Sunday, 1 August 2010

POWERFUL and top ten countries of the world:



1. The United States of America
This country is the largest economy today and has the strongest army as well as a very powerful democracy. It is also said to be a superpower and its media is very influential as well. It has built itself and its power ever since it gained independence and is only getting more powerful. The country controls international relations and is a part of a number of influential bodies.

2. Russian Federation
The Russian Federation has the second most powerful army and controls a number of states in the Central Asian area. It has a very large population and immense world area. These factors allow it to stay independent and prevent external forces from meddling in the political, economic and financial issues of the country. Because of its size, Russia has the resources to become a superpower.

3. Peoples Republic of China
Peoples Republic of China is said to have the 4th largest GNP in the world. It has gained supremacy only recently over Britain and France. It has a large army and immense potential to become the most powerful country in the world.

4. France
France is a part of the UN Security Council and is said to be the fifth most powerful country in the world. It is a great nuclear power and influences many African nations. The French have a large army which helps in maintaining law and order. It is a G7 economy and part of the European Union.

5. Britain
Britain is part of the UN Security Council as well. It has powerful nuclear weapons and the democracy is considered to be the most stable as well. As a G7 economy and as a leading country in areas like music, films and media, the country has immense influence when it comes to world politics. It is a part of the European Union as well.

6. Japan
Japan has an extremely large economy and is a leading democratic power. The population of the country is large but since the competition is intense, it features below USA, China, France and Britain.

7. Republic of India
India is very populous and has a well-known democracy which gains its power from the detailed Constitution of India. The economy is growing at a staggering rate and the nuclear weapons are becoming more and more powerful.

8. Federal Republic of Germany
Germany has the third largest economy in the world and features in the list of the most powerful European Union members. However, it was greatly affected during the two World Wars which hampered its influence over the world.

9. Republic of Pakistan
Pakistan has a very large Muslim population and powerful nuclear weapons. It is a united country but since it spends a hefty sum on military dictatorship, it has not become truly powerful. In addition to that, even though it has good resources, the battles with India have made the country very weak in these terms as well. Therefore, if it can replenish these resources and find a way to balance its political standing, it will be able to become more powerful.

10. Republic of Brazil
The Republic of Brazil is very large and is part of Latin America. It is said to hold the largest Portuguese speaking population in the world. In addition to that, the media of the country is quite stable and its relations with the rest of the world are quite secure.
Click on :powerful and top ten countries of the world:
0 comments

Poverty in India is widespread with the nation estimated to have a third of the world's poor.

Poverty in India

Percent of population living under the poverty line, over the final quarter of the 20th century.
Poverty in India is widespread with the nation estimated to have a third of the world's poor. According to a 2005 World Bank estimate, 42% of India falls below the international poverty line of $1.25 a day (PPP, in nominal terms Rs. 21.6 a day in urban areas and Rs 14.3 in rural areas); having reduced from 90% in 1980.[1] According to the criterion used by the Planning Commission of India 27.5% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2004–2005, down from 51.3% in 1977–1978, and 36% in 1993-1994.[2] A study by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative using a Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) found that there were 421 million poor living under the MPI in 8 north indian states of Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. This number is higher than the 410 million poor living in the 26 poorest African nations.[3]
Since the 1950s, the Indian government and non-governmental organizations have initiated several programs to alleviate poverty, including subsidizing food and other necessities, increased access to loans, improving agricultural techniques and price supports, and promoting education and family planning. These measures have helped eliminate famines, cut absolute poverty levels by more than half, and reduced illiteracy and malnutrition.[4]

