detailed, pictorial manner. And all the good experiences, on Sanjay cooking the meal, another guy refusing 50 Rs and the taxi driver being tearfully happy at the 50% tip etc., have been cramped into single liners or a couple of paragraphs, where as all the other negative experiences are allotted ample real estate in the article.
Westerners can easily relate to a home-cooked meal or vendors refusing overpayment. They don't really relate so well the the stuff about overpopulation, so given the intended audience, it's not surprising that there's more detail there.
I was going to say.. western airlines like BA operate flights into New Delhi, and I can guarantee you they would not be landing their 747s on runways with people anywhere nearby.
I watched the endless poverty scroll by like a demented video game. I had an overwhelming urge to stop at an ATM and withdraw 25,000 Rupees and start handing money out to people at random.
"Nothing should be given free. Anything that is given free has no value. " - Padma Venkataraman
In May of this year, I spent time in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
The exchange rate during my travels was roughly 53 Rupees : 1 US Dollar. So I can definitely understand how tempting it can be to "do the math" and rationalize that giving X Rupees to random person will "help". But it's absolutely not a sustainable solution to the core and underlying problem, and might even be perpetuating it.
I "get" the concept of jugaad. My small solution was to not give Rupees away, but to tip well: anybody who seemed to be working on improving their economic situation. (Tipping is not normal practice for most Indians, but I figured it was better than handouts.)
- "70 percent of the world's leprosy is in India."
- "People with leprosy are treated as untouchables ... Every month, people from the leprosy colony travel to the city to beg. Once they have enough money to buy food and clothing for the month, they go back to the colony."
- "Begging reduces people to their lowest level. The worse you look, the better you're going to be successful at begging."
But the video has a somewhat happy ending: it is demonstrating a work in progress, and general proof that giving people a way to sustain themselves economically via microloans really does work.
As far as the general population goes, India is an amazing country: resourceful, intelligent. But its biggest challenge will be its ability to cope with population growth.
>> I "get" the concept of jugaad. My small solution was to not give Rupees away, but to tip well: anybody who seemed to be working on improving their economic situation. (Tipping is not normal practice for most Indians, but I figured it was better than handouts.)
Absolutely. Be generous to your domestic help, drivers, security guards and other people who work hard to improve their lives. It will reinforce their belief in hard work.
> But it's absolutely not a sustainable solution to the core and underlying problem, and might even be perpetuating it.
It reinforces their reliance on the upper class/caste, a polite form of beggary. The core and underlying problem is not lack of belief in hard work, but systematic corruption and exploitation of the poor.
Indeed, if you're going to give out 25,000 rupees at random, be sure to give them to people doing productive work. Unfortunately, increasing the flow of money to the begging sector increases the number of beggars, it does not make individual beggars better off. There is no law preventing potentially productive people from begging, and if you go around handing out 25,000 rupees to people who look like beggars, more potential workers will dress up accordingly. Begging is also an industry, sad but true. This isn't to say that you shouldn't give away 25,000 rupees at random - just give them to people who look like they're working.
Giving money to a beggar provides a sense of having done something. Even when it's actually not helpful it allows the donor to carry on with their lives with the undeserved feeling of having done something useful.
Thanks for saying this. I am surprised the author didn't see this when the DVD seller was surprised he didn't buy anything from him. The DVD seller is not less hungry or rich than the beggars, but just chosen to improve his situation by selling what everyone seems to be buying.
I am an Indian and I find this piece quite authentic. However, the OP and most of the other foreigners who visit India, visit places or deal with people that are known to be hostile.
I, as an Indian, will be utterly shocked if I visit a ghetto in downtown Detroit. Heck, there are more chances of getting mugged or shot in such ghetto. However, I will not visit such places as they are known to be hostile.
India is a weird place and to survive you need to live as Indians live. Some insights -
a) Yes, we have highest number of beggars. But most of them are cheats. Most of them will walk away if you offer them a job instead of money or food. Also, a lot of them work for beggar mafias.
b) They say that all of those 33 crore Hindu Gods, Buddha and Allah have left India ages ago. Religions are more customary than spiritual and Indians follow 'em just for the sake of customs. It's a common sight to see a young guy driving by a temple reciting a few shlokas while driving and offer a customary mini version of prayer.
People who come to India on a spiritual tour make me laugh. If you think that you can attain enlightenment or get more spiritual by travelling thousands of miles and spending a couple of weeks at a 500$/night resort near Haridwar, then you need some serious help.
c) Tourists buy "Indian" stuff that no Indian buys. The clutches or carpets or the wooden elephants are made specially for foreign tourists and are freakingly overpriced. The best way to buy Indian stuff, would be to go to regular markets with a local friend.
d) Garbage is a big problem. Its in our nature to litter. Take an Indian to US or Australia and he will not spit or litter. While the same person might even pee on a street back in India. The only option is to live/stay in relatively cleaner localities.
e) Drivers, hotel staff, guides, store keepers and public servants are dishonest because they are virtually unaccountable to anyone and the legal system ain't efficient enough to nab the dishonest. A "x" star restaurant can continue to function despite serving cockroaches or hair strands in their dishes. Apparently, identifying the trait of dishonesty is easier if you know the local lingo/culture.
People know a lot of about American culture because of Hollywood and American sitcoms. I am not an expert in American culture, but I can identify whether a person is playing me. I can not do that in any other country (say Italy).
Same logic applies to foreigners who visit India. You either need to know a few things about Indian culture beforehand or you need to spend some more time here.
"I, as an Indian, will be utterly shocked if I visit a ghetto in downtown Detroit."
Compared to what the OP described, a "ghetto" in old Detroit would be a paradise.
Also, just to point out, don't talk trash about a town unless you've been there. Detroit is finally bringing itself out of the pit. Lots of new energy running around. It's on the rise. Maybe you should visit?
Don't be defensive. I am not picking any particular place. What I am trying to say is there are places everywhere which violate the perception of a particular nation. The OP had some wrong perceptions about places like Agra or Gaya.
And, I am not talking trash.
My sister lives in Troy. When she was new to Detroit, she chose a wrong route while driving to downtown Detroit. While passing through a certain area (don't remember the name, will call her and ask) some gangsters tried to stop her car and rob her. Luckily she escaped.
My sister didn't crib about it like the OP did. She accepted the reality, changed her driving directions thereafter and moved on. Like thousands of her fellow Americans do. Likewise millions of Indians accept the harsh realities, change their driving directions and move on.
>> Compared to what the OP described, a "ghetto" in old Detroit would be a paradise.
Also, just to point out, don't base your comparisons on a blog post. People, here, may try to trick you but will not shoot you. Things are improving here as well. Though, at a slower place.
Update: The area where my sister faced gangsters was Highland Park.
"Also, just to point out, don't base your comparisons on a blog post."
As opposed to what you are basing you opinions on; "My sister lives in Troy. When she was new to Detroit, she choose a wrong route while driving to downtown Detroit. While passing through a certain area (don't remember the name, will call her and ask) some gangsters tried to stop her car and rob her. Luckily she escaped."
Down vote me all you've want... but unless you actually been to Detroit, recently, you are taking out of your ass.
I'll quote a part so you don't have to browse it:
"Last weekend, the New York Times featured a story in its Style section about the onslaught of hip, young urban pioneers streaming into downtown Detroit. These “creatives,” as they are being called, are taking advantage of low rents and the opportunity to recycle this abandoned, blank slate of an urban landscape into something new and exciting. There are restaurateurs and entrepreneurs of all stripes living alongside environmentalists and urban farmers. ..."
If you want I can post many other links.. but i assume you can do your own google'ing.
a) You still don't get it. I am not trying to pick any place. Maybe Detroit has improved. Good for you, my sister, the USA and this world. But you may still warn your tourist friend of certain places in other American cities, right?
An uninformed tourist will be shocked if he/she visit such places just like India.
b) I didn't down vote any of your post. Hence, these replies.
I am talking about expectations and exceptions. In USA an uninformed tourist won't expect such places. In Somalia, a person won't expect a super friendly neighborhood with Audis and BMWs roaming around.
Good to hear because I watched a documentary on French TV about 2 months ago focussing on Detroit and it didn't look great... drugs, gangs, foreclosures, abandoned factories and theatres etc.
The giveaway in every touristed country almost worldwide is that they've approached and are talking to you. Exaggerating a bit, but not far off the truth.
Sadly, the things that tourists often yearn for - that natural, personal contact, the local insight - is exactly what you'll get from many scammers, and it leads you to shun so many approaches (e.g., the kids in Wangfujing who will eventually want to sell you art on commission or drag you to a tea ceremony) that you are forced to detach somewhat from your travel experience.
