Hello! We're back in India...poor Jen is sick again...i think she ate some poorly cooked meat in Saigon...she just can't seem to get any breaks on this trip!
Nonetheless, it is nice to be back in India. This trip has given me alot of perspectives about life and the world...it has been quite a useful trip in terms of thinking about things...on previous trips to India, I used to think that despite it's lack of public infrastructure and it's masses of poverty, India was doing quite well for a nation only 50 years post-independence from colonialist rule. I used to think that India's problems stemmed from centuries of oppression and colonialism and that they were rapidly pulling themselves up from this history and surging forward at quite an impessive rate. In fact, on the surface with it's 6% inflation rate, booming businesses, and skyrocketting investment attraction it does appear to be a development success story. But in fact, now that we have gone to other countries in the same boat like Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam, (all also only independant for 50 years), it has started to change my mind...those countries appear internally to be doing MUCH better...much more internally developed...and much more EQUALLY developed (very very few beggars compared with India), better roads, better traffic flow, much much cleaner (even Vietnam, which i found surprising), and many more women visibly engaged in the workforce. While their investment potential, and economic influence internationally is nothing compared with India, their population seems (on the surface anyhow) to enjoy a much higher general quality of life. I am coming to the conclusion that India's poor internal state has little to do with it's recent break from colonialism, and more to do with a high population combined with very little political will to change anything. Any development that has occured in India has happened via the private sector...there has been very little government regulation or involvement in infrastructural change. Therefore, those initiatives that have capital interest have grown, and those which are essential for life but can't make a profit (i.e. water, sanitation, education, road condition, etc) have been very very slow to develop. For example, India has a Space Program (with satellites, rockets, and all!), but you still can't drink the water from the taps! Taking this, and combining it with a longstanding belief in the caste system leads to the upper castes surging forward into the modern world, and the lower castes struggling to cope and living in conditions similar to how they lived 100 years ago (or perhaps even worse now b/c of the urbanization). Unfortunately from what I see, this leaves a large, poor, under-educated, under-nourished population to do manual labour - much of which is quite inhumane (i.e. hauling piles of bricks on one's head, or lugging heavy loads on a cart with a strap on your waist), and a small upper class to enjoy the economic boom India is currently experiencing. And the caste system conveniently provides a guilt-free justification for the rich, and a sense of complacency for the poor (it is their "karma" to suffer this life, and future lives will be better). It also discourages mechanisation of development, because one could posit that mechanisation would render millions jobless (as there would be less manual labour to be done). However, if the government really took control and made public education free, readily available, and of high quality; if the government made good roads to rural areas; if the government provided some kind of disaster (flood, draught, etc.) protection for farmers so they wouldn't need to sell their farms and move to the city to become squatters and labourers - then India could use this now educated and mobile population to do higher kinds of work...work that the country needs...and mechanisation could take over much of the menial work which is currently needlessly occupying the time and energy of millions of people. The problem i think is that this country needs to build an infrastructure that can support 1 billion people, but more than half of the population cannot be engaged in this process because of lack of education, and lack of necessities of life (food, housing, clean water, sewage)...therefore the large population becomes a burden, rather than an asset.
Nonetheless, it is nice to be back in India. This trip has given me alot of perspectives about life and the world...it has been quite a useful trip in terms of thinking about things...on previous trips to India, I used to think that despite it's lack of public infrastructure and it's masses of poverty, India was doing quite well for a nation only 50 years post-independence from colonialist rule. I used to think that India's problems stemmed from centuries of oppression and colonialism and that they were rapidly pulling themselves up from this history and surging forward at quite an impessive rate. In fact, on the surface with it's 6% inflation rate, booming businesses, and skyrocketting investment attraction it does appear to be a development success story. But in fact, now that we have gone to other countries in the same boat like Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam, (all also only independant for 50 years), it has started to change my mind...those countries appear internally to be doing MUCH better...much more internally developed...and much more EQUALLY developed (very very few beggars compared with India), better roads, better traffic flow, much much cleaner (even Vietnam, which i found surprising), and many more women visibly engaged in the workforce. While their investment potential, and economic influence internationally is nothing compared with India, their population seems (on the surface anyhow) to enjoy a much higher general quality of life. I am coming to the conclusion that India's poor internal state has little to do with it's recent break from colonialism, and more to do with a high population combined with very little political will to change anything. Any development that has occured in India has happened via the private sector...there has been very little government regulation or involvement in infrastructural change. Therefore, those initiatives that have capital interest have grown, and those which are essential for life but can't make a profit (i.e. water, sanitation, education, road condition, etc) have been very very slow to develop. For example, India has a Space Program (with satellites, rockets, and all!), but you still can't drink the water from the taps! Taking this, and combining it with a longstanding belief in the caste system leads to the upper castes surging forward into the modern world, and the lower castes struggling to cope and living in conditions similar to how they lived 100 years ago (or perhaps even worse now b/c of the urbanization). Unfortunately from what I see, this leaves a large, poor, under-educated, under-nourished population to do manual labour - much of which is quite inhumane (i.e. hauling piles of bricks on one's head, or lugging heavy loads on a cart with a strap on your waist), and a small upper class to enjoy the economic boom India is currently experiencing. And the caste system conveniently provides a guilt-free justification for the rich, and a sense of complacency for the poor (it is their "karma" to suffer this life, and future lives will be better). It also discourages mechanisation of development, because one could posit that mechanisation would render millions jobless (as there would be less manual labour to be done). However, if the government really took control and made public education free, readily available, and of high quality; if the government made good roads to rural areas; if the government provided some kind of disaster (flood, draught, etc.) protection for farmers so they wouldn't need to sell their farms and move to the city to become squatters and labourers - then India could use this now educated and mobile population to do higher kinds of work...work that the country needs...and mechanisation could take over much of the menial work which is currently needlessly occupying the time and energy of millions of people. The problem i think is that this country needs to build an infrastructure that can support 1 billion people, but more than half of the population cannot be engaged in this process because of lack of education, and lack of necessities of life (food, housing, clean water, sewage)...therefore the large population becomes a burden, rather than an asset.
In contrast, if one looks at countries like Singapore for example...they have no natural resources at all and they have a relatively tiny population...but have managed to become one of the wealthiest and developed countries in the region. They are also a mere 50-years post-independence, however their public infrastructure puts even Canada to shame! How did they do it? They did it through immense political will...mind you it has been heavy-handed and often unjust at times...however, they have succeeded in producing a highly educated society, whose talents can go towards work which is worthy of the human spirit, rather than destroying their bodies doing slave-type labour for meagre pay. Singapore is an extreme example, but I use it simply to illustrate the contrast that exists between nations who allow the private sector to drive development and those nations who decide that the public good must be prioritized in development.
If you have read-on to this point, hopefully that means that my pontification above did not bore you to tears! On a lighter note, we have 2 days in Delhi now before we head back home. Unfortunately we recently got notification from our airline that our flight time leaving Delhi has changed, and as such we will miss our connection from Milan to Toronto. :-( As of right now, despite having made numerous phone calls to the airline, we have still not been informed of any resolution to this problem...so it's possibly we'll be coming home a day or two late. But we'll hopefully find out soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment