"Did we do the right thing?"

[view360]

PS. Please also be mindful of typos and crude spelling mistakes. It looks very unprofessional. It reflects poorly not only on you, but also on the professional community you are part of.

Thank you very much indeed for your thoughtful reply. My excuses as well for not using a word processor to edit the texts before posting which you of course always do as it appears.
You seem to be an admirer of the classical studies although your writings can be best described as largely undercooked eighteenth century colonial English which is likely to be originated in the Indian subcontinent. The overkill of Latin or Greek words in forming sentences in fact kills the beauty of English. If you are so eager to use them, why not write in French, Spanish or in Italian ?

[view360]

Originally Posted by Kabir
It's not Indophobic, it's Indocritic. It's not hatred, it's oppression. India's not to be blamed for ALL the bad things, but JUST the ones they are involved with. And honestly, a view of 180 degrees will be enough to understand that.

I fail to understand because I do not believe in the politics of blind hatred. Fundamentalism and religious prejudice plays a much greater role in the anti India sentiment among some people in Bangladesh. This is the very fact we need to take into account.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by view360
Thank you very much indeed for your thoughtful reply.

You are welcome.

My excuses as well for not using a word processor to edit the texts before posting which you of course always do as it appears.

Um, no. I simply don't make any major spelling mistakes and consequently don't require a word processor to correct my spelling. It comes with experience.

You seem to be an admirer of the classical studies

Really. I didn't know that myself.

although your writings can be best described as largely undercooked eighteenth century colonial English which is likely to be originated in the Indian subcontinent.

Oh my, in you not only we have a psychiatrist, but an esteemed philologist specializing in eighteenth century English stylistics as well. We are well and truly blessed by your brilliant presence.

May be it didn't occur to you that the use of ornate English in my last reply to you was partly for sarcastic effect.

The overkill of Latin or Greek words in forming sentences in fact kills the beauty of English.

As opposed to the generally coarse, curt and monosyllabic Anglo-Saxon words that enhance the "beauty" of it? Like crash! bang! suck! damn! punch! biff! bang! f@#k! c#$t! and d@#k? I don't think so. And as an aside, is this some sort of a "beauty" contest where you are the "beauty" judge? I didn't get the memo.

I think you are feeling a little down about the a$$-whopping (note: "a$$-whopping" does seem to be a beautiful compound with no Latin/Greek roots) you just got in my last reply. That, to me, seems the more realistic explanation.

If you are so eager to use them, why not write in French, Spanish or in Italian ?

Unfortunately, I write perfectly grammatical English using thoroughly English words that are commonly found in sophisticated written English vocabulary AND convey every bit of meaning I intend to express with it. It's not my problem if you got a problem with my style. Everybody else can read my posts just fine. I suggest you get used to it. Don't be a Latin/Greek hater. If you want to increase your English vocabulary beyond the simple day to day langauge, you'll find Greek and Latin roots everywhere. It's inevitable.

*****

On a belated note, my apologies if I sounded a tad too harsh in my tone there. Don't take it personally. It's all in good fun.

[RazabQ]

Originally Posted by Arnab
In fact, I can see ways in which one can reveal a few holes in my stance, if one thinks deeply and formulates them carefully. A stance can potentially be proven non-flexible and lacking in some manner. But unfortunately, no-one has put that in writing so far.

Shades of Fermat here methinks ... Ektu beshi beshi Arnab moshai


BTW I kinda go with Z bhai here, this thread just won't go away Indeed, the debate here is whether one can be grateful for a discrETE event (there happy now?) regardless of anything else or look at a relationship in totality to make an stance. I and quite a few other obviously argue for the latter. For Arnab and perhaps BBGun it's the former and I suspect no matter of pointing out the very real and very bad things that the Indian goverment and armed forces have perpetrated since that 1 major, discrete, good deed, will change their minds. Debating on who's more learned or not won't accomplish anything. Responding to an aggressive STYLE of dialog as opposed to the actual content won't accomplish anything either.

