As an Indian who has spent all but two years of his life in India, when I read stories like this I think of two possibilities:
1. Propaganda by affluent and successful Indians claiming the country is as successful as they are.
2. Westerners overstating Indian progress to feel more comfortable that there is a friendly and reliable challenger to China from the developing world.
I don't know, I may be wrong on both counts but the reality is that we are a dirt poor country with not just deep institutional problems, but also moral and psychological ones.
>the reality is that we are a dirt poor country with not just deep institutional problems, but also moral and psychological ones.
I was searching for the words to express this for more than ten minutes before I read your comment. The key here is 'moral and psychological problems'.
To cite just one example, there was a lot of ruckus about the 2G Scam and the Lokpal bill recently. We believe that the guy who got 17200 Crore rupees in kickbacks is a corrupt SOB and should be punished to the maximum extent, but when it was revealed that a leading anti-corruption crusader was actually stealing money from the sponsors who invited her for talks, we dismissed it as a 'small amount'. This kind of 'it's not a crime if its done at a small scale but it's a crime if its done on a large scale' mentality is present among nearly everyone.
Also, another huge problem with Indians is that we as a people do not wish to risk anything. As a result we will never fight for something that should be rightfully ours (like a Government that does it's job). Urban voters are generally brainwashed by the charisma of our politicians or are bought wholesale with a few thousand rupees and a bottle of liquor. Rural voters don't really care who they vote for. As a result we keep alternating between the same two sets of thugs. Will we get out on the streets and protest for better governance like the arabs did? Never.
So, the West can paint many pretty picture and call it India, but this is a country in massive disarray, and the fact that it hasn't already collapsed is purely by chance.
Ironically, I agree with the comment you're replying to but not with you. Political hypocrisy favoring people you like is seen everywhere. Even if that were NOT the case, I find it difficult to get less worked up about 1,72,00,00,00,000 rupees than maybe 5-10,00,000 rupees.
The middle-class attitude to not risk much is also something we should not blame Indians for -- remember that most of the middle class (that's in the 'service' sector) is actually Bramhin, which means that it's a step down in status from what their ancestors enjoyed. And when you look at the looong way down you can fall in India socioeconomically... it's hard to blame someone for being risk-averse.
How many people have you heard stealing 1,72,00,00,00,000 rupees? And how many have you heard stealing 10,000 rupees?
My point was that we get worked up for one time theft of XXXX rupees, whereas we consider thousands of class C government employees demanding anywhere from 1000 to 10,000 rupees from hundreds of people everyday as passable.
Also, why should I not blame middle class Indians for what they are (not) doing? The middle class in India is a huge section of people. If you want something you should be prepared to risk everything and fight for it. If you are not willing to risk it, then you deserve what you get. Imagine the benefits we can reap in future if we are willing to duke it out now.
Also, this risk averse attitude is the reason why we were ruled by the British for 200 years. Only once people started risking everything they had did we get the Independence we deserved. Why should fighting inept politicians who are ruining my country be any different from fighting a foreign aggresor?
Well, I mean, obviously. Not that it's passable, but do you want to spend energy bringing every pickpocket to justice or do you want to spend energy bringing justice to ONE man who scammed the country out of as much money as HALF IT'S POPULATION makes in a YEAR?
A bigger problem is the insane benefits someone rich can reap with just a savings account in India. The large interest rates that you get in the State Bank and the enormous loopholes that everyone exploits essentially means that there's an entire class of people whose interest earned on savings is sufficient to land them in the top 5% of the population.
Why would anyone be motivated to take risks after such a deal ?
Also, no government can solve India's problem. 600 people (few uneducated, several underqualified and some with a shady past) to make decisions for a diverse 1 bn population? That doesn't scale in any way whatsoever.
Well, one can get many multiples of the investment if they focus on real estate as opposed to the savings account. The rich are indeed getting fabulously rich.
And all the while the conditions of the real poor are in fact getting worse. And as someone whose family/ community falls into the capitalist class I see condition of most of the employees degrading first hand. The so called middle class is in some sense living in a bubble, working semi-coolie jobs for MNCs (for the most part) and thinking that their more hip lifestyles are in some ways representative of a sea change in India.
I am sure the benefits of savings accounts (4% p.a. return on average?) are not sufficient to foster an entire class of people living on them. Most businesses would give returns far higher than this, making the risk-free saving account not a great option.
Many other countries with corruption problems see a huge increase in skilled worker outflows..namely Russia with a 2 million outflow every 10 years..
Is India also facing a killed worker outflow due to corruption conditions? Outflow in the sense that the number is higher than the net difference between the birth and death rates.
"we are a dirt poor country"...man only u r dirt cheap one...
how could one say so confidently to whole nation,...any nation? rethinking needed here...