> Take an Indian to US or Australia and he will not spit or litter. While the same person might even pee on a street back in India.
I think this is the "broken window effect." [1] We Indians see so much litter / garbage around us most of the time, we don't feel it is wrong to add a little more to it. Also, we feel, "If nobody else cares, why should I"?
I'm interested in the garbage thing: how much of it is actually non-decaying stuff (plastic and such)? And how essential is the availability of such stuff to the economy (like, does food need to be transported in plastic)? I suppose decaying garbage is also a problem (somehow it has to be moved out of the way), but it seems solvable compared to plastic and such?
The problem is that, unlike other countries, garbage is not segregated by the civic authorities. Home owners aren't required to segregate their garbage, either. (Civic bodies of a few cities do segregate their garbage and dispose it properly). This prevents authorities from recycling platic/metal waste and decomposing decayable waste.
At home level, garbage is disposed by 3 ways -
a) Either it is collected from your door by municipality or a private contractor / sweeper
b) Home owners throw their garbage in a community garbage dump
c) Home owners dispose their garbage wherever they can.
The private contractors, who are supposed to take the collected garbage to the dumping grounds, usually don'd do it and dump it in open spaces (like this one -http://cj.ibnlive.in.com/slideshow7815.html). Worst part is that they aren't fined by authorities.
Also, Indians, in general, while traveling or commuting or walking, dispose paper wrappers, plastic plates, flowers, water bottles, chewing gums or any other garbage on road or in public places.
For example, it's a common site to see a family having ice creams or chips or peanuts or soft drinks in parks. But when they leave, they leave the waste as it is. Even when there is a garbage can in sight. (see this - http://rhetoric2reality.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/public-p...)
Heck, we can't even keep our places of worship clean. These are flowers, incense sticks and other offerings thrown in Ganga river after worshiping (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cO-PjFR2Kcw/TjgKYEIQiFI/AAAAAAAABG...). Ain't this ironical? Indians can pray and pollute a same object.
Coming to the decaying and non-decaying part - Most of it is decayable. However, the sheer volume of it does not allow nature to work. Hence it starts rotting and stinking. Also, stray animals (cows,dogs and pigs) dig through the trash mountain to find anything edible and in turn spread it more.
Having said that, things are improving. I have seen many young people (my friends included) carry the plastic trash or water bottles with them till they find a garbage can. Also, a few educated people are running cleaning campaigns in their cities (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Clean-Vadodara-Green-Vadodara-...). Also, shopping malls and large stores have started to charge for plastic carry bags. This has reduced plastic waste by bit.
A human is made for happiness the same way a bird is made for flight. If people don't feel happy because they are underappreciated or their social life is lacking, I don't think that should be mocked.
Reading this article reminds me a story from "The Great Indian Novel" by Shashi Tharoor that explains the present state of Indians -
"A man, ... a symbol, shall we say, of people of India -- is pursued by a tiger. He runs fast, but panting heart tells him he cannot run much longer. He sees a tree. Relief! He accelerates and gets to it in one last despairing stride. He climbs the tree. The tiger snarls below him, but he feels that he has at last escaped its snapping jaws. But no -- what's this? The branch on which he is sitting is weak, and bends dangerously. This is not all; wood-mice are gnawing away at it; before long they will eat through it and it will snap and fall. The branch sags down over a wall. Aha! Escape? Perhaps our hero can swim? But the well is dry, and there are snakes writhing and hissing on its bed. What is our hero to do? As the branch bends lower, he perceives a solitary blade of glass growing on the wall of the well.On the top of the blade of grass gleams a drop of honey. What action does our Puranic man, our quintessential Indian, take in this situation?
He bends with the branch, and licks up the honey. "
No matter how desperate the situation, Indians will always find a way to adjust, to live with it. So despite all the filth, over crowding, corruption, inefficiency, Indians have learnt how to live and enjoy.
I have spent years in India, and it's one of my favorite places on Earth. One thing I quickly discovered is how much Western visitors like to (ab)use their experiences to misconstrue a sense of superiority. Such a sense would immediately disappear, IMO, should they make an effort to overcome their own ignorance of the place.
The piece reads almost like a self-conscious parody of this usual Western tirade against India.
I once took my client who was visiting from US to a city tour of New Delhi. It was routine India Gate, Red Fort, Jantar Mantar stuff. She seemed unimpressed. But we happened to pass through a slum area and her eyes just lit up. She was shocked and amazed, but happy that her trip was now complete. It was disgusting.
Can you please point out to me where, exactly, he finishes on an acknowledgement of his own biases? His analysis is based on a 3-week excursion around various parts of the country, with little to no effort to understand any historical context for what he critiques.
How about even a cursory talk about the historical context? Colonialism, the politics of development, the political economy of tourism, anything for that matter.
Mark talks about how emotionally overwhelming travel is, he doesn't talk about how, if he had stayed there longer or even done some basic wikipedia research, perhaps he wouldn't jump to so many base conclusions. Instead, we are left with a poetic bog post laced with comments like this one:
"Indian culture itself is quite disorienting."
Or this little gem:
"There’s no single sentence for India. The place is a fucking mess."
This doesn't even make sense. How can there be no single sentence for India, and then GIVE A SINGLE SENTENCE FOR INDIA?
Yeah, it's a fucking mess for a well-off Internet blogger. It's a fucking mess because Mother Theresa can't save the Indians from themselves, "And it’s just as well, Mother Teresa couldn’t save this society from itself." Critical development studies has been fighting this kind of arrogance for a long time.
And to be fair, I respect this author's work a lot more than most lifestyle blogs. I just have a low tolerance for generalizations like this one.
The reference to shutting out the congitive dissonance with his sunglasses and ipod is a tacit statement recognising that he is not of this place. If you don't see that in his writing, there's a lot in that essay you will have missed. A much clearer example of reporting on his own biases is when he reports on the email from his mother.
How can there be no single sentence for India, and then GIVE A SINGLE SENTENCE FOR INDIA?
Oh, for fuck's sake. You're choosing to be offended. He didn't give a single sentence, he wrote a four thousand word essay on it. An essay in which he covers a lot of variations in the parts of the culture he saw.
Really, you're choosing to be offended. Why should he report on the colonialism of India in an essay about his personal experiences; why is the essay bereft of value because of that? And despite your claims that he doesn't talk about the political economy of tourism, he does do that in the essay. He talks of the spiritual tourism, and his experiences and opinions of it.
Yeah, it's a fucking mess for a well-off Internet blogger.
And traveller to 40 countries, so a fair bit more experienced in other cultures than most. You're committing exactly the same sins of omission as you're accusing him of making, in order to reframe your argument so that it benefits you.
People allow it to exist because they choose not to think about it, although perhaps "choose" is too strong a word. It takes initiative to escape your local worldview.
Employee of the site here. Just want to point out a few things.
1. The submitter of the article to HN has no affiliation with Postmasculine as far as I know, nor did we request them to post it here. We're very grateful for them doing so however!
2. While the author of the site was involved in the pickup industry for a while, he chose to no longer identify with that scene over two years ago, and specifically moved his content away from its perspective, even going so far as to systemically deconstruct the flaws and failures of Pickup theory and the community it created. So we don't feel that 'pickup' really represents what the site has to say about dating. Although we definitely do talk about meeting women. A lot. :)
3. While we're dedicated internet marketing students, we're far from experts on the subject. We're putting a lot of time and effort into improving the site's marketing, but our number one focus will always be on providing high quality content that is as no BS and realistic as possible. Hopefully anyone who came from HN and spends further time reading the site will agree.
I realize your comment wasn't a criticism, but just thought I'd try and give a bit more context to the situation. Thanks for assuming we were so professional!
I would say that it is a new trend for pick-up instructors to distance themselves from the pick-up industry mostly for marketing purposes. I think it's mostly semantics and at the end of the day, you're just fearing the phrase "pickup industries" focuses too much on the negative and not enough about the positives.
On the otherhand, as someone who's spent fair bit of time observing pickup companies, I will say that your marketing page seems very reasonable and not full of false promises common on most PU sites.
Definitely agree that it was and still is a trend. I won't claim we were the first to distance ourselves, but I think we were the best!
Our POV on what defines 'pickup' advice versus regular dating advice is that 'pickup' is the decision to objectify your sex life in order to improve it. We don't believe that this is a healthy or effective mindset, hence we don't define our material as 'pickup'.
Honestly, I think if you read some more of the site, for example http://postmasculine.com/why-its-so-hard or especially http://postmasculine.com/pickup-artist (warning: long) you'd come to the conclusion that we're a far shot from what most people associate pickup with. But it's up to you whether you want to spend the time :)
324 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 277 ms ] threadThat may be true. But I still think that candid, unapologetic appraisals of what's wrong with developing countries may be just what the doctor ordered for things to change.
I myself am an Indian and while I'm yet to see someone covered in his or her own feces in India, I'd agree with the general sentiment of that article: it's an honest, heart-felt piece. I'd like to change the state of affairs in my country, but the task is so f*cking huge that you don't know where to start or even whether you can do anything at all. If perhaps more Indians start feeling that things are NOT acceptable here, maybe we might see the beginnings of change, just like how it was with India's own independence struggle.
Despite the corruption and incompetence of the government, I believe that the government also finds itself in the same conundrum--"where to start, or what to fix first, or in what order".
I too was faced the same dilemma a few years back and on a whim I joined a small volunteer organization that teaches street children. Being a one trick pony I decided to teach them computers. In just 2 months those kids, who did not know the English alphabet learned to use MS-Paint doing stuff like Undo/Redo/Copy/Paste, etc. Seeing those kids learn was one of the happiest feelings of my life. I later heard that one of the girls got admission in a govt. school because of what she learnt in that org.
Anyway, the reason I say this is because I read an article a few months back (will link it if I can find it) about how in Western societies there is a very strong emphasis on giving back to the country. Even people who are doing well generally volunteer on weekends for community service, etc. They have a very strong feeling of patriotism and an in built societal structure that makes them want to give back.
Now I have never lived outside of India so I cannot say if the above is true or not but having lived in India all my life I have never seen anyone, any relative, friend, etc do any sort of community service ever (unless of course there is religious angle). So all in all we have a lot of people complaining but very few doing anything.
I think every person who has completed college has the ability to make a difference but because the problem seems to be so "huge" nobody wants to do anything about it or is maybe waiting for others to lead them the way. The thing is you don't have to change everything, you only have to realize that anything you do no matter how big or small still makes a difference.
It also fits one of the many reasons why the density of foreigners is maximum in areas like Pahar Ganj and Old delhi (the dirtiest parts of Delhi IMO). So when some "gora" (typically white people) complains that Delhi is so dirty the biggest wtf going on in my head is.. then why the hell are you staying near Pahar ganj or traveling by a cycle rickshaw in 42 deg near Nai Sadak. The place near the Airport is cleaner than New York ( at least after the common wealth games) but nobody wants to see that. Who wants to come here all the way to see some old glass building in neat and clean surroundings. What's unique about that right?
Why is it that when you guys go to other countries you constantly focus on why that country is somehow different in a bad way? India: too filthy and chaotic. China: no freedom. Middle East: too oppressive. I could go on.
I've noticed that Europeans have a more nuanced approach to the world compared to Americans. They seem to appreciate differences instead of being smug in their superiority.
A beggar & her naked child begging at the window of an Audi R8.
The salesman in a high-end TV shop taking the bus to work.
The Marriot main-gate where super high priced cars drive out to be greeted by a forest of beggars.
Mumbai City simultaneously houses the most expensive residence in the world [1] and the largest slum in the world [2]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilia_%28building%29 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharavi
and so on and so on...
The leaders and the bureaucrats of the Govt. of India deserve to be shot in a public square for their sheer corruption and incompetence. They rob the country blind; feather their own nests and manage thru coercion to get elected (or posted to plum postings) over and over again.
This one kinda sticks out of the list. That would happen in many metropolitan centers worldwide, its simply more convenient.
Imagine being crammed in during a 100-degree+ summer just to get to and from work every day. Oof.
I live in NYC; we have a very tame definition of "taking the bus" as compared to India.
EDIT: Oh shit, it's you. You should know, heh.
I had just wanted to nitpick that the bus example is actually a very good one to highlight why "riding the bus" is not a bad indication of poverty, which I think we agree on!
None of this detracts from the fact that riding the subway during the summer is miserable for everyone, but isn't (in my mind, or in the parent's) quite the same as an Indian bus!
The norm isn't too far from the exception.
I spent 4 years in Chennai, and this was a common sight.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-4o_J8R8OVg/TIy3nfGUzdI/AAAAAAAAAo...
Though I have never seen the bent buses in Bangalore yet in the 5 years I have been here. That is not to say public buses are pleasant here - you still deal with being densely packed with other commuters of varying degree of hygiene.
When I was in Delhi, I was a broke student and took buses most of the times. Some routes were quite pleasant. Some were outright hell. The one that runs between south Delhi and Najafgarh is packed(especially after 8 in the evening), and people are knowingly and unknowingly thrusting their crotches into each other.
I question whether you've been to New York City, in the summer.
We were staying at 4th and Mission, surrounded by luxury stores and hotels. At night, though, it was like Dawn of the Dead, with street-zombies wandering around talking to themselves.
Sadly (to me), they were almost all black. In Toronto, the homeless have the decency to be fairly racially inclusive (with Native Americans somewhat over-represented).
Travel, huh. Different places are different.
The Indian public deserves an equal or greater share of the blame. Government is the people's responsibility in a democracy. If governance sucks, the citizens are not doing their job.
Your average person in a developing and poor country is not Arun2009. It's a fairly ignorant person who doesn't know either his rights or his duties.
I think literacy & education is one of the biggest bubbles. I had to spend a lot of time thinking about it, and talking to people with experience in the subject before the vast idea of what it means to be illiterate started to dawn on me.
For example, teaching a class on how to use computers to people at the library. They all want to know how to 'look for a job' online. Show 'em how to use the mouse, what icons represent the internet, how to get email, and see they're having trouble. Slowly begin to understand they're only memorizing shapes and patterns of letters, and don't really know how to read or write.
We're all so hyper literate, I can say that about everyone here. We're practically a different species than people who don't know how to wirelessly communicate through space and time. It's impossible to hold poor people in india who basically only have spoken word communication, and oral tradition historical context, to our standards.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India (the numbers here are severely underrepresented - there is consensus among most NGOs that more than 50% illiteracy prevails)
Corruption is a two handed process , one hand gives and the other takes. Both should be stopped.
Actually, a lot of the time, the child is not hers. It's rented from the child's real mother, so that the beggar can earn more money. But I'm sure you already knew that.
an Indian will lie to your face ... they’ll hand you fake business cards and offer to sell you something that they don’t actually have, so that you’ll voluntarily empty your wallet to them on your own accord. As opposed to DecorMyEyes.. sure
A couple Indians stopped him on the street, and with perfect English convinced him they worked for a travel agency. No shit. It's not like any Indian travel sites are listed on Nasdaq as MMYT right ?
Everyone of the problems has happened to me in various parts of South East Asia. India is not unique with these issues. With all due respect, I think the author had a "Gautama" experience. An experience of extreme helplessness when confronted with extreme poverty at a national scale. I completely empathize with him, but lets not get too hysterical with helplessness here.
It's hard to herd a billion people along... but we're trying.
China has a billion people too, but life there is far less horrid, dirty and bureaucratic. While the Chinese government is pretty deplorable, something is going right there, compared to India. Another problem with India is the mind-numbing Colonial-era bureaucracy -- to start a small business in India it takes months of paperwork just to get a business license. You have to get papers signed, resigned, rubber stamped by ten different offices and then pay crazy expensive bribes to everyone along the way. The problem is the government. It's an obsession with administivia at the expense of entrepreneurs.
As India's MoS-Small Scale Industries' Sachin Pilot once put it - "inclusive development vs growth".
Hoping that people will not cheat you at Bangkok's KhaoSan road is a bit too optimistic. Existence of ThornTree and Tripadvisor with their "Tourist Trap" sections is indeed because this is a human, not a regional phenomena.
I'm sad that you wont go back to India because of it - I really wish you had not stayed at Paharganj, but instead stayed somewhere inside Delhi. I wish you had skipped Taj Mahal altogether and instead taken a walk to Hauz Khas Village, bang in the middle of New Delhi - which completely epitomises India's bohemian kitsch, shopping, food, music along with monuments that predate the Taj Mahal by atleast 300 years. Maybe you could have dropped in to have a cup of coffee at one of the cafe's there that operate on an honor system rather than a bill.
Your tourist trap experience, colored the rest of your viewpoints and I'm truly sad at that.
[1] https://www.google.co.in/search?q=china+executed+corruption
The author is right. It's an extremely honest account of the state of chaos that is India. There has been a culture of dishonesty that has grown over the last few decades, because that is the only way many people can afford to live middle-class lifestyles.
If you take an auto-rickshaw or a taxi, the only thing that goes through the drivers head is, whether he can scam you for more money, and if so how. It's quite sad, because on one hand dishonesty is the norm, but on the other that's the only way he can feed his family, send his kids to school, take care of his ailing parents and drink away his miseries at night. The middle class ignore this because they know it's all a game with winners and losers (even if by pure chance). They would be better off trying to achieve a comfortable standard of living, than to try and reform India. But these people are often really honest, and as courteous as the average busy employee in nyc.
Then you see the rich folks who live in walled gardens (literally and figuratively). They have comfortable lives and are protected from the stark realities by security guards whose sole job is to prevent beggars from entering places where they live.
The police here do not have resources to work on most of the civil problems that happen here. On the plus side, they are less corrupt than what they were before, maybe because of the fear of irrelevancy. The politicians care more about the gold in their coffers, than to try and find ways to reform society.
The authors' account, it seems, came from a person who expected India to be a basket of spirituality, but was then struck in the groin by reality. It's all well and good. That is the real India, unfortunately. Not the Ashrams or the Taj hotels or the private resorts.
The situation is changing. The spending power of the middle class is increasing, along with the awareness that they are the ones who can and should start the change. The population needs to be decreased or the population densities should be more evenly spread. People living below the poverty line need to find some way to sustain themselves, and elevate themselves to a situation where they can think about tackling societal challenges. These are hard problems, and need capable minds to solve.
It's hard to live in an environment like that without witnessing the game of life (the suffering), and hopefully, existing out of it.
And I don't mean the suffering of the poor, but also of the rich, the middle class, and everyone else there, that's a piece on the gameboard.
So the 'Out of necessity' argument you made is pointless.
Today (2012) is sixty-five years since the independence of India from British rule (1947). As an American, I have to agree with the general proposition that British colonial rule is not the best form of government, but as an observer of the great variety of former British colonies in the world that are now independent countries, I invite readers here to think about why some of those countries (including some that became independent more recently than India) are now prosperous and free. Perhaps there are details about life in India and policies of the independent government of India that kept India comparatively poor and backward even after India won independence. It's a backward-looking set of excuses to say "British rule was bad for us," as it may indeed have been, without also being curious about "How have other countries thrived since winning independence from Britain?"
As far as the bad influence of colonialism goes, I think in general French or Spanish colonial rule have been even worse for most countries than British colonial rule. And it appears that one way harm was mediated to many places of the world by colonial rule is that socialism (especially hard-left socialism like Marxism) was transmitted to colonies by Western colonial officials, and then many countries pursued ineffective policies for national development for decades after independence, because they were stuck in socialist ideology for too long.
British rule in India couldn't do this - half a billion people is a bit too many to simply overrun. Instead they played factions against each other, one trick being to give a smaller faction superior arms, they keep the peace and a slice of the pie, but are wholly dependent on the supply of arms. British rule in India was a massively different beast to the Dominion countries.
"There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis. As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income."
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#section_2
"It is very likely that, in the middle of the eighteenth century, the average standard of living in Europe was a little bit lower than that of the rest of the world" - Bairoch.
The viewpoint that European countries surged ahead due to the industrial revolution rather than colonial oppression has been widely debunked.
The relevant question is not so much why the industrial revolution occurred first in England,Scotland and Belgium, but why other advanced regions of the eighteenth century failed to adapt their handicraft manufacturers to the new conditions of production and competition in the 19th century.
The looms of India and China were defeated not so much by market competition as they were forcibly dismantled by war,invasion, opium and a Lancashire-imposed system of one-way tariffs.
It is indisputable that from about 1780 or 1800 onward every serious attempt by a non western society to move into a fast lane of development or to regulate its terms of trade was met by a military as well as an economic response from London or a competing imperial capital.The victorians according to Brian Bond's calculations resorted to gunboat on at least 75 different occasions.
India was the greatest captive market in world history, rising from third to first place among consumers of British exports in the quarter century after 1870."British Rulers" writes Marcello De Cecco , "deliberately prevented Indians from becoming skilled mechanics, refused contracts to Indian firms which produced materials that could be got from England, and generally hindered the formation of an autonomous industrial structure in India"
Thanks to a Government Stores policy that reserved most government purchases to British products and by the monopoly of British agency houses in organizing the import-export trade, India was forced to absorb Britain's surplus of increasingly obsolescent and non-competitive industrial exports.By 1910 this included two-fifths or the UK's finished cotton goods and pharmeceuticals.
As a result observes de Cecco, Britain avoided "having to restructure her industry and was able to invest her capital in the countries where it gave the highest return".Thanks to India, "British financiers were not compelled to 'tie' their loans to British Exports because the Imperial outlet was always available for British products."
But how in the age of famine, could the Indian subcontinent afford to subsidize its conqueror's suddenly precarious commercial supremacy?.In a word it could'nt and India was force marched into the world market by revenue and irrigation policies that compelled farmers to produce for foreign consumption at the price of their own food security.By the turn of the century, India was supplying nearly a fifth of Britain's wheat consumption.
References
1. Late Victorian Holocausts: El nino famines and the making of the third world - Mike Davis
2. An economic history of India - Dietmar Rothermund
3. The international gold standard: Money and Empire - Marcello De Cecco
Neither the Austrian-Hungarian Empire nor Germany had colonies, yet their standard of living had improved dramatically over the second half of the 19th century. One could argue that these countries initially had feudal-style serfdom, yet in both of them serfdom was abolished earlier than in the Russian Empire (1770-1830 in Germany, 1848 in Austria-Hungary, 1861 in Russia), and the standard of living continued to increase after the abolition of serfdom.
I am not a huge lover of big empires, yet I consider the typical postcolonial argument which goes basically "white people are responsible for everything" as politically motivated and leading to victim mentality, which further inhibits progress. If you want to see a true example of exploitation, look at Congo under King Leopold. The British regime was lollipops and roses by comparison. If you look at hubs of economic activity in South-East Asia, and which in no small manner are still influencing Asian economic growth -- Singapore, Hong Kong -- all of them are former British colonial outposts.
If you take a country/people where accumulating wealth is not a culturally-established practice, and introduce wealth to this country through trade/industry/oil exploration, you won't get a reduction of poverty -- you will get more poverty, since the wealth you introduced can now sustain more people at their previous standard of living. This is, by the way, why having a conversation with postcolonialists can be completely impossible -- they place such an emphasis on differences between cultures when talking about pretty much anything, but when you hint that willingness to save money and plan for the future can also be culturally influenced, they get red in the face.
It's too easy to blame the white man while pretending that the European and American advances were 95-99% a product of the white man's racism and brutality subjugated on the rest of the world.
Not relevant but a really good watch: http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_German_colonies
He missed the "jugaad" all around him - people, in their struggle for survival, do all sorts of things. Lying is jugaad, dishonesty is jugaad, the Cobra is jugaad, the marijuana in tourist places is jugaad, the beggar's strategic location is jugaad, the dump-heap is jugaad (not all jugaads are meant to make society better as a whole).
But maybe that's too naive. The most unfortunate in India are amongst the most fatalistic - they give up trying - after all, they never won the birth lottery by being born in Europe or the US, or even in a rich home in India - so why hope for social justice? Laws are meant to be broken in India, justice is meant not to be served (India is a study in legal arbitrage - it always has been). Life is meant to be tough in India, values are meant to eschewed. But even with all this, "jugaad" survives and serves its own brand of justice. The mistake most foreigners make in India is that they continue to believe in their ability to right the wrongs and make a change. A feeling of utter helplessness is very alien to them. It's coming to terms with that helplessness and digging out pockets of jugaad from that black mass of helplessness is what makes India tick.
>> The most unfortunate in India are amongst the most fatalistic - they give up trying. : This is again so true. Experienced first-hand with some of my relatives. You might be initially surprised at their mindset and the self-reasoning, but then you will realize its part of their coming to terms with life.
If you consider the rain-forests of Amazon as an evolving experiment by nature, I consider the human-forests of India as an evolving experiment by nature as well.
EDIT: But the part about it being "bad karma" to help some people and not others, that definitely sounds like somebody has misunderstood somewhere.
Belief in karma and reincarnation has got nothing to do with it. And even the victims of this system know this.
There is also some modern, relevant benefits to identifying someone's caste: it is an indicator that someone comes from a similar cultural or religious upbringing. That you speak similar dialects of Hindi. This is important when, say, marrying.
This says nothing of the caste system as institutional discrimination, but it's worth mentioning that caste is not "purely" an economic/political bit of culture.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit
* India Untouched - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1552060/
* India's broken people - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxJr0UlcNTA
There is whole sect in India which is segregated, tortured everyday for being born as a lower caste and it does not even end with their death. They have to clean others' feces by their hands (yes even today) and this is considered a norm. Rich, higher caste still instill this in their own kids to be wary of the "dirty people". Kids born into Dalit families are reminded of this by not letting them eat with other kids, not letting them wear same clothes and being asked for their caste again and again. This system is kept alive.
This all still exists and is in abundance. Point to note is that this is not just in rural, uneducated parts of India. Honestly, the concept comes from Hinduism. As a major religion for centuries, it has a code-of-conduct by Manu to divide the society into 4 major parts. But now it is a part of every sect in practice.
It exists and it is social.
I once got stopped by a couple that gave me a story about being left away from home and no means to get back etc... I gave them Rs.50 and they kind of stared at me with bewilderment like "that's all you're giving me"
(And keep in mind that I'm not a white guy standing out in the crowd - I look just like every other Indian on the street :) )
Small things like this make me slightly more reluctant to give money to people on the street. I prefer to donate via charities that I help out with instead.
I have been discouraged from helping people, mostly for the reason that it could turn out to be more trouble that it's worth, but I have never been given this reason. Also, your explanation makes no sense from a theological perspective. I've always been taught that helping people will earn you karma, so it's in your selfish interest to help those in need.
Here's an excerpt "If someone is born in an unfortunate situation, for instance into a very poor family, we explain it as due to past bad karma. We try to do more good karma this life in order to ensure we have a better rebirth. Is this chasing after happiness in life after life correct?
Some people say, "Those people are poor because of their bad actions; therefore they are morally inferior. We shouldn't try to improve their situation because that would interfere with their karma. Rather, they should accept being in a lower class and try to create positive actions so they will be rich in future lives."
Here in Brazil there are lots of young people that gets into drug dealing just because they don't have nothing better to do. The grow up in extreme poverty and society would very much like them to be dead or in prision, so they take their chances... sometimes its better to risk a bullet to the head to get rich and respected than to know that you'll be always poor and risk getting killed by police or drug dealers.
And of course, this is just an example. I don't know if this qualifies as "jugaad", but sounds a little similar.
Here're some awesome examples of jugaad:
https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/559248_35987216408...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/2389399780_7e7c15f2d7.jp...
http://www.myindiapictures.com/pictures/up1/2012/06/funny-ca...
http://www.myindiapictures.com/pictures/up1/2012/06/funny-ro...
My personal favorite: (Steaming milk on the roadside with a pressure cooker)
http://sagarmukim.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/jugaad.jpg
There's tons more examples like this, but you get the point.
See some examples at: http://quependejadas.com/tag/gracioso/page/2/
The most amazing thing is that most of these images are probably not Mexican at all, but stolen from redneck sites (search for: Look, I fixed it). That is 100% in character with the spirit of mexicanada. Why actually fix anything when I can find someone else who did it and steal the credit!!!
What a colossal waste of human resources.
Imagine if all those poor people were instead lifted up to the middle class so that they wouldn't have to focus on surviving each day, and could put that "jugaad" to something actually useful - research, science, arts, creating things and doing work that benefits others as well.
Do you realize that majority of Indian population has no jugaad to provide food for their family. Well we "The Pizza Hut Kings" choose to overlook it and pretend that everything works.
It appears to me that the most unfortunate people eventually give up regardless of country. I don't blame them. Being poor is discouraging especially if you are older.
by Navi Radjou, Jaideep Prabhu, and Simone Ahuja | 2010
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/01/jugaad_a_new_growth_formula_...
I like the comments from that page. Here's one I'll cherry pick:
Indranil Roy Chowdhury wrote: Seems like Jugaad has become a fad these days as I keep hearing the term every now and then in conferences and beyond..But the very essence of the term has been highly misplaced..To start with 'Jugaad' has a negative connotation to it and shouldn't be seen as innovation..I suggest Innovation should be kept away from the ambit of 'Jugaad'.
The problems with confusing Jugaad with innovation are;
(1)Jugaad is a short term mindset and doesnt serve anyone, while Innovation should be something that can have long term impacts
(2)Jugaad is a Tactic used in daily life, while Innovation is a long term Strategy..
(3)Jugaad is a way which corrupts the system or makes use of systemic loopholes, while Innovation is something that brings a solution which can in turn strengthen the system.
I shall quote an example here which is a classic example of Jugaad:
In India electricity theft remains a major problem. With govt's initiatives the problem has been curtailed to a large extent, hence the instances of theft have come down significantly. So what people have started doing is that they steal electricity from lines to TV antennas which take 49V..How? Simple solution..put a step up transformer in the way..convert 49 to 110v or 220V and light your bulb..
Now the question is would we like this to be seen as innovation ??? Or should it be left as 'Jugaad' ?????
I'm from Kerala - things may be slightly better here than say Bihar but not by a whole lot.
Kerala has the cleanest railway stations, the best sex ratio, the most literate population, second least malnutrition (after Punjab).
Once the tummy is full and people see that their basic necessity food is met, they start thinking about other things, like cleanliness, civil society and other comforts which they should have. India is a powerhouse of energy, we have entrepreneurs in every nook and corner and people have learnt how to survive and excel. We educate our kids and that is the biggest power a country can have, education eradicates all ills.
If you look at states like Gujarat in India you will be surprised to find them cleaner and better maintained than any western city. Their are women who run dairy businesses which bring millions in revenue in Gujarat.
What defeats India is its political class and miracles can be head if you have a government which can act. It will happen soon and the young entrepreneurs and startups in India will change the country. I love India.
Thus, for this reason alone, India is likely to have a different ratio of people to development, since less development is required to sustain one person's resource utilization.
Contrast this to the US where much of the country is snow covered for 1/3 of the year and without planning and infrastructure to enable it, there would be very little food available during the winter. In the US the infrastructure is a requirement for even moderate population growth.
The same applies to shelter. In India, a hut made of newspaper is adequate shelter year round. Try that in the Northern US and you'll freeze.
The result of this is that there are more poor people who do not rely as much on large scale planning and infrastructure for their basic survival.
Yes India's government is corrupt, but not all that much more corrupt than the US government.
If you want to talk about rights for the poor, in India if someone isn't using land and you set up a tent on it and start living there, you can't be evicted. The shantytowns that the author found so disturbing are actually a side-effect of India's weak property rights laws, which themselves are a result of democratic pressure from the poor to continue living where their families have lived for generations. Contrast this to the genocide the US conducted against native Americans who were in the way.
Basic infrastructure (roads, sewers) is lacking in India, but those are not easy projects to bootstrap. Bangalore has a massive sewer construction project going on now.
Frankly, it's not all that bad. Sure the garbage smells bad, but it's mostly just a matter of learning not to keep inhaling after you catch a whiff of something rank on the breeze.
If you are concerned about India's political infrastructure, notice that India's rulers are forming alliances with the US to help thwart Pakistan's nuclear ambitions. Note that once the US has a stake in one ruling party it tends to do much to prop up and empower that party, even if there are horrible human rights consequences.
When I go to India I notice the energy. People sit happily beneath a dirty tarp in a roadside food stand, enjoying Manchurian Gobi... sometimes 4 or 5 people sharing one bowl of the delicious spicy food. Smiles everywhere. These are extremely poor people. Also I notice the tiny businesses, some retail locations are only a few square feet in size but sell a variety of goods and are staffed by a single motivated shopkeeper who works 18+ hour days.
India is full of hard working people and ingenuity. I found the author's generalizations about dishonesty, etc., quite offensive.
Consider how much effort is undertaken in the US to hide poverty from view. Sadly the US ends up putting a very large percentage of its poor population in prisons and has relocated many to horrific housing projects, where the violence and horrors are contained away from view.
Consider how much effort is undertaken in the US to present the appearance of legit, non-corrupt institutions. Yet fraud abounds at all levels of government. The stuff Wikileaks exposed about the US is nothing more than fraud, dishonesty, and corruption.
The defense against the poverty or dishonesty arguments shouldn't just be a juxtaposition against the US.
Citation?
The same applies to shelter. In India, a hut made of newspaper is adequate shelter year round. Try that in the Northern US and you'll freeze.
If a newspaper is enough in India, why are so many people dying of being cold year after year? https://www.google.co.in/search?q=cold+wave+india+dead
The years that aren't very cold, there are heat waves that kill. https://www.google.co.in/search?q=heat+wave+india+dead
Yes India's government is corrupt, but not all that much more corrupt than the US government.
In India, if you walk into a govt office for anything, you will end up paying a bribe. Want a driving license? Bribe. Want a building plan approved? Bribe. Want to incorporate a company? Bribe. Maybe we can have HN'ers from different developed countries tell us if the situation is anything like this in their countries. From what I can see, corruption in developed countries is mostly big ticket, not every tom, dick and harry in the country trying to part you from your money every chance they get.
Contrast this to the genocide the US conducted against native Americans who were in the way.
Back when American natives were being killed, widows in India were being burnt alive by their own families in the name of tradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)
Sure the garbage smells bad, but it's mostly just a matter of learning not to keep inhaling after you catch a whiff of something rank on the breeze.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU EVEN SAYING?
My point was about carrying capacity. Hot or cold snaps do not significantly alter the base carrying capacity of the environment w/o infrastructure.
In the US things like parking tickets, DMV fees, etc. are levied with abandon. Why use this approach to generate funds to pay for municipal workers rather than just having them extract bribes? Because the US has the infrastructure to enforce the fees, fines, and penalties. Both constitute minor confiscation of resources and are abetted by the power of the officials involved.
Your point about widows being burned alive agrees with my overall argument. It shows a parity between the two civilizations that ought to give us pause when we start feeling to indignant.
The latter involves due process. It also accrues funds to a democratic body instead of to random servants of the state. This removes conflicts of interest, e.g. I'm going to require a billion licences because each licence means I get a bribe.
Empirically, corruption hurts the economy and political system. An IIE paper showed that "a one-standard deviation (2.38 point) improvement in the corruption index is associated with over a 4-percentage-point increase in a country's investment rate and over a 1/2-percentage-point increase in the per capita [GDP] growth rate" [1]. Further, Campos and Giovannoni show in their paper Lobbying, Corruption, and Political Influence that while "lobbying and corruption are substitutes...lobbying seems to be a much more effective instrument for political influence than corruption, even in poorer, less developed countries" [2].
[1] http://www.adelinotorres.com/economia/Os%20efeitos%20da%20co...
[2] http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/33990/1/518050...
But police officers and other minor officials (IRS workers, etc.) are given tremendous discretion about which violations to enforce and which to ignore. In that sense, the US system is quite ad-hoc as well.
And since the people who interact most directly with police officers are the poor, abuses of power are less likely to be reported... yet we still hear of them all the time.
I view it as a continuum of institutional evolution, with the US perhaps a small notch or two ahead of India in creating institutions that are resistant to corruption. It's definitely not a night and day distinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/world/asia/18iht-letter18....
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2091100,00.htm...
People are holding hunger strikes to stand up against the corruption. When was the last time that happened in the US?
You are rationalizing away all of the author's points, and just because there is an explanation for things doesn't make those things okay. Just because "In India, a hut made of newspaper is adequate shelter year round." Doesn't mean it's alright for people to live in a shelter of NEWSPAPER.
"Frankly, it's not all that bad. Sure the garbage smells bad, but it's mostly just a matter of learning not to keep inhaling after you catch a whiff of something rank on the breeze."
I'm sure that will fix all of the disease and sickness that comes with festering garbage lingering about in public streets.
"Sadly the US ends up putting a very large percentage of its poor population in prisons and has relocated many to horrific housing projects, where the violence and horrors are contained away from view."
Even if this is true (which I'd argue that it's not, but that is neither here nor there) how does that justify having the poor out in the open begging for a living?
"If you want to talk about rights for the poor, in India if someone isn't using land and you set up a tent on it and start living there, you can't be evicted. The shantytowns that the author found so disturbing are actually a side-effect of India's weak property rights laws, which themselves are a result of democratic pressure from the poor to continue living where their families have lived for generations. Contrast this to the genocide the US conducted against native Americans who were in the way."
Besides the blatant non-sequitor about genocide (It happened, yes, but what does that have to do with India?), giving someone the right to squat on land is hardly "rights for the poor". Congrats on not evicting people from shanty towns, excuse me if you aren't awarded the next Nobel Peace Prize.
In the US we are given a standard explanation about other countries: Women are mistreated there, children and the poor are victims, governments there are corrupt and ineffective, sectarian or criminal gangs run things, etc. We as enlightened Americans are supposed to feel indignant, and we're supposed to support bold action that will free the people in question from their oppressive circumstances, since the people themselves are too dis-empowered to do it for themselves, too clueless to realize they should, etc.
The author's story was strongly influenced by this kind of explanation, right down to the indignation he ever-so-confidently expresses.
This is why I mentioned a few aspects of American society that ought to put things into perspective a bit. If someone is drawn to indignation and feels inspired to allow his life to be motivated by its sharp pangs, he should look closely at the environment he knows most about -- his own city or possibly his own country.
The narrative/explanation above is used to promote meddling in other countries and is a hallmark of neoconservative thought. The problem is that it's horribly misguided and harmful.
The noteworthy aspect, in my opinion, is the strong indignation felt by the author which is amplified in its absurdity by the existence of many of the very same problems in the US.
Doesn't mean it's alright for people to live in a shelter of NEWSPAPER.
Why isn't it alright? Honestly, if it's adequate shelter, why isn't it alright? I'm trying to think of some reasons, and I figure it has to do with inability to withstand rain and wind, effects of rot and mold, lack of security, or who knows what. But then I keep going back to the word "adequate". What does this mean? Does adequate mean these problems actually don't exist, and therefore it's adequate? Or is there a different level of what is considered adequate in the gp, compared to what I think is adequate?
You can't just come out and say that it's not alright for people to live in a shelter of newspaper just because it's newspaper. You need to have reasons for it. And if it is indeed adequate, I can't think of any reasons why I would dislike living in a shelter of newspapers. In the same manner, I cannot think of any reasons why I would dislike caves in western China, huts in the Amazon, or igloos in the Yukon. If it's a matter of getting proper Internet, well, let's just assume that if I'm living there, I must have chosen to forgo some luxuries. For example, many missionaries throughout history easily decided to go native and live like the people they were trying to reach.
I need to understand the details behind your point.
I meant something more like: "Just because people can live in a shelter of newspaper, doesn't mean it's okay for that to be their only resort against the elements."
"many missionaries throughout history easily decided to go native"
Err, no. Missionaries (as well as soldiers and merchants) used to have crazy high mortality in the tropics.
Whether or not those housing conditions lend themselves to proper sanitation or not, missionaries decided to go native in spite of the high mortality, also knowing the mortality rate of their peers (until modern medicine came about to make things like malaria a much smaller concern). I don't see your point. Missionaries had a crazy high mortality in the tropics? So what? It didn't stop their decisions to go native. And they certainly didn't have a crazy high mortality rate after the arrival of modern medicine. What are you saying no to?
1960's.
No hunger strikes AFAIK, the 99% occupiers are our cultural equiv.
The last major one was July 1st, 2011 in the California prison system.
(1. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...)
(2. http://www.hrw.org/news/2007/12/15/us-federal-statistics-sho... )
In my opinion, the notion of almost certain rape and being locked into a cell with a violent individual in a system where violence is tolerated is about as cruel a punishment as one could possibly inflict. The worst psychological torture combined with brutal physical subjugation.
Here in the UK, we are investigating massive corruption in the banking sector, the press and government. Every day we are seeing new revelations from the Leveson Inquiry on press ethics, or the Treasury Select Committee on banking. It would take a great deal of hubris to make any claim to the high ground.
A difference of degree remains a difference, if only of degree. That said, independent third-party assessments of corruption such as the Corruption Perceptions Index as of 2010 hold the US (7.1) rather better than India (3.1) (the index uses a 10 point scale). There's room for improvement for both nations. Notably, the US is comperable with two South American countries, actually falling behind Chile (7.2) and just ahead of Urugay (6.9).
Topping the list, New Zealand and Denmark (tied at 9.3), and Finland and Sweden (tied at 9.2). Worst? Somalia (1.1), Myanmar and Afghanistan (1.4), and Iraq (1.5) (So, how's that regime-y change-y thing going for ya, Sarah?)
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2010/results
What would you do? You can't magically produce houses, schools, hospitals and other basic infrastructure to service several hundred million people. Forget that, I doubt you could engineer an efficient distribution system that just provides these people with nutritious food. Keep in mind these people are distributed across a fairly large country, belong to many different religions and speak hundreds (possibly thousands) of different languages. The majority of these folks are illiterate, and the overwhelming majority have no education beyond high school.
If you think you have a good solution to the problem, I am all ears, because I've been thinking about this for a long time and I can't see one.
Just because I don't have a solution doesn't make the fact that having the poor, out in the open, begging for a living any less "bad".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabbawala
A (very wealthy) Indian relative of mine once explained to me that while Indians may come rich and poor they all have greater pride in their intrinsic existence. Thus, the poor Indian has more dignity than a rich American.
The Indian situation isn't one that I believe will be developed out of soon because the underlying reasons for much of the filth is cultural. The problems aren't seen as problems but as a Western perspective's mis-interpretation of the essence of reality.
Worse, when we do talk about those flaws, we don't necessarily do anything to fix them.
Examples:
"Yes India's government is corrupt, but not all that much more corrupt than the US government."
"Contrast this to the genocide the US conducted against native Americans who were in the way."
"Consider how much effort is undertaken in the US to hide poverty from view."
"Yet fraud abounds at all levels of government."
Even if this stuff were true (and it mostly isn't), your arguments don't answer the author's points.
I intended to point out the absurdity of focusing one's indignation on problems in another country.
Imagine if someone started expressing indignation about the bad breath of someone sitting on the other side of the room, when he himself had bad breath, though perhaps slightly fresher than the person whose breath he was outraged about.
For some reason, we don't view indignant rants about foreign political systems with the same eye for absurdity that we view indignant rants about other things.
Not really. The Transperency International which ranks countries by corruption ranks India at 95, where as U.S.A is ranked at 24[1]. Lower the rank less corrupt the country is.
1. http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/
By that logic, Russia would have been the most advanced nation in the world a long time ago, yet it's historically been lagging Europe (and later USA) in development. Many in Russia actually use a totally opposite logic: because the environment in Russia is so harsh, warmer climates of Europe and USA have greater advantage in terms of agriculture initially, and infrastructure maintenance later on.
So I don't think it's as simple as that.
My take on it: in the US, the climate makes it possible to rise far above the subsistence level, but only with some effort and/or ingenuity. Motivated people have historically been rewarded with better lives, and that truth has influenced our entire culture.
In equatorial island countries, it's too easy. What, you think you can spend your whole life relaxing on the beach sipping coconut milk? Well... OK, I guess you can do that.
In Russia, it's too hard. If most of your energy and focus is spent just surviving the winter, there won't be enough mojo left to move your society forward.
Problems with this climate-centric outlook: African equatorial countries with good, human-friendly climate but problematic cultures, and Nordic countries whose weather rivals Siberia's and whose cultural and technological progress is often compared favorably to that of the US.
I will pick on that lie to state my point. If you have been to any of the smaller metros in India, you generally get thru immigration at Mumbai before taking a flight from the domestic terminal. Getting to the domestic terminal from the international terminal is cumbersome. You are escorted in a bus operated by the Airport Authority of India, accompanied by security personel.
The aspect of the ride that is of interest is the route taken by the bus. The bus operated within the premises of the airport often running along side the tarmac and taxi way thru numerous and repeated security check-points while it meanders to or from the domestic terminal. This gives you the best view of the runways at ground level in slow speed often around 15 kmph and includes a section of the ride around the cargo terminals.
Most international airlines operate to and out of Mumbai during the night often after 12 AM. I have taken this ride on at least 3 occasions and have not seen a single individual sleeping on the tarmac on even one occasion.
What the author might be referring to could be the people you find in a semi sleep state around the terminal, more so near the cargo terminals. These are employees in the cargo section often on a break. The employees are usually uniformed and any one can observe the security batches hanging around their necks.
You would then have to assume that the intent of the author is intentional mis-representation and sensationalism. Take everything written with a large serving of salt.
Another glaring bias in the observation sequence is that all negative experiences have been told in a detailed, pictorial manner. And all the good experiences, on Sanjay cooking the meal, another guy refusing 50 Rs and the taxi driver being tearfully happy at the 50% tip etc., have been cramped into single liners or a couple of paragraphs, where as all the other negative experiences are allotted ample real estate in the article.
"Nothing should be given free. Anything that is given free has no value. " - Padma Venkataraman
In May of this year, I spent time in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
The exchange rate during my travels was roughly 53 Rupees : 1 US Dollar. So I can definitely understand how tempting it can be to "do the math" and rationalize that giving X Rupees to random person will "help". But it's absolutely not a sustainable solution to the core and underlying problem, and might even be perpetuating it.
I "get" the concept of jugaad. My small solution was to not give Rupees away, but to tip well: anybody who seemed to be working on improving their economic situation. (Tipping is not normal practice for most Indians, but I figured it was better than handouts.)
This video can be hard to watch, but it's an interesting film about an organization called Rising Star Outreach ( http://www.risingstaroutreach.org ) that is working on helping of the "worst" of India's beggars, those who afflicted with Hansen's Disease (AKA Leprosy) http://byutv.org/watch/d0f942b2-6b4f-4923-9f88-7ad8fde4a01c
Some interesting tidbits from the video:
- "70 percent of the world's leprosy is in India."
- "People with leprosy are treated as untouchables ... Every month, people from the leprosy colony travel to the city to beg. Once they have enough money to buy food and clothing for the month, they go back to the colony."
- "Begging reduces people to their lowest level. The worse you look, the better you're going to be successful at begging."
But the video has a somewhat happy ending: it is demonstrating a work in progress, and general proof that giving people a way to sustain themselves economically via microloans really does work.
As far as the general population goes, India is an amazing country: resourceful, intelligent. But its biggest challenge will be its ability to cope with population growth.
Absolutely. Be generous to your domestic help, drivers, security guards and other people who work hard to improve their lives. It will reinforce their belief in hard work.
It reinforces their reliance on the upper class/caste, a polite form of beggary. The core and underlying problem is not lack of belief in hard work, but systematic corruption and exploitation of the poor.
I, as an Indian, will be utterly shocked if I visit a ghetto in downtown Detroit. Heck, there are more chances of getting mugged or shot in such ghetto. However, I will not visit such places as they are known to be hostile.
India is a weird place and to survive you need to live as Indians live. Some insights -
a) Yes, we have highest number of beggars. But most of them are cheats. Most of them will walk away if you offer them a job instead of money or food. Also, a lot of them work for beggar mafias.
b) They say that all of those 33 crore Hindu Gods, Buddha and Allah have left India ages ago. Religions are more customary than spiritual and Indians follow 'em just for the sake of customs. It's a common sight to see a young guy driving by a temple reciting a few shlokas while driving and offer a customary mini version of prayer.
People who come to India on a spiritual tour make me laugh. If you think that you can attain enlightenment or get more spiritual by travelling thousands of miles and spending a couple of weeks at a 500$/night resort near Haridwar, then you need some serious help.
c) Tourists buy "Indian" stuff that no Indian buys. The clutches or carpets or the wooden elephants are made specially for foreign tourists and are freakingly overpriced. The best way to buy Indian stuff, would be to go to regular markets with a local friend.
d) Garbage is a big problem. Its in our nature to litter. Take an Indian to US or Australia and he will not spit or litter. While the same person might even pee on a street back in India. The only option is to live/stay in relatively cleaner localities.
e) Drivers, hotel staff, guides, store keepers and public servants are dishonest because they are virtually unaccountable to anyone and the legal system ain't efficient enough to nab the dishonest. A "x" star restaurant can continue to function despite serving cockroaches or hair strands in their dishes. Apparently, identifying the trait of dishonesty is easier if you know the local lingo/culture.
People know a lot of about American culture because of Hollywood and American sitcoms. I am not an expert in American culture, but I can identify whether a person is playing me. I can not do that in any other country (say Italy).
Same logic applies to foreigners who visit India. You either need to know a few things about Indian culture beforehand or you need to spend some more time here.
Compared to what the OP described, a "ghetto" in old Detroit would be a paradise.
Also, just to point out, don't talk trash about a town unless you've been there. Detroit is finally bringing itself out of the pit. Lots of new energy running around. It's on the rise. Maybe you should visit?
And, I am not talking trash.
My sister lives in Troy. When she was new to Detroit, she chose a wrong route while driving to downtown Detroit. While passing through a certain area (don't remember the name, will call her and ask) some gangsters tried to stop her car and rob her. Luckily she escaped.
My sister didn't crib about it like the OP did. She accepted the reality, changed her driving directions thereafter and moved on. Like thousands of her fellow Americans do. Likewise millions of Indians accept the harsh realities, change their driving directions and move on.
>> Compared to what the OP described, a "ghetto" in old Detroit would be a paradise.
Also, just to point out, don't base your comparisons on a blog post. People, here, may try to trick you but will not shoot you. Things are improving here as well. Though, at a slower place.
Update: The area where my sister faced gangsters was Highland Park.
As opposed to what you are basing you opinions on; "My sister lives in Troy. When she was new to Detroit, she choose a wrong route while driving to downtown Detroit. While passing through a certain area (don't remember the name, will call her and ask) some gangsters tried to stop her car and rob her. Luckily she escaped."
Down vote me all you've want... but unless you actually been to Detroit, recently, you are taking out of your ass.
From PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/is-detro...
I'll quote a part so you don't have to browse it: "Last weekend, the New York Times featured a story in its Style section about the onslaught of hip, young urban pioneers streaming into downtown Detroit. These “creatives,” as they are being called, are taking advantage of low rents and the opportunity to recycle this abandoned, blank slate of an urban landscape into something new and exciting. There are restaurateurs and entrepreneurs of all stripes living alongside environmentalists and urban farmers. ..."
If you want I can post many other links.. but i assume you can do your own google'ing.
Edited: typos.
An uninformed tourist will be shocked if he/she visit such places just like India.
b) I didn't down vote any of your post. Hence, these replies.
I am talking about expectations and exceptions. In USA an uninformed tourist won't expect such places. In Somalia, a person won't expect a super friendly neighborhood with Audis and BMWs roaming around.
Edit: just found a small clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WkfofSGFx4 [ not sure when it was filmed ]
The giveaway in every touristed country almost worldwide is that they've approached and are talking to you. Exaggerating a bit, but not far off the truth.
Sadly, the things that tourists often yearn for - that natural, personal contact, the local insight - is exactly what you'll get from many scammers, and it leads you to shun so many approaches (e.g., the kids in Wangfujing who will eventually want to sell you art on commission or drag you to a tea ceremony) that you are forced to detach somewhat from your travel experience.
I think this is the "broken window effect." [1] We Indians see so much litter / garbage around us most of the time, we don't feel it is wrong to add a little more to it. Also, we feel, "If nobody else cares, why should I"?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
At home level, garbage is disposed by 3 ways -
a) Either it is collected from your door by municipality or a private contractor / sweeper
b) Home owners throw their garbage in a community garbage dump
c) Home owners dispose their garbage wherever they can.
The private contractors, who are supposed to take the collected garbage to the dumping grounds, usually don'd do it and dump it in open spaces (like this one -http://cj.ibnlive.in.com/slideshow7815.html). Worst part is that they aren't fined by authorities.
Municipal authorities mark certain grounds/wastelands away from populated areas as dumping grounds, dump the trash there and let it decay. (like this one - http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/08/0805_biggest_garbage...)
Also, Indians, in general, while traveling or commuting or walking, dispose paper wrappers, plastic plates, flowers, water bottles, chewing gums or any other garbage on road or in public places.
For example, it's a common site to see a family having ice creams or chips or peanuts or soft drinks in parks. But when they leave, they leave the waste as it is. Even when there is a garbage can in sight. (see this - http://rhetoric2reality.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/public-p...)
An example of trash thrown by train travelers - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BA99LRmPyaA/TYsZstie7fI/AAAAAAAACC...
Heck, we can't even keep our places of worship clean. These are flowers, incense sticks and other offerings thrown in Ganga river after worshiping (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cO-PjFR2Kcw/TjgKYEIQiFI/AAAAAAAABG...). Ain't this ironical? Indians can pray and pollute a same object.
Coming to the decaying and non-decaying part - Most of it is decayable. However, the sheer volume of it does not allow nature to work. Hence it starts rotting and stinking. Also, stray animals (cows,dogs and pigs) dig through the trash mountain to find anything edible and in turn spread it more.
Having said that, things are improving. I have seen many young people (my friends included) carry the plastic trash or water bottles with them till they find a garbage can. Also, a few educated people are running cleaning campaigns in their cities (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Clean-Vadodara-Green-Vadodara-...). Also, shopping malls and large stores have started to charge for plastic carry bags. This has reduced plastic waste by bit.
Oh someone at work got a bigger raise than you? Excuse me while I laugh in your face.
I'm not too good at parties. I don't know how to compartmentalize.
It also bugs me that talking about this seems like a status move when it generates negative things in my life.
"A man, ... a symbol, shall we say, of people of India -- is pursued by a tiger. He runs fast, but panting heart tells him he cannot run much longer. He sees a tree. Relief! He accelerates and gets to it in one last despairing stride. He climbs the tree. The tiger snarls below him, but he feels that he has at last escaped its snapping jaws. But no -- what's this? The branch on which he is sitting is weak, and bends dangerously. This is not all; wood-mice are gnawing away at it; before long they will eat through it and it will snap and fall. The branch sags down over a wall. Aha! Escape? Perhaps our hero can swim? But the well is dry, and there are snakes writhing and hissing on its bed. What is our hero to do? As the branch bends lower, he perceives a solitary blade of glass growing on the wall of the well.On the top of the blade of grass gleams a drop of honey. What action does our Puranic man, our quintessential Indian, take in this situation?
He bends with the branch, and licks up the honey. "
No matter how desperate the situation, Indians will always find a way to adjust, to live with it. So despite all the filth, over crowding, corruption, inefficiency, Indians have learnt how to live and enjoy.
Exactly. And this is NOT a good thing. Instead a putting up with all this they should be fighting back. That would be a good thing.
The piece reads almost like a self-conscious parody of this usual Western tirade against India.
(Had never heard of Jantar Mantar before - only been to a few southern parts of India - thanks. Will put it on my To Do list!)
This post, while certainly an honest account, is rife with generalizations and does not acknowledge the author's own cultural biases in the slightest.
How about even a cursory talk about the historical context? Colonialism, the politics of development, the political economy of tourism, anything for that matter.
Mark talks about how emotionally overwhelming travel is, he doesn't talk about how, if he had stayed there longer or even done some basic wikipedia research, perhaps he wouldn't jump to so many base conclusions. Instead, we are left with a poetic bog post laced with comments like this one:
"Indian culture itself is quite disorienting."
Or this little gem:
"There’s no single sentence for India. The place is a fucking mess."
This doesn't even make sense. How can there be no single sentence for India, and then GIVE A SINGLE SENTENCE FOR INDIA?
Yeah, it's a fucking mess for a well-off Internet blogger. It's a fucking mess because Mother Theresa can't save the Indians from themselves, "And it’s just as well, Mother Teresa couldn’t save this society from itself." Critical development studies has been fighting this kind of arrogance for a long time.
And to be fair, I respect this author's work a lot more than most lifestyle blogs. I just have a low tolerance for generalizations like this one.
Does that sound like nonsense to you?
How can there be no single sentence for India, and then GIVE A SINGLE SENTENCE FOR INDIA?
Oh, for fuck's sake. You're choosing to be offended. He didn't give a single sentence, he wrote a four thousand word essay on it. An essay in which he covers a lot of variations in the parts of the culture he saw.
Really, you're choosing to be offended. Why should he report on the colonialism of India in an essay about his personal experiences; why is the essay bereft of value because of that? And despite your claims that he doesn't talk about the political economy of tourism, he does do that in the essay. He talks of the spiritual tourism, and his experiences and opinions of it.
Yeah, it's a fucking mess for a well-off Internet blogger.
And traveller to 40 countries, so a fair bit more experienced in other cultures than most. You're committing exactly the same sins of omission as you're accusing him of making, in order to reframe your argument so that it benefits you.
What a stupid and close-minded thing to say.
Great article, btw.
1. The submitter of the article to HN has no affiliation with Postmasculine as far as I know, nor did we request them to post it here. We're very grateful for them doing so however!
2. While the author of the site was involved in the pickup industry for a while, he chose to no longer identify with that scene over two years ago, and specifically moved his content away from its perspective, even going so far as to systemically deconstruct the flaws and failures of Pickup theory and the community it created. So we don't feel that 'pickup' really represents what the site has to say about dating. Although we definitely do talk about meeting women. A lot. :)
3. While we're dedicated internet marketing students, we're far from experts on the subject. We're putting a lot of time and effort into improving the site's marketing, but our number one focus will always be on providing high quality content that is as no BS and realistic as possible. Hopefully anyone who came from HN and spends further time reading the site will agree.
I realize your comment wasn't a criticism, but just thought I'd try and give a bit more context to the situation. Thanks for assuming we were so professional!
I would say that it is a new trend for pick-up instructors to distance themselves from the pick-up industry mostly for marketing purposes. I think it's mostly semantics and at the end of the day, you're just fearing the phrase "pickup industries" focuses too much on the negative and not enough about the positives.
On the otherhand, as someone who's spent fair bit of time observing pickup companies, I will say that your marketing page seems very reasonable and not full of false promises common on most PU sites.
Our POV on what defines 'pickup' advice versus regular dating advice is that 'pickup' is the decision to objectify your sex life in order to improve it. We don't believe that this is a healthy or effective mindset, hence we don't define our material as 'pickup'.
Honestly, I think if you read some more of the site, for example http://postmasculine.com/why-its-so-hard or especially http://postmasculine.com/pickup-artist (warning: long) you'd come to the conclusion that we're a far shot from what most people associate pickup with. But it's up to you whether you want to spend the time :)