Contents

Poverty estimates

The World Bank estimates that 456 million Indians (41.6 % of the total Indian population) now live under the global poverty line of $1.25 per day (PPP). This means that a third of the global poor now reside in India. However, this also represents a significant decline in poverty from the 60 percent level in 1981 to 42 percent in 2005, although the rupee has decreased in value since then, while the official standard of 538/356 rupees per month has remained the same.[5][6] Income inequality in India (Gini coefficient: 32.5 in year 1999- 2000)[7] is increasing. On the other hand, the Planning Commission of India uses its own criteria and has estimated that 27.5% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2004–2005, down from 51.3% in 1977–1978, and 36% in 1993-1994[2]. The source for this was the 61st round of the National Sample Survey (NSS) and the criterion used was monthly per capita consumption expenditure below Rs. 356.35 for rural areas and Rs. 538.60 for urban areas. 75% of the poor are in rural areas, most of them are daily wagers, self-employed householders and landless labourers.
Although the Indian economy has grown steadily over the last two decades, its growth has been uneven when comparing different social groups, economic groups, geographic regions, and rural and urban areas.[4] Between 1999 and 2008, the annualized growth rates for Gujarat (8.8%), Haryana (8.7%), or Delhi (7.4%) were much higher than for Bihar (5.1%), Uttar Pradesh (4.4%), or Madhya Pradesh (3.5%).[8] Poverty rates in rural Orissa (43%) and rural Bihar (41%) are among the world's most extreme.[9] A study by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative using a Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI) found that there were 421 million poor living under the MPI in Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. This number is higher than the 410 million poor living in the 26 poorest African nations.[3]
Despite significant economic progress, one quarter of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of 12 rupees per day (approximately USD $0.25). Official figures estimate that 27.5%[10] of Indians lived below the national poverty line in 2004-2005.[11] A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees (approximately USD $0.50 nominal; $2 PPP) per day.[12] According to a recently released World Bank report, India is on track to meet its poverty reduction goals however, by 2015 an estimated 53 million people will still live in extreme poverty and 23.6% of the population will still live under $1.25 per day. This number is expected to reduce to 20.3% or 268 million people by 2020.[13] However, at the same time, the effects of the worldwide recession in 2009 have plunged 100 million more Indians into poverty than there were in 2004 increasing the effective poverty rate from 27.5% to 37.2%.[14]
As per the 2001 census, 35.5% of Indian households availed of banking services, 35.1% owned a radio or transistor, 31.6% a television, 9.1% a phone, 43.7% a bicycle, 11.7% a scooter, motorcycle or a moped, and 2.5% a car, jeep or van; 34.5% of the households had none of these assets. [15] According to Department of Telecommunications of India the phone density has reached 33.23% by Dec 2008 and has an annual growth of 40%. [16]

Causes of poverty in India

Caste system

Further information: Caste system in India
According to S. M. Michael, Dalits constitute the bulk of poor and unemployed.[17]
According to William A. Haviland, casteism is widespread in rural areas, and continues to segregate Dalits[18]. Others, however, have noted the steady rise and empowerment of the Dalits through social reforms and the implementation of reservations in employment and benefits.[19][20]
Caste explanations of poverty fail to account for the urban/rural divide. Using the UN definition of poverty 65% of rural forward castes are below the poverty line.[21]

British era

The Mughal era ended at about 1760. Jawaharlal Nehru claimed "A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today."[10] The Indian economy was purposely and severely deindustrialized (especially in the areas of textiles and metal-working) through colonial privatizations, regulations, tariffs on manufactured or refined Indian goods, taxes, and direct seizures, as noted by linguist and commentator Noam Chomsky.[22].
Quoting Shashi Tharoor, former UN Undersecretary-General and author, in his book The Great Indian Novel, "...the British killed the Indian artisan, they created the Indian landless laborer, they exported our full employment and they invented our poverty."[23]
However, according to economist Angus Maddison, such explanation ignores the role of changes in demand and technology.[24]

India's economic policies

A rural worker drying cow dung in Bihar.
In 1947, the average annual income in India was $439, compared with $619 for China, $770 for South Korea, and $936 for Taiwan. By 1999, the numbers were $1,818; $3,259; $13,317; and $15,720.[25] (numbers are in 1990 international Maddison dollars) In other words, the average income in India was not much different from South Korea in 1947, but South Korea became a developed country by 2000s. At the same time, India was left as one of the world's poorer countries.
Hindu rate of growth is an expression used to refer to the low annual growth rate of the economy of India, which stagnated around 3.5% from 1950s to 1980s, while per capita income averaged 1.3%.[26] At the same time, Pakistan grew by 5%, Indonesia by 6%, Thailand by 7%, Taiwan by 8%, and South Korea by 9%.[27] The term was coined by Indian economist Raj Kumar Krishna.
License Raj refers to the elaborate licenses, regulations and the accompanying red tape that were required to set up and run business in India between 1947 and 1990.[28] The License Raj was a result of India's decision to have a planned economy, where all aspects of the economy are controlled by the state and licenses were given to a select few. Corruption flourished under this system.[29]
The labyrinthine bureaucracy often led to absurd restrictions - up to 80 agencies had to be satisfied before a firm could be granted a licence to produce and the state would decide what was produced, how much, at what price and what sources of capital were used.
—BBC[30]
India had started out in the 1950s with:[31]
  • high growth rates
  • openness to trade and investment
  • a promotional state
  • social expenditure awareness
  • macro stability
but ended the 1980s with:[31]
  • low growth rates (Hindu rate of growth)
  • closure to trade and investment
  • a license-obsessed, restrictive state (License Raj)
  • inability to sustain social expenditures
  • macro instability, indeed crisis.
Poverty has decreased significantly since reforms were started in the 1980s.[32][33]
Also:
  • Over-reliance on agriculture. There is a surplus of labour in agriculture. Farmers are a large vote bank and use their votes to resist reallocation of land for higher-income industrial projects. While services and industry have grown at double digit figures, agriculture growth rate has dropped from 4.8% to 2%. About 60% of the population depends on agriculture whereas the contribution of agriculture to the GDP is about 18%.[34]
  • High population growth rate, although demographers generally agree that this is a symptom rather than cause of poverty.
Despite this, India currently adds 40 million people to its middle class every year.[citation needed] Analysts such as the founder of "Forecasting International", Marvin J. Cetron writes that an estimated 300 million Indians now belong to the middle class; one-third of them have emerged from poverty in the last ten years. At the current rate of growth, a majority of Indians will be middle-class by 2025. Literacy rates have risen from 52 percent to 65 percent in the same period.[35]

Neo-liberal policies and their effects

Other points of view hold that the economic reforms initiated in the early 1990s are responsible for the collapse of rural economies and the agrarian crisis currently underway. As journalist and the Rural Affairs editor for The Hindu, P Sainath describes in his reports on the rural economy in India, the level of inequality has risen to extraordinary levels, when at the same time, hunger in India has reached its highest level in decades. He also points out that rural economies across India have collapsed, or on the verge of collapse due to the neo-liberal policies of the government of India since the 1990s[36]. The human cost of the "liberalisation" has been very high. The huge wave of farm suicides in Indian rural population from 1997 to 2007 totaled close to 200,000, according to official statistics[37]. That number remains disputed, with some saying the true number is much higher. Commentators have faulted the policies pursued by the government which, according to Sainath, resulted in a very high portion of rural households getting into the debt cycle, resulting in a very high number of farm suicides. As professor Utsa Patnaik, India’s top economist on agriculture, has pointed out, the average poor family in 2007 has about 100 kg less food per year than it did in 1997[38].
Government policies encouraging farmers to switch to cash crops, in place of traditional food crops, has resulted in an extraordinary increase in farm input costs, while market forces determined the price of the cash crop[39]. Sainath points out that a disproportionately large number of affected farm suicides have occurred with cash crops, because with food crops such as rice, even if the price falls, there is food left to survive on. He also points out that inequality has reached one of the highest rates India has ever seen. In a report by Chetan Ahya, Executive Director at Morgan Stanley, it is pointed out that there has been a wealth increase of close to $1 Trillion in the time frame of 2003-2007 in the Indian stock market, while only 4-7% of the Indian population hold any equity[40]. During the time when Public investment in agriculture shrank to 2% of the GDP, the nation suffered the worst agrarian crisis in decades, the same time as India became the nation of second highest number of dollar billionaires[41]. Sainath argues that
Farm incomes have collapsed. Hunger has grown very fast. Public investment in agriculture shrank to nothing a long time ago. Employment has collapsed. Non-farm employment has stagnated. (Only the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act has brought some limited relief in recent times.) Millions move towards towns and cities where, too, there are few jobs to be found.
In one estimate, over 85 per cent of rural households are either landless, sub-marginal, marginal or small farmers. Nothing has happened in 15 years that has changed that situation for the better. Much has happened to make it a lot worse.
Those who have taken their lives were deep in debt – peasant households in debt doubled in the first decade of the neoliberal “economic reforms,” from 26 per cent of farm households to 48.6 per cent. Meanwhile, all along, India kept reducing investment in agriculture (standard neoliberal procedure). Life was being made more and more impossible for small farmers.
As of 2006, the government spends less than 0.2% of GDP on agriculture and less than 3% of GDP on education[42]. However, some government schemes such as the mid-day meal scheme, and the NREGA have been partially successful in providing a lifeline for the rural economy and curbing the further rise of poverty.

Efforts to alleviate poverty

Since the early 1950s, govt has initiated, sustained, and refined various planning schemes to help the poor attain self sufficiency in food production. Probably the most important initiative has been the supply of basic commodities, particularly food at controlled prices, available throughout the country as poor spend about 80 percent of their income on food.

Outlook for poverty alleviation

Eradication of poverty in India is generally only considered to be a long-term goal. Poverty alleviation is expected to make better progress in the next 50 years than in the past, as a trickle-down effect of the growing middle class. Increasing stress on education, reservation of seats in government jobs and the increasing empowerment of women and the economically weaker sections of society, are also expected to contribute to the alleviation of poverty. It is incorrect to say that all poverty reduction programmes have failed. The growth of the middle class (which was virtually non-existent when India became a free nation in August 1947) indicates that economic prosperity has indeed been very impressive in India, but the distribution of wealth is not at all even.
After the liberalization process and moving away from the socialist model, India is adding 60 to 70 million people to its middle class every year. Analysts such as the founder of "Forecasting International", Marvin J. Cetron writes that an estimated 390 million Indians now belong to the middle class; one-third of them have emerged from poverty in the last ten years. At the current rate of growth, a majority of Indians will be middle-class by 2025. Literacy rates have risen from 52 percent to 65 percent during the initial decade of liberalization (1991-2001).[citation needed]

Controversy over extent of poverty reduction

The definition of poverty in India has been called into question by the UN World Food Programme. In its report on global hunger index, it questioned the government of India's definition of poverty saying:
The fact that calorie deprivation is increasing during a period when the proportion of rural population below the poverty line is said to be declining rapidly, highlights the increasing disconnect between official poverty estimates and calorie deprivation.[43]
While total overall poverty in India has declined, the extent of poverty reduction is often debated. While there is a consensus that there has not been increase in poverty between 1993-94 and 2004-05, the picture is not so clear if one considers other non-pecuniary dimensions (such as health, education, crime and access to infrastructure). With the rapid economic growth that India is experiencing, it is likely that a significant fraction of the rural population will continue to migrate toward cities, making the issue of urban poverty more significant in the long run [44].
Some, like journalist P Sainath, hold the view that while absolute poverty may not have increased, India remains at a abysmal rank in the UN Human Development Index. India is positioned at 132ond place in the 2007-08 UN HDI index. It is the lowest rank for the country in over 10 years. In 1992, India was at 122ond place in the same index. It can even be argued that the situation has become worse on critical indicators of overall well-being such as the number of people who are undernourished (India has the highest number of malnourished people, at 230 million, and is 94th of 119 in the world hunger index), and the number of malnourished children (43% of India's children under 5 are underweight (BMI<18.5), the highest in the world) as of 2008[45].
Economist Pravin Visaria has defended the validity of many of the statistics that demonstrated the reduction in overall poverty in India, as well as the declaration made by India's former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha that poverty in India has reduced significantly. He insisted that the 1999-2000 survey was well designed and supervised and felt that just because they did not appear to fit preconceived notions about poverty in India, they should not be dismissed outright[46]. Nicholas Stern, vice president of the World Bank, has published defenses of the poverty reduction statistics. He argues that increasing globalization and investment opportunities have contributed significantly to the reduction of poverty in the country. India, together with China, have shown the clearest trends of globalization with the accelerated rise in per-capita income.[47].
A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees per day (USD 0.50 nominal, USD 2.0 in PPP), with most working in "informal labour sector with no job or social security, living in abject poverty."[48][49] However, a new report from the UN disputes this, finding that the number of people living on $1.25 a day is expected to go down from 435 million or 51.3 percent in 1990 to 295 million or 23.6 percent by 2015 and 268 million or 20.3 percent by 2020. [50]
A study by the McKinsey Global Institute found that in 1985, 93% of the Indian population lived on a household income of less than 90,000 rupees a year, or about a dollar per person per day; by 2005 that proportion had been cut nearly in half, to 54%. More than 103 million people have moved out of desperate poverty in the course of one generation in urban and rural areas as well. They project that if India can achieve 7.3% annual growth over the next 20 years, 465 million more people will be lifted out of poverty. Contrary to popular perceptions, rural India has benefited from this growth: extreme rural poverty has declined from 94% in 1985 to 61% in 2005, and they project that it will drop to 26% by 2025. Report concludes that India's economic reforms and the increased growth that has resulted have been the most successful anti-poverty programmes in the country.[51][52][53]

Persistence of malnutrition among children

According to the New York Times, is estimated that about 42.5% of the children in India suffer from malnutrition.[54] The World Bank, citing estimates made by the World Health Organization, states "that about 49 per cent of the world's underweight children, 34 per cent of the world's stunted children and 46 per cent of the world's wasted children, live in India." The World Bank also noted that "[w]hile poverty is often the underlying cause of malnutrition in children, the superior economic growth experienced by South Asian countries compared to those in Sub-Saharan Africa, has not translated into superior nutritional status for the South Asian child."[55]
A special commission to the Indian Supreme court has noted that the child malnutrition rate in India is twice as great as sub-Saharan Africa [56]