Z bhai, on this matter there is no middle ground. IMHO. Prove me wrong (blatant bait)

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
Shades of Fermat here methinks ... Ektu beshi beshi Arnab moshai


BTW I kinda go with Z bhai here, this thread just won't go away Indeed, the debate here is whether one can be grateful for a discrETE event (there happy now?) regardless of anything else or look at a relationship in totality to make an stance. I and quite a few other obviously argue for the latter. For Arnab and perhaps BBGun it's the former and I suspect no matter of pointing out the very real and very bad things that the Indian goverment and armed forces have perpetrated since that 1 major, discrete, good deed, will change their minds. Debating on who's more learned or not won't accomplish anything. Responding to an aggressive STYLE of dialog as opposed to the actual content won't accomplish anything either.

Z bhai, on this matter there is no middle ground. IMHO. Prove me wrong (blatant bait)

That is exactly what i said a few posts back. In a mathematical format.
Where showing greatfullness is a function of (one discrete good thing + several other bad things). What Arnab and I are arguing for is that we should put a positve value for that. That is the only argument. Other people are arguing about the whole function and saying that the several other bad things weigh more than the value of that one good deed and hence India doesnt deserve any gratefullness. I guess in their view they are right and in our viepoint we are right. I feel the arguments to prove our stance is accurate, but imprecise. Its like bowling wide deliveries with great accuracy.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
BTW I kinda go with Z bhai here, this thread just won't go away Indeed, the debate here is whether one can be grateful for a discrETE event (there happy now?) regardless of anything else or look at a relationship in totality to make an stance. I and quite a few other obviously argue for the latter.

The argument on your side is not without merit. But what has also been revealed through this discussion is that your ilk contains people who are overly militarist (Let's bomb 'em with our MIGs! They would've done the same of we did this to them), fatalistic (Oh well! Might is right. C'est la vie.), grudge-bearing crybabies (Look what they have done to us! Oh poor twisted us! Now let's get angry for nothing) who lack historical knowledge (What? India helped us in 1971? You gotta be kidding me!).

[PoorFan]

Originally Posted by Arnab
The argument on your side is not without merit. But what has also been revealed through this discussion is that your ilk contains people who are overly militarist (Let's bomb 'em with our MIGs! They would've done the same of we did this to them), fatalistic (Oh well! Might is right. C'est la vie.), grudge-bearing crybabies (Look what they have done to us! Oh poor twisted us! Now let's get angry for nothing) who lack historical knowledge (What? India helped us in 1971? You gotta be kidding me!).

Besides, you cant have a common land to sit and talk without recognizing a good as good, especially in global politics. 'Totality' leaves no room for common land that archrivals can sit together and start.

[al Furqaan]

The argument on your side is not without merit.

of course, and i understand your point as well. just answer this personal question of mine. do you agree with the following statement:

"india had a great opportunity to nip their 2nd most dangerous enemy in the bud and did so, with this fact being pre-iminent. their actions just happened to be ineffably in our favor, but this was not the deciding factor."

with that being said, in the past i was sceptical of any genuine feelings of sympathy, but the 10 million refugees in kolkata has changed that. given that info, i still agree with the above statement, because power politics and war gaming is dynamic it is not so simple as merely "they had interests" or "they helped us."

i feel that you and all rationale people can and will agree with this.

your ilk contains people who are overly militarist (Let's bomb 'em with our MIGs! They would've done the same of we did this to them)

i haven't read the last several pages of this thread, but its quite shocking that any sane bangladeshi would imagine being powerful enough to declare war on india...talk about delusions of grandeur.

grudge-bearing crybabies (Look what they have done to us! Oh poor twisted us! Now let's get angry for nothing)

if indeed anyone has done something negative to us, isn't it natural as well as justifiable to be angry about it. i doubt victims of medical mal practice are overly enamoured with their doctors.

who lack historical knowledge (What? India helped us in 1971? You gotta be kidding me!).

again, if I help Bob to help me, i have helped Bob, its true, but...

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by al Furqaan
of course, and i understand your point as well. just answer this personal question of mine. do you agree with the following statement:

"india had a great opportunity to nip their 2nd most dangerous enemy in the bud and did so, with this fact being pre-iminent. their actions just happened to be ineffably in our favor, but this was not the deciding factor."

Your wording of the question is utterly ambiguous. What do you mean by "2nd most dangerous enemy"? What is "nipping in the bud"? What was "ineffably" in "our favor"?

Explain those and I will consider giving an answer.

with that being said, in the past i was sceptical of any genuine feelings of sympathy, but the 10 million refugees in kolkata has changed that.

I think for someone who was unaware of this basic-est of the basic-est facts about 1971 until this thread, you oughta remain a little quiet and think everything over before you start again.

given that info, i still agree with the above statement, because power politics and war gaming is dynamic it is not so simple as merely "they had interests" or "they helped us."

Sure, but 1971 was not "power politics" or "war gaming". Hundreds of thousands of Bengalis were being killed, and tens of thousands of women being raped. It was so far beyond your bread-and-butter "power politics"/"war gaming" that it's unthoughtful to bring it up in the first place.

i feel that you and all rationale people can and will agree with this.

Except that it doesn't quite apply so neatly to the 1971 war.

i haven't read the last several pages of this thread, but its quite shocking that any sane bangladeshi would imagine being powerful enough to declare war on india...talk about delusions of grandeur.

Oh you don't know the limits of imagination amongst some of us.

if indeed anyone has done something negative to us, isn't it natural as well as justifiable to be angry about it. i doubt victims of medical mal practice are overly enamoured with their doctors.

Being angry is one thing. Being angry and not doing anything about it is something else. Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said the kind of people who are grudge-bearing crybabies go "let's be angry for nothing". I meant to say they have an attitude that resembles "let's be angry and bitch about it and do nothing else."

again, if I help Bob to help me, i have helped Bob, its true, but...

Again, the situation in 1971 was far, almost infinitely more grave than the facile, simplistic abstraction "me helping Bob".

[RazabQ]

Originally Posted by PoorFan
Besides, you cant have a common land to sit and talk without recognizing a good as good, especially in global politics. 'Totality' leaves no room for common land that archrivals can sit together and start.

Your apologist banalities sorely tempt me ... all that jazz about global politics and what totality means ... But having seen numerous posts from you in the past, I have a good feel for your positions and am also aware that you are fairly intractable. At least arguing with Arnab I learn something new; hence, with teeth noisily gritting, I shall resist ...

[PoorFan]

Originally Posted by RazabQ
Your apologist banalities sorely tempt me ... all that jazz about global politics and what totality means ... But having seen numerous posts from you in the past, I have a good feel for your positions and am also aware that you are fairly intractable. At least arguing with Arnab I learn something new; hence, with teeth noisily gritting, I shall resist ...

RazabQ, I thought my last post contain very simple meaning, nothing is there towards you which may make you feel unhappy. Anyway you are always welcome, and I didn't intent to hurt you or anyone by my post.

[Flip Master Mick]

thoughts to ponder...

for those of you who care to read up on authentic history...

sheikh mujib helped congress win the 72 elections in west bengal. he became a popular figure there during the struggle for independence. he campaigned for congress on indira gandhi's request. j n dixit was the first indian ambassador to bangladesh. when indira gandhi visited bangladesh in 1972 it coincided with sheikh's birthday. they were out on boat trip on the buriganga and mrs. gandhi asked him what he wanted for his birthday. sheikh to everyone's surprise pleasantly asked indira to withdraw all troops from bangladesh's territory. india, like all great powers in history, always harbored imperialist ambitions. bangladesh was a test case for them. they failed miserably especially considering the resources and troops they sacrificed there. j n dixit had been warning indira about mujib's intentions during the whole struggle. secession from pakistan never stopped him being a bengali muslim peasant at heart like we all still are - exactly dixit's words.

the muslim league was born in our backyard. we played an important role in creating pakistan. things didn't look too bright for us hence we created bangladesh. In our perspective it should be as simple as that. throughout history north india (excluding the tribal areas of NWFP, Baluchistan) were a single political entity. even when delhi had muslim rulers, our rulers in sonargaon had power struggles with them. during akbar's reign there were several battles fought in and around dhaka.

the present population of india gets to learn about a bollywood version of history. it sells capitalism which sells products to a billion people and keeps their country united under the banner of "bharat mata" and more recently "india shining". the reengineered aspect of pakistan's history and society is not unknown to us. so allow them to vent as much as they want. their arrogance only aides in our cause.

we should really put all the razakar/ghatak dalal/freedom fighter controversy behind us to work for the betterment of our nation. most of our miseries presently are caused by a section of our ruling class - they while plundering our national resources have forgotten to share the spoils with the people and for which they will pay a hefty price as history will only show our people's intolerance for injustice.

[mhferdaus]

Originally Posted by Flip Master Mick
thoughts to ponder...

for those of you who care to read up on authentic history...

sheikh mujib helped congress win the 72 elections in west bengal. he became a popular figure there during the struggle for independence. he campaigned for congress on indira gandhi's request. j n dixit was the first indian ambassador to bangladesh. when indira gandhi visited bangladesh in 1972 it coincided with sheikh's birthday. they were out on boat trip on the buriganga and mrs. gandhi asked him what he wanted for his birthday. sheikh to everyone's surprise pleasantly asked indira to withdraw all troops from bangladesh's territory. india, like all great powers in history, always harbored imperialist ambitions. bangladesh was a test case for them. they failed miserably especially considering the resources and troops they sacrificed there. j n dixit had been warning indira about mujib's intentions during the whole struggle. secession from pakistan never stopped him being a bengali muslim peasant at heart like we all still are - exactly dixit's words.

the muslim league was born in our backyard. we played an important role in creating pakistan. things didn't look too bright for us hence we created bangladesh. In our perspective it should be as simple as that. throughout history north india (excluding the tribal areas of NWFP, Baluchistan) were a single political entity. even when delhi had muslim rulers, our rulers in sonargaon had power struggles with them. during akbar's reign there were several battles fought in and around dhaka.

the present population of india gets to learn about a bollywood version of history. it sells capitalism which sells products to a billion people and keeps their country united under the banner of "bharat mata" and more recently "india shining". the reengineered aspect of pakistan's history and society is not unknown to us. so allow them to vent as much as they want. their arrogance only aides in our cause.

we should really put all the razakar/ghatak dalal/freedom fighter controversy behind us to work for the betterment of our nation. most of our miseries presently are caused by a section of our ruling class - they while plundering our national resources have forgotten to share the spoils with the people and for which they will pay a hefty price as history will only show our people's intolerance for injustice.

excellent put bro/unlce, no one should be able to refute your logic or your fact, this might be the most sensible post of the whole shuta

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Flip Master Mick
thoughts to ponder...

for those of you who care to read up on authentic history...

sheikh mujib helped congress win the 72 elections in west bengal. he became a popular figure there during the struggle for independence. he campaigned for congress on indira gandhi's request. j n dixit was the first indian ambassador to bangladesh. when indira gandhi visited bangladesh in 1972 it coincided with sheikh's birthday. they were out on boat trip on the buriganga and mrs. gandhi asked him what he wanted for his birthday. sheikh to everyone's surprise pleasantly asked indira to withdraw all troops from bangladesh's territory. india, like all great powers in history, always harbored imperialist ambitions. bangladesh was a test case for them. they failed miserably especially considering the resources and troops they sacrificed there. j n dixit had been warning indira about mujib's intentions during the whole struggle. secession from pakistan never stopped him being a bengali muslim peasant at heart like we all still are - exactly dixit's words.

the muslim league was born in our backyard. we played an important role in creating pakistan. things didn't look too bright for us hence we created bangladesh. In our perspective it should be as simple as that. throughout history north india (excluding the tribal areas of NWFP, Baluchistan) were a single political entity. even when delhi had muslim rulers, our rulers in sonargaon had power struggles with them. during akbar's reign there were several battles fought in and around dhaka.

Damn! I am stumped. This "rupkotha/thakurmar jhuli" version of history is something, I must admit.

[Flip Master Mick]

Originally Posted by Arnab
Damn! I am stumped. This "rupkotha/thakurmar jhuli" version of history is something, I must admit.

read j n dixit's "Liberation and Beyond" and then we will hear your version and which interest group you are trying to serve.

[bharat]

Originally Posted by Flip Master Mick
thoughts to ponder...

for those of you who care to read up on authentic history...

sheikh mujib helped congress win the 72 elections in west bengal. he became a popular figure there during the struggle for independence. he campaigned for congress on indira gandhi's request. j n dixit was the first indian ambassador to bangladesh. when indira gandhi visited bangladesh in 1972 it coincided with sheikh's birthday. they were out on boat trip on the buriganga and mrs. gandhi asked him what he wanted for his birthday. sheikh to everyone's surprise pleasantly asked indira to withdraw all troops from bangladesh's territory. india, like all great powers in history, always harbored imperialist ambitions. bangladesh was a test case for them. they failed miserably especially considering the resources and troops they sacrificed there. j n dixit had been warning indira about mujib's intentions during the whole struggle. secession from pakistan never stopped him being a bengali muslim peasant at heart like we all still are - exactly dixit's words.
.

I am not sure how the above incident shows India's imperialistic ambitions !.If India had those ambitions would a mere request from Mujibs stall it from its ambitions.To India's credit India moved out from BD as soon as it can .Evreything ("harbored imperialist ambitions" )else are pure speculations ....there is no proof to back it up while the fact that it moved out when it had to prooves without a doubt that it had no interest in BD territories .

Originally Posted by Flip Master Mick
the present population of india gets to learn about a bollywood version of history. it sells capitalism which sells products to a billion people and keeps their country united under the banner of "bharat mata" and more recently "india shining". the reengineered aspect of pakistan's history and society is not unknown to us. so allow them to vent as much as they want. their arrogance only aides in our cause.

Bollywoods version of History ..sorry I missed you on that !.The concept of Bharat Mata is as good or as bad as a concept of Christians faternity or Muslim Umma or even Bangla Unity ,I dont see anything wrong in it .As far as the banner of "India Shining" , there is nothing wrong in basking in some achivements that are hard to come by in our part of the world.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by Flip Master Mick
read j n dixit's "Liberation and Beyond" and then we will hear your version and which interest group you are trying to serve.

I guess I need to read that asap. You may be onto something here.

[Flip Master Mick]

Originally Posted by bharat
I am not sure how the above incident shows India's imperialistic ambitions !.If India had those ambitions would a mere request from Mujibs stall it from its ambitions.To India's credit India moved out from BD as soon as it can .Evreything ("harbored imperialist ambitions" )else are pure speculations ....there is no proof to back it up while the fact that it moved out when it had to prooves without a doubt that it had no interest in BD territories .

india had to repatriate its troops because mujib didn't want them there (as opposed to karzai in afghanistan and jaafari in iraq). the indian think tank at the time of liberation totally misread mujib's agenda. moreover, his popularity and appeal to bengali nationalism was seen to be disrupting delhi's makeover of west bengal. this also coincided with the naxalite movement. mujib had to go.

Originally Posted by bharat
Bollywoods version of History ..sorry I missed you on that !.The concept of Bharat Mata is as good or as bad as a concept of Christians faternity or Muslim Umma or even Bangla Unity ,I dont see anything wrong in it .As far as the banner of "India Shining" , there is nothing wrong in basking in some achivements that are hard to come by in our part of the world.

before you can talk about religious/ethnic fraternities india needs to provide equal rights to the dalits as well as muslims. and let's not forget the majority of your population that are have nots and will remain so to cater to your top tier who are in a rat race to ape the west. moreover, u r mostly a soically engineered lot. hence, concepts on this thread may not seep to well through your thinking process. the necessary illusions that you have fed on for so long may prove to be a hindrance in your comprehension of our perspective.

[bharat]

Originally Posted by Flip Master Mick
before you can talk about religious/ethnic fraternities india needs to provide equal rights to the dalits as well as muslims. and let's not forget the majority of your population that are have nots and will remain so to cater to your top tier who are in a rat race to ape the west. moreover, u r mostly a soically engineered lot. hence, concepts on this thread may not seep to well through your thinking process. the necessary illusions that you have fed on for so long may prove to be a hindrance in your comprehension of our perspective.

Surprise ..Surprise you seem to have gauged my intellectual capability by a single post of mine .You sure must be an enlightened soul who sees through people/posts.

Yes , a major chunk of Indian population is poor , but what metters here is what the government of a county is doing to alleviate the poverty .And as far as I am concerned India is in the right direction .

Care to look at the world in relative sense ....relative to the people/countries around you !

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by bharat
Surprise ..Surprise you seem to have gauged my intellectual capability by a single post of mine .You sure must be an enlightened soul who sees through people/posts.

Yes , a major chunk of Indian population is poor , but what metters here is what the government of a county is doing to alleviate the poverty .And as far as I am concerned India is in the right direction .

Care to look at the world in relative sense ....relative to the people/countries around you !

Please. India is not going the right direction towards alleviating poverty. It has done a great job of making rich people rich and the country richer/less poor, but i do not think the poor people in India are very happy.

[layperson]

Originally Posted by BBgun
Please. India is not going the right direction towards alleviating poverty. It has done a great job of making rich people rich and the country richer/less poor, but i do not think the rich people in India are very happy.

India is going in the right direction AFAIC. Indians are a very patriotic bunch which is evident from their activities. What I do not understand is how do you know that the rich Indians are not happy !!!! Mind reader ?? Hmmm maybe.

Moreover when a country is developing and changing into an economic power it has to go through periods of greater inequality in wealth. This happens because the higher class of the society takes opportunity of the scopes that a developing nation provides. However with time and with the right sort of government policies India will be able to reuduce its poverty level as well. The fact is India's growth is faster than any country other than China. You can comment after 15 years whether India is actually successfully alleviating poverty. Right now it is growing and the presence of inequality in wealth distribution is normal.

Just wanted to add, the fact that India has an ever increasing middle class is ample proof that they are in the right direction and poverty is being alleviated but more concrete comments about this can be put after 15 years.

[Kabir]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
India is going in the right direction AFAIC. Indians are a very patriotic bunch which is evident from their activities. What I do not understand is how do you know that the rich Indians are not happy !!!! Mind reader ?? Hmmm maybe.

Moreover when a country is developing and changing into an economic power it has to go through periods of greater inequality in wealth. This happens because the higher class of the society takes opportunity of the scopes that a developing nation provides. However with time and with the right sort of government policies India will be able to reuduce its poverty level as well. The fact is India's growth is faster than any country other than China. You can comment after 15 years whether India is actually successfully alleviating poverty. Right now it is growing and the presence of inequality in wealth distribution is normal.

Just wanted to add, the fact that India has an ever increasing middle class is ample proof that they are in the right direction and poverty is being alleviated but more concrete comments about this can be put after 15 years.

Shahriar, I think BBgun couldn't complete his comment properly. I believe he meant to say rich people in India are being richer, and pool people are being poorer.

I understand what you're saying. But it's unfortunate that this happens in any economic growth. Just because it happens in every case doesn't mean it has to happen in this too...it makes India just another one in the failed ones. China has made great progress, but I suspect they haven't been able to make the poor much richer...but have had quite a few poor people fall into the trap and get poorer. Proof? Sure...look at the continuing amount of Chinese product in Canada (and other parts of the world for that matter).

I suspect if India will do anything to make their lower class much better...for the sake of their trade. Plus, they're the world's next biggest service industry...and that's not possible without cheap talents. Yes, in the process, they might hike up their literacy rate...which is also happening in Bangladesh.

So, I would realistically say that I don't agree with Bharat. India may be in the right direction, but not for the poor...but for their rich ones and literacy rate. So Bharat...same thing as you said...please care to look around and see what others are doing. Relatively, India's just doing the same...not better.

[Arnab]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
Right now it is growing and the presence of inequality in wealth distribution is normal.

What do you mean by "normal"? You sound very certain about this "normalcy". Can you provide me some comparative statistical stuff on this?

One solid economic statistic re: this is the Gini Coefficient. Anybody who has taken a course on Public Finance (I have) knows about this statistic.

The Gini coefficient is a recognized metric to measure economic inequality. In a society where everyone is equal, the coefficient is 0, and where all the resources are held by 1 person, it will be 1.

India's Gini coefficent has gone up from 0.32 in 1980 to 0.38 in 2000 (World Bank data).

The NCAER Indian Market Demographics Report 2002 confirms that "During the post-reform period the rate of growth in the upper-income categories was much higher, compared to the corresponding decline in the size of the low-income class."

Another excerpt from: http://iecolumnists.expressindia.com...ntent_id=83241

Emphasis mine.

