Urban, rural divide could break India: Laloo

[Bull]

The divide between communities is growing at much higher rate as compared to GDP growth, this is what the head of one of the largest political parties in India is trying to convay to those whose eyes can only see High Rises and ignore those who die like anything because of inequality.

Can u show a developing country like India's which has addressed the rich-poor gap much better?

 

[Goodperson]

Well atleast he had the heart to let the officials do their job. I hate this Indian mentality which refuses to give credit when its due.

How many ministers came and went, the officials were still there and yeah for those who say about Indian growth , its been growing since early 90s. Laloo deserves credit for the IR turn around.

What about Laloos credit in Bihar ? He still dreams of coming back to power in Bihar to bring the state into full misery.

 

[MirBadshah]

The great Indian divide

PRABHAT DATTA

The sharp increase in rural-urban disparities in India after decades of planned development is alarming, for planning itself was conceived as an instrument to narrow down such disparities.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2114/stories/20040716002009000.htm

A beautiful study by Hindu net.

 

[alamgir]

Lalu Yadav is purely BSing. I've posted this chart somewhere before & I am doing it here again. Look at the chart & tell me where do you see the divide?

http://imageshack.us

In 94-95, there were 80 million households living under $470 a year. Now, the number has reduced to 50 mln. Whereas, middle income group has doubled from 77 mln in 94-95 to 153 mln. So, tell me where is the divide growing?

some facts & figures on poverty in India
- people below poverty line: about 260 million (acc. to AB Vajpayee feb 04)
- poor living in India: one quarter of the world's poor [BBC Aug 04]
- people living on less than 1 Euro per day (50-55 Rs) 2004: about 30 % of population
- * number of people in India living on less than 50 pence per day: about 300 million [BBC News Night, Oct 2006]
- number of people living in slums: 150 million [BBC 15 sep 2004]
- people in Mumbai living in shanty towns, open spaces, or on pavements: 50% of
Mumbai's population [BBC, Nov 2005]
- world's largest slum: located in Mumbai; Dharavi, 432 acres
- number of inhabited buildings declared as dangerous or dilapidated in Mumbai:
19,000 [BBC; Sep 2005]


- children under 3 years of age in Orissa severely malnourished: 21 % (Feb 04, acc to
National Family Health Survey); or 3.8 % (acc. to data collected by the state)
- tribal children below the age of six who have died of malnourishment-related causes
in 15 districts of Maharashtra: 9,000 (between Apr 2003 and May 2004)
- number of street children in Delhi: 150,000 estimate [BBC; Sep 2005]

www.neoncarrot.co.uk

 

[con]

some facts & figures on poverty in India
- people below poverty line: about 260 million (acc. to AB Vajpayee feb 04)

That leaves almost 840 million above poverty line..almost double of the whole population of America.

- poor living in India: one quarter of the world's poor [BBC Aug 04]

-
May because it also has almost 1/6 of the world population.

people living on less than 1 Euro per day (50-55 Rs) 2004: about 30 % of population
- * number of people in India living on less than 50 pence per day: about 300 million [BBC News Night, Oct 2006]

mate read that once. less than 1 euro =30% and less than 50 pence=300 million(almost 32%) ??????

-largest slum: located in Mumbai; Dharavi, 432 acres

This one seems to the most fav for Pakistanis when they have to discuss something about India. Even my roommate who is a Pakistani would point this first,if I have an argument with him. Always. He has no other points for the argument.

Now for some enlightment about the China.. the economic miracle!

China's poverty line of 680 yuan (US$85) per capita net income a year is too low for subsistence and fails to spread the benefits

http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/poverty/178978.htm

Now isn't that cheeky that to keep only $85 as the poverty line declare they have only 90 million under poverty line?

India is measured with around 1 euro per day that is 365 euro per year or around $530.

voooooooo naughty chinese!

 

[Bushroda]

some facts & figures on poverty in India
- people below poverty line: about 260 million (acc. to AB Vajpayee feb 04)
- poor living in India: one quarter of the world's poor [BBC Aug 04]
- people living on less than 1 Euro per day (50-55 Rs) 2004: about 30 % of population
- * number of people in India living on less than 50 pence per day: about 300 million [BBC News Night, Oct 2006]
- number of people living in slums: 150 million [BBC 15 sep 2004]
- people in Mumbai living in shanty towns, open spaces, or on pavements: 50% of
Mumbai's population [BBC, Nov 2005]
- world's largest slum: located in Mumbai; Dharavi, 432 acres
- number of inhabited buildings declared as dangerous or dilapidated in Mumbai:
19,000 [BBC; Sep 2005]


- children under 3 years of age in Orissa severely malnourished: 21 % (Feb 04, acc to
National Family Health Survey); or 3.8 % (acc. to data collected by the state)
- tribal children below the age of six who have died of malnourishment-related causes
in 15 districts of Maharashtra: 9,000 (between Apr 2003 and May 2004)
- number of street children in Delhi: 150,000 estimate [BBC; Sep 2005]

www.neoncarrot.co.uk

Thanks Alamgir for your insight. Now, Let me show the other side of India

Poverty reducing in India

World poverty reduced by growth in India and China

The 6 Giants of Global Profits - China, India, Brazil, Canada, Austrailia and Japan

China, India guarantee global economic growth

EXCLUSIVE: INDIA: BMW plant could build Mini

India's Knowledge Spas Will Create Jobs, Wealth: Andy Mukherjee

Indian economy expected to grow at 9 pc in 2007

India: Economy grows 9.2% in 2006-07

Viewpoint: India has blueprint for success

India preferred by o'seas investors

Luxembourg to outsource health services to India

As medical tourism industry rises, India becomes destination hotspot

India to become 2nd Largest Economy of World by 2050

India retains its position in the league of the Top 5 travel destinations in the world

Medical Tourism: India is the Favorable Destination in the World

India's rough passage to prosperity

Gateway to prosperity
Already a tech power, India hopes to build a reputation for innovation

Indian IT, outsourcing exports to top $60 bn by 2010

Mumbai tops must-see list

I've got thousands more with me only that I don't have time at the moment

 

[Bushroda]

- world's largest slum: located in Mumbai; Dharavi, 432 acres

Here is what is in store for Dharavi

Dharavi slum set for Rs 9,000-cr makeover
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA
Posted online: Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 1310 hours IST
Updated: Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 1311 hours IST

MUMBAI, APRIL 12: A path-breaking effort is being initiated by Maharashtra government in 'total-township development' incorporating a holistic approach for development and rehabilitation of Asia's biggest slum - Dharavi.
Known world-wide, Dharavi- the 535-acre sprawling shanty of extreme conditions in central Mumbai- garnered special attention of Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh under his Mumbai

"We are attempting a unique effort in pioneering redevelopment of Dharavi into a total township involving a holistic approach," Principal Secretary, Maharashtra government, Swadheen S Kshatriya told PTI.

"The estimated Rs 9,000-crore project envisages an 'in-city' rehabilitation of almost 60,000 families."

Dharavi, sits in the heart of the world's third largest city and India's financial capital. It mushroomed over years, including migrant population who often landed in the city of dreams empty-handed, seeking a livelihood.

Variously described, it has been a cause of crime, pollution, ***** and environmental degradation mainly due to congestion, bad constructions, un-authorised trades and overpopulation.

"The government is now keen on re-graphing and developing the area into a dignified township," Kshatriya said.

The need for cleaning, decongesting and rehabilitating the slum was felt by the Maharashtra government three years ago and the venture was christened "Dharavi Redevelopment Project" (DRP) a year later. Finally, a go-ahead has been given with tenders to be floated in about a month.

The proposals were approved in principal in 2003 and Cabinet approval was granted in 2004. However, several local issues, announcement of elections, adverse public opinion and protests by activists, had led to delays as government was keen to address grievances before putting plans into action.

Now DRP addresses most of the concerns, which explains the "in-citu". "It is one of a kind project where in-citu people will be rehabilitated...these 6 lakh are not going anywhere...DRP has addressed issues of employment, production methods, and housing... all in the same area", Kshatriya pointed out.

A meeting of the empowered committee to discuss project -related matters was held on April 7, and was attended by Chief Secretary D K Shankaran, senior bureaucrats from government, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and also industrialists.

and here is what Pakistan's Sindh government wants for Karachi

Govt plans to give Clifton slum Mumbai makeover

* Bewildered residents think CDGK bent on dislocating them
* SKAA wants to build high-rise apartment blocks on self-finance basis for colonies in experiment
By Amar Guriro

KARACHI: The Sindh government is thinking of building high-rise apartment blocks over two katchi abadis in an experiment it hopes will replicate what the Indian government did in Asia’s largest slum, Dharavi in Mumbai.

According to the plan, the two ‘model’ katchi abadis, Shah Rasool Colony in Clifton and Essa Goth in North Nazimabad, will be chosen first primarily due to their ethnic compositions, Daily Times has learnt. Essa Goth is predominantly made up of Sindhi-speaking people and the people of Shah Rasool Colony are mostly Sindhi-, Urdu- and Pushto-speaking.

The Sindh Katchi Abadi Authority (SKAA) made this proposal to the Sindh government for a which a meeting is expected to take place today at Governor House.

If this project is successful, SKAA will extend this plan to 539 katchi abadis which were notified after March 23, 1985.

In Dharavi, the Indian government built 10 high-rise flats on a self-finance basis out of which two were sold to pay for the project and the remaining eight towers were handed over to the residents of the settlement. “This is a unique kind of plan in which these settlements will be modernized into posh localities,” SKAA DG Sindh Ali Ahmed Lund told Daily Times Tuesday. He said that the proposed plan would change the entire shape of these settlements.

According to the plan, in the first stage, a part of the project will be built on an empty plot. Families will then be moved into these flats and construction will start on the land they have vacated. “We are sure that the residents will agree to such a modernization project,” Lund said, adding that his department has planned to hold seminars, walks and mass awareness programs to persuade the residents to agree to this project.

The government may face an uphill task though. On Monday, the residents of Shah Rasool Colony prevented a three-member SKAA team from surveying the katchi abadi. The team had gone there to collect basic information needed for the PC-1 for the project such as the number of residents in the colony, the number of houses and any existing development schemes.

When the team entered the colony, started asking residents for information and started distributing a form, the news spread like jungle fire. Panicked residents came out thinking that the team had come to force them to vacate the land. This panic reached a climax in a protest demonstration by the women and children of the colony who chanted slogans against the city district government as they mistakenly believed it had sent the team. They warned the team that any move to push them out would be resisted.

The SKAA survey team was given the cold shoulder and it had to leave. Residents said that the government had to make an agreement with them before initiating any plans on their land.

 

[alamgir]

India on 20 Cents a Day

How do we ignore the poor? Let me count the ways.
by Aseem Shrivastava

The World Bank started making international comparisons of poverty only about two decades back. For obvious reasons of convenience, it developed two simple notions of poverty. The lower poverty line was set at $1 a day per capita. Those below it were considered to be “the poorest of the poor.” The upper poverty line was set at $2 a day. Those living on $1 to 2 a day were still poor, but not as bad off.
However, there was a problem. It was realized that $1 goes much farther in purchasing necessary items of consumption in a poor country than in a rich one. To make purchasing power across countries comparable, economists developed what is known as the PPP (purchasing power parity) index. Taking into account the lower cost of living in impoverished countries, a conversion factor is now applied to market exchange rates to calculate what is minimally necessary to survive there. Using World Bank numbers, applying this conversion factor for India effectively means that if you survive on 1 PPP dollar a day in that country, it is equivalent to being given 20 cents in your hand in the U.S.
A dominant impression is that the poor are living on less than $1 a day. In fact, it would be enormously more accurate, as far as everyday English is concerned, to say that the poor across the world are living on less than 20 cents a day. The reason why this is not done is obvious: It would give an even-more-alarming picture of the scale and depth of poverty across this enormously wealthy world. Most decent people are shocked enough by the understated numbers in the form they are widely quoted. More reality would numb and paralyze even the grittiest of activists. “Humanity,” T.S. Eliot wrote, “cannot bear much reality.” He had the privileged in mind.

The most recent World Bank estimates for India are based on household surveys carried out in 1999-2000. It was found that almost 80 percent of India’s population was surviving on less than $2.15 a day (in PPP terms). That is, about 800 million people were living on 40 cents a day or less. Nearly 35 percent (350 million) were found to be living on 20 cents a day or less. Thanks to the subtleties of PPP calculations, it may quite possibly be the case that the number of people across the world who are not able to meet the minimum standards for adequate nutrition is anywhere from 3 to 4 billion, rather than the officially estimated 2.7 billion who are estimated to be living under $2 a day. No one really knows. In other words, we could be off by a whole continent!IN OUR INCREASINGLY packaged consumerist world, even global poverty figures must ultimately arrive in a wrapping that is not unpalatably unattractive to the public. Trickle-down will ultimately work, we are repeatedly assured by growth economists. But faith in trickle-down, as John Kenneth Galbraith is said to have remarked, is a bit like feeding race horses superior oats so that starving sparrows can forage in their dung. All indications, especially in parts of the world like rural India, are that a decade and a half of corporate globalization has left undernutrition and malnutrition all but intact and might quite possibly have worsened the predicament for many millions.

Perhaps we would do well to remember Einstein’s counsel: “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” We only count and measure what is useful, important, or interesting to us. By using a severely distorted measure like a poverty line pegged unreasonably low, public authorities and governments reveal that they don’t care nearly as much about poverty as they do, for instance, about the growth rate or the stock market index. The poverty measurement industry loses much sleep and sweat over details that do not matter much. The big picture, perhaps unsurprisingly, is inaccurately reported.

If global poverty statistics are not disseminated accurately, the facts on the ground will only get worse—thanks to misinformed policy-making, among other things. And the potential consequences across the globe could be nothing short of catastrophic.

www.sojo.net

 

[Bull]

What about Laloos credit in Bihar ? He still dreams of coming back to power in Bihar to bring the state into full misery.

I never supported all actions of Laloo. I think he deserves crdit for what he did with IR and so just wanted to credit him.

 

[MirBadshah]

India on 20 Cents a Day

How do we ignore the poor? Let me count the ways.
by Aseem Shrivastava

The World Bank started making international comparisons of poverty only about two decades back. For obvious reasons of convenience, it developed two simple notions of poverty. The lower poverty line was set at $1 a day per capita. Those below it were considered to be “the poorest of the poor.” The upper poverty line was set at $2 a day. Those living on $1 to 2 a day were still poor, but not as bad off.
However, there was a problem. It was realized that $1 goes much farther in purchasing necessary items of consumption in a poor country than in a rich one. To make purchasing power across countries comparable, economists developed what is known as the PPP (purchasing power parity) index. Taking into account the lower cost of living in impoverished countries, a conversion factor is now applied to market exchange rates to calculate what is minimally necessary to survive there. Using World Bank numbers, applying this conversion factor for India effectively means that if you survive on 1 PPP dollar a day in that country, it is equivalent to being given 20 cents in your hand in the U.S.
A dominant impression is that the poor are living on less than $1 a day. In fact, it would be enormously more accurate, as far as everyday English is concerned, to say that the poor across the world are living on less than 20 cents a day. The reason why this is not done is obvious: It would give an even-more-alarming picture of the scale and depth of poverty across this enormously wealthy world. Most decent people are shocked enough by the understated numbers in the form they are widely quoted. More reality would numb and paralyze even the grittiest of activists. “Humanity,” T.S. Eliot wrote, “cannot bear much reality.” He had the privileged in mind.

The most recent World Bank estimates for India are based on household surveys carried out in 1999-2000. It was found that almost 80 percent of India’s population was surviving on less than $2.15 a day (in PPP terms). That is, about 800 million people were living on 40 cents a day or less. Nearly 35 percent (350 million) were found to be living on 20 cents a day or less. Thanks to the subtleties of PPP calculations, it may quite possibly be the case that the number of people across the world who are not able to meet the minimum standards for adequate nutrition is anywhere from 3 to 4 billion, rather than the officially estimated 2.7 billion who are estimated to be living under $2 a day. No one really knows. In other words, we could be off by a whole continent!IN OUR INCREASINGLY packaged consumerist world, even global poverty figures must ultimately arrive in a wrapping that is not unpalatably unattractive to the public. Trickle-down will ultimately work, we are repeatedly assured by growth economists. But faith in trickle-down, as John Kenneth Galbraith is said to have remarked, is a bit like feeding race horses superior oats so that starving sparrows can forage in their dung. All indications, especially in parts of the world like rural India, are that a decade and a half of corporate globalization has left undernutrition and malnutrition all but intact and might quite possibly have worsened the predicament for many millions.

Perhaps we would do well to remember Einstein’s counsel: “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” We only count and measure what is useful, important, or interesting to us. By using a severely distorted measure like a poverty line pegged unreasonably low, public authorities and governments reveal that they don’t care nearly as much about poverty as they do, for instance, about the growth rate or the stock market index. The poverty measurement industry loses much sleep and sweat over details that do not matter much. The big picture, perhaps unsurprisingly, is inaccurately reported.

If global poverty statistics are not disseminated accurately, the facts on the ground will only get worse—thanks to misinformed policy-making, among other things. And the potential consequences across the globe could be nothing short of catastrophic.

www.sojo.net

I hope some one out there posting political salogans would comment on this report, there is a trend to get personal rather then debate, 80% under $2 and biggest number of billionaire in Asia, still you dont want to believe what Laloo or your defence analysists are saying.

 

[Adux]

$2= 85 Ruppees. I could live easily on that for a day....lemme

Morning Breakfast 2 Dosa's and tea - 20 ruppees - In a good restaurent.
Lunch South Indian Thali Meals - 25 ruppees
Dinner 2 Paratha and Beef Curry - 23 ruppees..

Heck I have money to spare....lol

 

[MirBadshah]

What about electricity, communication, transport, house, dress????

Make a budget please, not only food is necessity of life, how a person can survive on RS 85 a day............it means all his resources and he have to cover his life on this meger amount.

 

[Bushroda]

What about electricity, communication, transport, house, dress????

Make a budget please, not only food is necessity of life, how a person can survive on RS 85 a day............it means all his resources and he have to cover his life on this meger amount.

The same way a common man survives in Pakistan on less than $2 a day. At $690 per capita(Source: World Bank) Pakistan doesn't earns more than $2.1 a day. Also, when converted in PPP, it becomes evident that services and commodities are exoensive in Pakistan. So, if millions in Pakistan can survive then so can Indians.

 

[Bushroda]

India Rising
Messy, raucous, democratic India is growing fast, and now may partner up with the world's richest democracy—America.

March 6, 2006 issue - Every year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, there's a star. Not a person but a country. One country impresses the gathering of global leaders because of a particularly smart Finance minister or a compelling tale of reform or even a glamorous gala. This year there was no contest. In the decade that I've been going to Davos, no country has captured the imagination of the conference and dominated the conversation as India in 2006.

It was not a matter of chance. As you got off the plane in Zurich, there were large billboards extolling INCREDIBLE INDIA. Davos itself was plastered with signs. WORLD'S FASTEST GROWING FREE MARKET DEMOCRACY! proclaimed the town's buses. When you got to your room, you found an iPod Shuffle loaded with Bollywood songs, and a pashmina shawl, gifts from the Indian delegation. When you entered the meeting rooms, you were likely to hear an Indian voice, one of the dozens of CEOs of world-class Indian companies. And then there were the government officials, India's "Dream Team," all intelligent and articulate, and all selling their country.

The Forum's main social event was an Indian extravaganza, with a bevy of Indian beauties dancing to pulsating Hindi tunes against an electric blue Taj Mahal. The guests joined in the festivities. The impeccably dressed chairman of the Forum, Klaus Schwab, donned a colorful Indian turban and shawl, nibbled on chicken tikka and talked up the country's prospects with Michael Dell. INDIA EVERYWHERE, said the ubiquitous logo. It was.

And everyone now is in India—most significantly, of course, George W. Bush, who will arrive there on March 1. Jacques Chirac was there two weeks ago. (So was Bill Clinton, who can't stop returning to the country.) Two weeks before that it was Saudi Arabia's newly crowned monarch, King Abdullah. The week after Bush leaves, Australian Prime Minister John Howard arrives. And that's all in six weeks. The world—and particularly the United States—is courting India as it never has before. Fascinated by the new growth story, perhaps wary of Asia's Chinese superpower, searching to hedge some bets, the world has woken up to India's potential. But does it really know this complex, diverse country? Just as important, does India know what it wants of the world?

The marketing slogans wouldn't work if there were no substance behind them. Over the past 15 years, India has been the second fastest-growing country in the world—after China—averaging above 6 percent growth per year. Growth accelerated to 7.5 percent last year and will probably hold at the same pace this year. Many observers believe that India could well expand at this higher rate for the next decade.

While China's rise is already here and palpable—it has grown at almost 10 percent since 1980—India's is still more a tale of the future, but a future that is coming into sharp focus. A much-cited 2003 study by Goldman Sachs projects that over the next 50 years, India will be the fastest-growing of the world's major economies (largely because its work force will not age as fast as the others). The report calculates that in 10 years India's economy will be larger than Italy's and in 15 years will have overtaken Britain's. By 2040 it will boast the world's third largest economy. By 2050 it will be five times the size of Japan's and its per capita income will have risen to 35 times its current level. Predictions like these are a treacherous business, though it's worth noting that India's current growth rate is actually higher than the study assumed.

Even the here and now is impressive. Indian companies are growing at an extraordinary pace, posting yearly gains of 15, 20 and 25 percent. The Tata group, the country's largest business house, is a far-flung conglomerate that makes everything from cars and steel to software and consulting systems. In this sense, it is a useful window on India's industrial and postindustrial economy. Its revenues grew last year from $17 billion to $24 billion and it is heading for extremely strong growth this year. At another end of the scale, the automobile-parts business is made up of hundreds of small companies. Five years ago the industry's total revenues were $4 billion. This year they will exceed $10 billion. In 2008, General Motors alone will import $1 billion of auto components from India.

That's outsourcing—as it is any time an American company buys goods or services from abroad. It's also called trade or globalization or capitalism. Those who want to stop it—and it's not clear how you could do that—should remember that the United States' prosperity has come from its very willingness to open itself up to the world. Over the last 60 years, manufacturing employment in the United States has plummeted as those industries went abroad—and yet average American incomes have risen to be the highest in the world. Over the last 20 years, as globalization has quickened, American companies have outsourced first goods, then services—and American incomes have risen faster than those of any other major industrial country. Banning auto-parts factories or call centers will not save General Motors. Globalization highlights some problems for America, but the solutions are all at home. As they have in the past, Americans must—and can—make goods and services that people will pay for freely, not because the government forces them to by shutting out the competition. That is the only stable path to economic security.

At this point, anyone who has actually been to India will probably be puzzled. "India?" he or she will say. "With its dilapidated airports, crumbling roads, vast slums and impoverished villages? We're talking about that India?" Yes, that, too, is India. The country might have several Silicon Valleys, but it also has three Nigerias within it, more than 300 million people living on less than a dollar a day. India is home to 40 percent of the world's poor and has the world's second largest HIV population. But that is the familiar India, the India of poverty and disease. The India of the future contains all this but also something new. You can feel the change even in the midst of the slums.