See also

References

  1. ^ ."New Global Poverty Estimates — What it means for India". World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/INDIAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21880725~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:295584,00.html. 
  2. ^ a b Poverty estimates for 2004-05, Planning commission, Government of India, March 2007. Accessed: August 25, 2007
  3. ^ a b "8 Indian states have more poor than 26 poorest African nations". Times of India. July 12, 2010. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/8-Indian-states-have-more-poor-than-26-poorest-African-nations/articleshow/6158960.cms. 
  4. ^ a b ""Inclusive Growth and Service delivery: Building on India’s Success"" (PDF). World Bank. 2006. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/SOUTHASIAEXT/Resources/DPR_FullReport.pdf. Retrieved 2007-04-28. 
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ [2]
  7. ^ "Fact Sheet: Gini Coefficient" (PDF). Source: The World Bank (2004) and Census and Statistics Department (2002). Legislative Council Secretariat Hong Kong. http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr04-05/english/sec/library/0405fs07e.pdf. Retrieved 2007-08-01. "Note: The Gini coefficient in this datasheet is calculated on a scale of 0 to 1 and not 0 to 100. Hence, on a scale of 100 India's Gini coefficient (1999-2000) is 32.5 rather than 3.25" 
  8. ^ A special report on India: Ruled by Lakshmi Dec 11th 2008 From The Economist print edition
  9. ^ "Development Policy Review". World Bank. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/0,,contentMDK:20980493~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:223547,00.html. 
  10. ^ This figure is extremely sensitive to the surveying methodology used. The Uniform Recall Period (URP) gives 27.5%. The Mixed Recall Period (MRP) gives a figure of 21.8%
  11. ^ Planning commission of India. Poverty estimates for 2004-2005
  12. ^ "Nearly 80 Percent of India Lives On Half Dollar A Day". Reuters. August 10, 2007. http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL218894. Retrieved 2007-08-15. 
  13. ^ "India on track to meet poverty reduction goal: World Bank". Economic Times. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/India-on-track-to-meet-poverty-reduction-goal-World-Bank/articleshow/5850202.cms. 
  14. ^ Bappa Majumdar, Abhijit Neogy (April 18, 2010). "100 million more Indians now living in poverty". Reuters India. http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-47791820100418. 
  15. ^ "Households Availing Banking Services with Households in India". Town and Country Planning Organisation, Ministry of Urban Affairs. 2001. http://urbandia.nic.in/moud/theministry/subordinateoff/tcpo/REPORTON_BANKINGSERVICES/CHAPTER-1.pdf. Retrieved 2009-07-31. 
  16. ^ "Department of Telecom, memo Feb 2009". Department of Telecommunication of India. 2009. http://www.dot.gov.in/network/2008/networkstatus_Dec2008.pdf. 
  17. ^ Untouchable By S. M. Michael
  18. ^ William A. Haviland, Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 10th edition, Thomson Wadsworth, 2005, ISBN 0-534-62361-1, p. 575.
  19. ^ Mendelsohn, Oliver & Vicziany, Maria, "The Untouchables, Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India", Cambridge University Press, 1998
  20. ^ Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman, Angela Bodino, Racism: A Global Reader P21, M.E. Sharpe, 2003 ISBN 0-7656-1060-4.
  21. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_caste
  22. ^ [3]
  23. ^ [4]
  24. ^ http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/articles/moghul_3.pdf
  25. ^ MEGHNAD DESAI (2003). "INDIA and CHINA: AN ESSAY IN COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ECONOMY". IMF. http://www.imf.org/external/np/apd/seminars/2003/newdelhi/desai.pdf. 
  26. ^ Redefining The Hindu Rate Of Growth. The Financial Express
  27. ^ "Industry passing through phase of transition". The Tribune India. http://www.tribuneindia.com/50yrs/kapur.htm. 
  28. ^ Street Hawking Promise Jobs in Future, The Times of India, 2001-11-25
  29. ^ The India Report. Astaire Research
  30. ^ India: the economy. Published in 1998 by BBC.
  31. ^ a b "What Went Wrong: Derailing after the 1950s". http://epress.anu.edu.au/narayanan/mobile_devices/ch03s02.html. 
  32. ^ Datt, Ruddar & Sundharam, K.P.M.. "22". Indian Economy. pp. 367,369,370. 
  33. ^ Sarkaritel.com : Corporate News & Features : Highlights of Economic Survey 2004-2005
  34. ^ India CIA World Fact Book. August 7, 2008. Retrieved August 20, 2008.
  35. ^ Dr. Marvin J, Cetron
  36. ^ thehindu.com/2009/04/03/stories
  37. ^ counterpunch.org
  38. ^ counterpunch.org
  39. ^ thehindu.com/2007/08/09/stories
  40. ^ economictimes.indiatimes.com
  41. ^ thehindu.com/2009/03/18/stories
  42. ^ rupe-india.org/39/shaping.html
  43. ^ [5]
  44. ^ The Multidimensions of Urban Poverty in India, Centre de Sciences Humaines - New Delhi
  45. ^ [6]
  46. ^ Lifting The Poverty Veil J. Ramesh, India Today
  47. ^ World Bank ICRIER
  48. ^ Nearly 80 pct of India lives on half dollar a day, Reuters, August 10, 2007. Accessed: August 15, 2007
  49. ^ "Report on Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganised Sector" [7] ], National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, Government of India, August, 2007. Accessed: August 25, 2007.
  50. ^ [8], The Economic Times, April 23, 2010. Accessed: May 27, 2007]
  51. ^ [9]
  52. ^ India's middle class - Tracking the growth of India’s middle class - Economic Studies - Country Reports - The McKinsey Quarterly
  53. ^ The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Business
  54. ^ Sengupta, Somini (March 13, 2009). "As Indian Growth Soars, Child Hunger Persists". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/world/asia/13malnutrition.html?_r=1. Retrieved May 22, 2010. 
  55. ^ "'India has highest number of underweight children'". The Indian Express. 2009-04-14. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/india-has-highest-number-of-underweight-children/446829/. Retrieved 2009-04-28. 
  56. ^ http://www.medindia.net/news/Malnutrition-Among-Indian-Children-Worse-Than-in-Sub-Saharan-Africa-30955-1.htm

Further reading

0 comments

PAKISTAN IS NOT A FAILED STATE BUT INDIA IS:BY Ranjit Goswami

India-the failed state of South Asia

October 12, 2009

India – a failed state ? by Ranjit Goswami
South Asia is in a sorrow state – much of its own making. India is in a sorrow state – as yesterday (8th October, 2009) Naxals killed 17 policemen in Maharashtra and in Kabul, another attempt to blast Indian embassy resulted in similar number of deaths.
What’s happening in India? What’s happening in South Asia? And why?
Not long ago, Indian media was gung ho on ‘India superpower’ topic. I was one of the few skeptics – not because I am less or more patriotic. It’s something similar to the views one Singapore-based Indian fund manager once said: whenever in his TV interviews he states Sensex may correct more than many other markets, he has been perceived as a non-patriotic.
The last two years may or may not have seen decoupling conclusively – however one decoupling that has happened conclusively is comparing India along with China in global forums and media. President Obama would be visiting Asia next month – India does not feature in the list of nations.
India, like China, deserves to be a superpower if counted by its population only. However sadly, in global stage, population numbers don’t count. And India still struggles to get a seat in the UNP5.
Question is: how much has India (and whole of South Asia) prospered relatively in (1) infrastructure, biggest of which is education; (2) regional collaboration, and (3) social justice over the last two or three decades? The world has been more concerned about Sub-Saharan Africa (and good to see they score better compared to South Asia in many parameters of HDI) whereas South Asia has further created problems of its own.
It was comforting to see Rahul Gandhi recognizing part of the Naxal-problem, true with some political color, when he attributed lack of governance and improvement of quality of life as the root cause. On the Naxalite menance, Home Minister Chidambarm is again right when he said that agitation and terrorism by Naxalites is hampering further progress of these backward regions. But that’s the obvious well-known problem, and not the solution. In-spite of that problem, we need to find a solution going beyond the chicken and egg story of vicious cycles of poverty to destructive agitations.
Externally too, India does not feature prominently in ASEAN or in discussions when many Asian nations talk about a common currency following the Euro.
The ‘easy and acceptable’ Indian view of above would be India faced tremendous challenge from inside out (diversity along with terrorism leave aside corruption) and outside in (unfriendly neighbors). The best example of the inside problem is the presence of elements like Raj Thackeray in Indian politics, whom media projected recently and who proudly showed his concern for Maharashtra by speaking in Marathi in national channels. Credits must be due to both Raj Thackeray and those channels!
The other view could be – can something else work because following the same path has not solved domestic problems, neither has Indian stature in AfPak, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or even with China has gone up in recent years. One can even include Iran and Myanmar in South Asia, and again indecisiveness of India has acted against Indian interest (or broader interest of humanity) there. The reason is primarily Indian indecisiveness.
Best example of that is found when no one globally notices India as a responsible nuclear power (unlike Pakistan or even China), however what they notice is India has not signed the NPT.
The best example of this indecisiveness is epitomized in many an external relationship. I often heard from Indian Diaspora in African continent that whenever due to a natural calamity, some country there is affected – India takes years to send food grains/relief materials (due to bureaucratic delays) whereas assistance from China reaches them in days. It helps in creating public opinion.
Columnists (or bloggers) live with critics and one such feedback (by one Andrew) to one of my earlier related columns in BNN read like: ‘This is why India has no friend in the world because India is always so selfish. If India become a superpower, it will be the most selfish country too.’
For deliberate reason, I avoided the next sentence that Andrew had in his feedback. However as one sees how India stands in regional and global forums, one can’t but avoid noticing that India doesn’t have much friends to count on in the world or even within South Asia (or broader Asia). And leave aside the blowing Indian mainstream media, in the grassroot levels, India may not have many friends of its domestic policies too if the Naxal problem is indeed as deep as it’s popularly projected (25% of Indian districts). Naxals may be one such dividing force, India actually has many more. And surprisingly, all these happen in the land of Mahatma Gandhi!
I could not help but write a painful spoof article on that sometime back (India warns Iraq with Cold War rhetoric). One can replace Iraq with AfPak today whereas India again remains the common contender.
It’s time probably India relooks at its South Asian policies – ensuring militants are never helped by neighboring countries trying to settle scores with India (or any other countries). A true spirit of partnership rather than outdoing each-other is what is needed in all of South Asia, including India. A stable Pakistan is in India’s interest and so is for Pakistan. A strong China can be for India’s interest and as the largest power in South Asia, respecting India’s rightful positions can be of China’s interest. And all these interests can benefit 20% or more global people who live in South Asia. Even it is time that the west (the US, EU) involves local powers (India and also China) in solving their problems in AfPak.
India should also ensure that domestic imbalances are taken care from its roots rather than parliamentarian speeches and faulty policy-implementations. That probably demands reviewing how the Constitution works in grass-root levels.
India and whole of South Asia indeed needs a lot of genuine help from rest of the world – for the betterment of South Asia and for the betterment of the world. The rest of the world should not find faults with South Asia – due to its inherent unique historical characteristics. They should rather try genuinely to resolve same.
Lastly – this article needs a disclaimer. ‘India – a failed state’ may raise a lot of eyebrows within India and unnecessary criticism by being ‘not in the same page’ (or for South Asia). One such example comes to mind when a recent UN discussion talked about comparing caste based differentiation with racism and applying same to India. Many in India viewed that would embarrass India. But the truth is something deeper (and as stated by Rahul Gandhi again when he said he doesn’t believe in caste) and may be in grass-root Indian culture. Can we ask the UN to help us resolve that problem rather than finding fault with our historical diversity or even denying the problem? Can we ask UN to help us in improving literacy rather than lecturing alone (and spare the public-private mode there)?
The objective of the article is to ensure India should never be anywhere close to a failed state and South Asia should never look like a failed region. But recent events are indeed disturbing. By taking the worst possible scenario, it’s time to re-think how India as the largest country in South Asia and as one deeply affected formalizes her internal policies and external relationships. India, due to her stature in South Asia, definitely owns a significant responsibility in bringing peace, stability and growth in the whole region. However lately we only see failures. And the blame games can’t continue.
The best thing one can learn from the media in the west is to critically self-evaluate oneself rather than glorifying oneself (what China so far does). Indian media would probably do more justice to India by critically (and not superficially) examining the effectiveness of India’s external and internal policies, if anything like that at all exists. And that goes for countries in other South Asian nations as well.
One can learn from failures, alternatively one can sink further in those failures. If Russia and the US can do business leaving aside cold war memories, if the US and the communist China can do business for mutual benefit; why can’t China, India (and if need be with Pakistan, Bangladesh and others) do business for mutual benefit?
It’s time to think outside the box for the problems that India and whole of South Asia faces. That genuine out of the box thinking must start from India, percolate to the other South Asian nations and finally to the rest of the world.
Ranjit can be followed at Twitter @ http://twitter.com/RanjiGoswami
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...