Trouble is, there is a vast section of our economy and society that has no ‘‘share’’ in the sensex-generated wealth. On the contrary, every surge on BSE only serves to highlight the widening gulf that separates India Un-incorporated from India Inc. Which prompts me to shift the focus from BSE’s sensitive index to another index that’s far more sensitive to the aspirations of most Indians — namely, the Gini coefficient. Development economists use this index (conceived by Italian statistician Corrado Gini) to measure income inequality. It ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 implies perfect equality and 1 connotes total inequality. Estimates of the Gini coefficient in India vary, from 0.37 to 0.42. After remaining more or less constant for the first four decades after independence, it has been steadily rising after the advent of liberalisation and globalisation. Actually, we don’t need an economist to tell us that income inequality — also inequality in access to clean drinking water, decent housing, good education, proper healthcare, etc. — is rising. Cast a glance at urban or rural India, and you’ll have ample proof that India, though far more prosperous today than ever before, is also far more iniquitous now than ever before.

In this, India conforms to a grotesque global pattern. The UN Human Development Report notes that incomes are distributed most unequally across the world’s people, with a Gini coefficient of 0.66 globally. The richest 5% in the world corner 114 times the income of the poorest 5%. The richest 1% have as much as the poorest 57%. The 2.5 crore richest Americans earn as much as 200 crore of the world’s poorest people. The poorest 20% in the world saw their share of the global income dip from 2.3% to 1.4% in the past 30 years. Meanwhile, the share of the richest 20% rose from 70% to 85%, much of it coming from stock and financial markets. Globalisation may be a boon to humanity in many ways, but none can deny that it has also globalised inequality.


These days, India’s policymakers are paying a lot of adulatory attention to China — and for good reason. But they must also listen to the warning bells. China’s fast-growing inequality is cleaving Chinese society and is likely to produce severe socio-political friction in the coming years. Recently, People’s Daily reported that China’s Gini coefficient has increased to 0.45, (it was 0.34 as recently as in 1999) indicating that inequality in ‘‘communist’’ China has surpassed that of ‘‘capitalist’’ US. Calling it a ‘‘yellow alert’’, the newspaper warned that, at this rate, China could reach the ‘‘red alert’’ in five years. No wonder, protest actions by peasants and workers across China shot up from 58,000 in 2003 to 74,000 in 2004.

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
India is going in the right direction AFAIC. Indians are a very patriotic bunch which is evident from their activities. What I do not understand is how do you know that the rich Indians are not happy !!!! Mind reader ?? Hmmm maybe.

Moreover when a country is developing and changing into an economic power it has to go through periods of greater inequality in wealth. This happens because the higher class of the society takes opportunity of the scopes that a developing nation provides. However with time and with the right sort of government policies India will be able to reuduce its poverty level as well. The fact is India's growth is faster than any country other than China. You can comment after 15 years whether India is actually successfully alleviating poverty. Right now it is growing and the presence of inequality in wealth distribution is normal.

Just wanted to add, the fact that India has an ever increasing middle class is ample proof that they are in the right direction and poverty is being alleviated but more concrete comments about this can be put after 15 years.

Sorry, I meant poor indians

[Special 1]

Originally Posted by shahriyar
India is going in the right direction AFAIC. Indians are a very patriotic bunch which is evident from their activities. What I do not understand is how do you know that the rich Indians are not happy !!!! Mind reader ?? Hmmm maybe.

Moreover when a country is developing and changing into an economic power it has to go through periods of greater inequality in wealth. This happens because the higher class of the society takes opportunity of the scopes that a developing nation provides. However with time and with the right sort of government policies India will be able to reuduce its poverty level as well. The fact is India's growth is faster than any country other than China. You can comment after 15 years whether India is actually successfully alleviating poverty. Right now it is growing and the presence of inequality in wealth distribution is normal.

Just wanted to add, the fact that India has an ever increasing middle class is ample proof that they are in the right direction and poverty is being alleviated but more concrete comments about this can be put after 15 years.

I agree that when countries grow, inequality increases. But it does not mean that the poor should become worse off. In many cases the Indian poor has become worse of because of this growth process. There are innovative ways to integrate economic growth with alleviating poverty, but unfortunately the WB r the IMF are not big fans of them.

Can you please provide evidence about India being the second fastest growing Economy in the World? I have doubts they are.

Finally i have huge issues with neoclassical economic policies and think they simply cannot be appliesd to most developing countries of the world.