To new visitors, it won't look pretty. Many Western businessmen go to India expecting it to be the next China. But it never will be that. China's growth is a product of its efficient, all-powerful government. Beijing decides the country needs new airports, eight-lane highways, gleaming industrial parks—and they are built within months. It courts multinationals and provides them with permits and facilities within days. It looks good and, in many ways, it is that good, having produced the most successful case of economic development in human history.

India's growth is messy, chaotic and largely unplanned. It is not top-down but bottom-up. It is happening not because of the government, but largely despite it. India does not have Beijing and Shanghai's gleaming infrastructure, and it does not have a government that rolls out the red carpet for foreign investment—no government in democratic India would have those kinds of powers anyway. But it has vast and growing numbers of entrepreneurs who want to make money. And somehow they find a way to do it, overcoming the obstacles, bypassing the bureaucracy. "The government sleeps at night and the economy grows," says Gurcharan Das, former CEO of Procter Gamble in India.

There are some who argue that India's path has distinct advantages. MIT's Yasheng Huang points out that India's companies use their capital far more efficiently than China's; they benchmark to global standards and are better managed than Chinese firms. Despite being much poorer than China, India has produced dozens of world-class companies like Infosys, Ranbaxy and Reliance. Huang attributes this difference to the fact that India has a real and deep private sector (unlike China's many state-owned and state-funded companies), a clean, well-regulated financial system and the sturdy rule of law. Another example: every year Japan awards the coveted Deming Prizes for managerial innovation, and over the last four years, they have been awarded more often to Indian companies than to firms from any other country, including Japan.

This bottom-up activity is evident not simply among entrepreneurs. The Indian consumer is also rearing for action. Most Asian success stories have been ones in which the government forces its people to save, producing growth through capital accumulation and market-friendly policies. In India, the individual is king. Young Indian professionals don't wait to buy a house at the end of their lives with their savings. They take out mortgages. The credit-card industry is growing at 35 percent a year. Personal consumption makes up a staggering 67 percent of GDP in India, much higher than China (42 percent) or any other Asian country. Only the United States is higher at 70 percent.

Statistics don't quite capture what is happening. Indians, at least in urban areas, are bursting with enthusiasm. Indian businessmen are giddy about their prospects. Indian designers and artists speak of extending their influence across the globe. Bollywood movie stars want to grow their audience abroad from their "base" of half a billion fans. It is as if hundreds of millions of people have suddenly discovered the keys to unlock their potential. A famous Indian once put it eloquently, "A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance."

Those words, which Indians of a certain generation know by heart, were spoken by the country's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, just after midnight, on Aug. 15, 1947, when independent India was born. What Nehru was referring to, of course, was the birth of India as an independent state. What is happening today is the birth of India as an independent society—boisterous, colorful, open, vibrant and, above all, ready for change. India is diverging from its past, but also from most other countries in Asia. It is not a quiet, controlled, quasi-authoritarian country that is slowly opening up according to plans. It is a noisy democracy that has finally empowered its people economically. In this respect India, one of the poorest countries in the world, looks strikingly similar to the world's wealthiest country, the United States of America. In both places, society has triumphed over the state.

The Indian state has been a roaring success on one front. India's democracy is a wonder to behold. One of the world's poorest countries, it has sustained democratic government for almost 60 years. And this is surely one of the country's greatest strengths when compared with many other developing countries. If you ask the question "What will India look like politically in 25 years?" we know the answer: like it does today—a democracy, probably with a coalition government. Democracy makes for populism, pandering and delays. But it also makes for long-term stability. (In case President Bush is looking for some answers for Iraq, he should recall that the British were able to stay in India for 200 years and built lasting institutions of government throughout the country, and that India got very lucky with its first generation of leaders. Men like Nehru may not have understood economics, but they deeply understood political freedom.)

If the Indian state has succeeded in one crucial dimension, it has failed in several others. In the 1950s and 1960s, India tried to modernize by creating a "mixed" economic model, between capitalism and communism. This meant a shackled and overregulated private sector, and a massively inefficient and corrupt public sector. The results were poor, and in the 1970s, as India became more socialist, they became disastrous. In 1960 India had a higher per capita GDP than China; today it is less than half of China's. That year it had the same per capita GDP as South Korea; today South Korea's is 13 times larger. The United Nations Human Development Index gauges countries by income, health, literacy and other such measures. India ranks 124 out of 177, behind Syria, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. Female literacy in India is a shockingly low 54 percent. Despite mountains of rhetoric about helping the poor, by any reasonable comparison, India's government has done too little for them.

Is this a problem with democracy? Not entirely. Bad policies fail whether pursued by dictators or democrats. But there are elements of democracy that have hurt, certainly in a country with rampant poverty, feudalism and illiteracy. Democracy in India too often means not the will of the majority but the will of organized minorities—landowners, powerful castes, farmers, government unions and local thugs. (Nearly a fifth of the members of the Indian Parliament have been accused of crimes, including embezzlement, rape and murder.) These groups are usually richer than most of their countrymen, and they plunder the state's coffers to stay that way. It is ironic, for example, that India's Communist Party does not campaign for growth to lift the very poor but rather works to maintain the relatively privileged conditions of unionized workers. As these power plays go on, the great majority's interests—those 800 million who earn less than $2 a day—often fall through the cracks.

But democracy has its own way of rebalancing. The wave of Hindu nationalism that raged through the country in the 1990s is on the wane, for now, and a thoroughly secular government is in power. Headed by Manmohan Singh, the former Finance minister who opened up India's economy in the summer of 1991, it is also committed to economic reform. In an act of great wisdom and restraint, Sonia Gandhi, who led the ruling coalition to victory in the polls, chose to appoint Singh as prime minister rather than take the job herself. As a result, quite unexpectedly, India's chaotic and often-corrupt democratic system has yielded as its head of government a man of immense intelligence, unimpeachable integrity and deep experience. Singh, an Oxford Ph.D., has already run the country's central bank, planning ministry and Finance Ministry. His breadth, depth and decency are unmatched by any Indian prime minister since Nehru.

But Singh has disappointed many of his fans. They had hoped for another set of large-scale reforms, but the government has been cautious and is implementing programs that look suspiciously like another round of subsidies (programs that have had such little success in the past). These are the constraints of democracy. Singh heads a fragile coalition government without a strong mandate for economic change. He is not himself a powerful politician, depending on Mrs. Gandhi for his clout. But his quiet determination to keep moving forward—on economics, politics and foreign policy—has been underestimated. His Economic ministers are all reformers. They work within the political limits, but they work. For example, infrastructure in India is slowly getting better and will be funded through public-private partnerships. India's two major airports will be privatized and improve dramatically. Every week you read of a set of regulations that have been eased or permissions that have been eliminated. These "stealth reforms," too small to draw vigorous opposition from the unreconstructed left, add up. And India's pro-reform constituency keeps growing. The middle class is already 300 million strong. Urban India is not all of India, but it is a large and influential chunk of it.

Democracy is India's destiny. A country this diverse and complex—17 major languages, 22,000 dialects and all the world's major religions—cannot really be governed any other way. The task is to use democracy to India's advantage. In some cases this is happening. The Indian government has recently begun investing in rural education and health, and is focusing on ways to make agriculture more productive. Good economics can sometimes make for good politics, at least that is the Indian hope. Another change is that, since 1993, democracy has been broadened to give villages greater voice in their affairs. Most important, village councils must reserve 33 percent of their seats for women. As a result there are 1 million elected women in villages across the country. They will now have a platform from which to demand better education and health care. It's bottom-up development, with society pushing the state.

Will the state respond? Built during the British Raj, massively expanded in India's socialist era, it is filled with bureaucrats who are in love with their petty powers and privileges. They are joined by politicians who enjoy the power of patronage. And then there are some journalists and intellectuals who still hold on to some romantic idea of Third World socialism. There are many in India's ruling class who remain deeply uncomfortable with the modern, open, commercial society that they see growing around them.

But the state fills a vital role. Look at India's great success—its private companies. They flourish because of a well-regulated stock market and financial system that has transparency, adjudication and enforcement—all government functions. Or consider the booming telecommunications industry, which was created by intelligent government deregulation and re-regulation. Or the Indian institutes of technology—among the world's best—all government-run. But that's just a start. The private sector cannot solve India's AIDS crisis or its rural education shortfalls or its environmental problems. If India's governance does not improve, the country will never fully achieve its potential.

This is perhaps the central paradox of India today. Its society is open, eager, confident and ready to take on the world. But its state—its ruling class—is far more hesitant, cautious and suspicious of the changed realities around it. Nowhere is this tension more obvious than in the realm of foreign policy, in the increasingly large and important task of determining how India should fit into the New World.

Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that India is, by all accounts, the most pro-American country in the world. The Pew Global Attitudes Survey, released in June 2005, asked people in 16 countries whether they had a favorable impression of the United States. A stunning 71 percent of Indians said yes. Only Americans had a more favorable view of America (83 percent). The numbers are somewhat lower in other surveys, but the basic finding remains true: Indians are extremely comfortable with, and well disposed toward, America.

This may be because for decades India's government tried to force-feed anti-Americanism down people's throats. (Politicians in the 1970s spoke so often of the "hidden hand" when explaining India's miseries—by which they meant the CIA or American interference generally—that cartoonists took to drawing an actual hand that descended every now and then to cause havoc.) More likely it is because Indians understand America. It is a noisy, open society with a chaotic democratic system—like theirs. Many urban Indians speak America's language, are familiar with the country and often actually know someone who lives there, possibly even a relative.

The Indian-American community has been a bridge between the two cultures. The term often used to describe Indians leaving their country is "brain drain." But it's been more like brain gain, for both sides. Indians abroad have played a crucial role in opening up the mother country. They returned to India with money, investment ideas, global standards and, most important, a sense that one could achieve anything. An Indian parliamentarian once famously asked the then prime minister, Indira Gandhi, "Why is it that Indians seem to succeed everywhere except in their own country?" The stories of Indians scaling the highest peaks in America have produced pride and emulation in India. Americans, for their part, have embraced India in some measure because they have had a positive experience with Indians in America.

Americans also find India understandable. They are puzzled and disturbed by impenetrable decision-making elites like the Chinese Politburo or the Iranian Council of Guardians. A quarrelsome democracy that keeps moving backward, forward and sideways—that they know. Take the current negotiations on nuclear issues. Americans watch what is going on in New Delhi, with people inside the government who are opposed to a nuclear deal leaking negative stories to the media, political opponents using the issue to score points, true ideological opponents being utterly implacable—and this all seems very familiar. Similar things happen every day in Washington.

Most countries have relationships that are almost exclusively between governments. Think of the links between the United States and Saudi Arabia, which exist among a few dozen high officials and have never really gone beyond that. But sometimes bonds develop not merely between states but between societies. Twice before the United States had developed a relationship with a country that was strategic but also much more—with Britain and later with Israel. In both cases, the resulting ties were broad and deep, going well beyond government officials and diplomatic negotiations. The two countries knew each other, understood each other and as a result became natural and almost permanent partners. America has the opportunity to forge such a relationship with India.

This is not a matter of strategic "balancing" against China. The world is not that simple. The United States should not create a self-fulfilling prophecy of a conflict with China. The American relationship with China is complex, with many elements of cooperation. China, after all, is one of America's chief creditors, and Americans in turn buy Chinese goods, fueling its growth. Nor will India want to play along as a counterweight to China, since its own relations with its powerful neighbor are crucial. Beijing will overtake America as India's largest trading partner within a couple of years. Both India and America will want to retain their independence in dealing with the Middle Kingdom. That said, the rise of China is the fundamental strategic shift that is altering Asia's—and the world's—landscape. And the United States and India will be glad to have each other's company in that circumstance.

This doesn't mean that the United States and India will agree on every policy issue. Remember that even during their close wartime alliance, Roosevelt and Churchill disagreed about several issues, most notably India's independence. America broke with Britain over Suez. It condemned Israel for its invasion of Lebanon. Washington and New Delhi have different interests and thus will inevitably have policy disputes. But it is precisely because of the deep bonds between these countries that such disagreements would not alter the fundamental reality of friendship, empathy and association.

Such a relationship between the United States and India is almost inevitable. Whether the nuclear agreement goes through or not, whether the governments sign new treaties, the two societies are getting increasingly intertwined. A common language, a familiar world view and a growing fascination with each other is bringing together businessmen, nongovernmental activists, journalists and writers.

I say almost inevitable because there are pulls against it on both sides. In America, there is always the danger that politicians will turn to populism and protectionism as a cheap way to get votes. So far the pandering has been limited and temporary, but as elections approach and politicians grandstand, it's always convenient to find foreigners upon whom to blame your ills. Additionally, Washington is still learning the art of treating other countries with the respect and deference they expect—and India can be prickly and proud.

But the real stumbling block to a deep Indo-U.S. relationship will come not from Washington but New Delhi. While Singh and some others at the top of the Indian government see the world clearly, and see the immense opportunities it opens up for India, many others are blinded by their prejudices. For many Indian elites, it has been comfortable and comforting to look at the world from the prism of a poor, Third World country, whose foreign policy was neutral, detached (and, one might add, unsuccessful). They understand how to operate in that world, whom to bargain with, whom to beg from and whom to be belligerent with. But a world in which India is a great power, in which it moves confidently across the global stage, and in which it is a friend and partner of the most powerful country in history—that is an altogether new and unsettling proposition. "Why is the United States being nice to us?" several such doubters have asked me repeatedly. Even now, in 2003, they were searching for the hidden hand. China's Mandarin class has been able to rethink its country's new role as a world power with skill and effectiveness. So far, India's Brahmins have not shown themselves the equals of their neighbor.

The danger for India is that this moment might not last forever. The world turns and India will have its ups and downs. But today it is India's moment. It can grasp it and forge a new path for itself. Along that road lies a genuine and deep relationship between the planet's largest democracy and its wealthiest democracy. Until now, this has merely been a slogan. It could actually become a reality, and who knows what such a world might look like?

 

[Bull]

What about electricity, communication, transport, house, dress????

Make a budget please, not only food is necessity of life, how a person can survive on RS 85 a day............it means all his resources and he have to cover his life on this meger amount.

U mean the poor has to have a mobile and internet connectivity. Its a good deal for the poor if he can afford good food 3/ 4 times a day, .