(Speaking as person who has spent 10+ years in each country) India is no where close to America. There are so many enormous fundamental differences that anyone making such a comparison needs to be looked at as naive at best.
- India's population id 4X that of America
- More than half the population is below the poverty line
- The level of very basic Infrastructure (Roads, Water, Electricity, Sanitation) is non-existent in Villages, poor in most cities and tolerable in the so-called "Metros" (top 8 cities) - 6 hours of power cuts are common in summer in the Metros
- There is more stress on "Exam taking" than on "learning". Sports is limited to Cricket - a nation of a billion people boasts of 1 -2 Gold medals in the Olympics. Mediocrity in everything.
- Indians by and large "play it safe" in everything. The level of innovation is very low (witness the number of international awards won by Indians IN india -Nobel Prize, Fields medal etc is next to zero). A very twisted shortcut based method of "Jugaad" is praised so he who discovers the best method of beating the system is rewarded.
I despair for my country. We are headed in the wrong direction and keep accelerating. <rant-off>
You have summarized it well and I agree to most of your points.
Its ridiculous how educational institutions have such a narrow focus on exams and the grades you score rather than actual learning. While this might be true in other places too, its ingrained in society here and any deviation from the set norms is not accepted well. Teachers are not paid well either and that adds to the problem.
Perhaps its because of this that innovation and research are very limited here.
Another fundamental difference is the constitution and the laws. Atleast on the book, the American constitution provides far more rights to the citizens than the Indian constitution. India as a country is far more regulated by the government. This means there are more avenues for corruption to happen since you need the permission of the authorities for almost everything. I feel the entire country is moving towards an authoritarian state with so much power vested in government institutions.
There are just too many things to list that its overloading my head when I try to list them out.I hope that the nation moves forward in a direction of its own, taking in the good values while discarding the propaganda.
>number of international awards won by Indians IN india -Nobel Prize, Fields medal etc is next to zero)
Well at least its not zero.Rabindra Nath Tagore got it for his brilliant work - Geetanjali, Amartya Sen got it for his work on poverty and famines, C.V Raman got it for discovering what is now called the Raman Effect.
Also there have been notable achievements that perhaps have not been acknowledged with an award.For example J.C.Bose was the first to use a semiconductor junction to detect radio waves.
> Indians by and large "play it safe" in everything
If you're an Indian businessperson, you have two options - copy the US and make a good ROI, or risk everything on creating a new product for a potentially better ROI. The choice is obvious - it's far cheaper (and more beneficial) to play catch-up than innovate.
The question is - why is India still playing catch-up?
I don't know that much about India. I'm guessing that corruption is one part. I've heard Indian culture can be anti-business. Perhaps politics are more sectarian than policy-based - they don't vote for a party because it has good policies (or seems to have good policies), but because they identify with the candidates (same religion, caste, region, family, whatever). Democracy doesn't seem to work when elections are fought on sectarian lines.
I agree with your last line. We have numerous parties that are "caste based". Bigger parties typically have alliance with the smaller "caste based" parties because they can win the votes of people who are of particular caste.
One such example of a party(there are many) is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattali_Makkal_Katchi
[From wikipedia]
>Ramdoss had earlier worked with the Vanniyar Sangham (Vanniyar Union) founded by him in 1980. PMK is based amongst the Most Backward Class Vanniyakula Kshatriyas community.
Vanniyar is a caste in the south Indian state of Tamil Nadu
I believe you misinterpreted his words. Being an 'Indian businessperson' itself is not done much because of the 'play it safe' attitude. Yes, Indians are that risk-averse.
Well, most people around the world are averse to business. Is there really a bigger proportion of Chinese or Russian or Egyptian businesspersons than Indian? (In fact, India has a handful of extremely business-minded communities -- the Marwadis and the Gujaratis, and to a lesser extent the Punjabis, Sindhis and Malayalis. If anything, India does relatively well on this metric.)
Interesting point ... Do you think the geography of the region played a big role in keeping the tradition alive? I'm always surprised to see how my community (Bengalis) are so resistant to business - even though I have read Bengali traders ventured into overseas trading way back in history. What I felt was Calcutta becoming the capital during British India, generated a lot of government jobs for 200 years. That growth led to the downfall of the entrepreneurs in our region.
Growing up in Calcutta my Mariwari and Gujrati friends were always excited to talk about business. It was clear how their parents encouraged it. I was clearly taught business is a strict NO-NO. Get a stable job and settle down. When I look back, in a class of 60 odd people in my computer science undergrad class 95% "settled down". Only two dared to kick their job and go for a startup.
Perhaps... I'm not entirely sure why this is the way things are. The histories of specific Indian communities are often completely fascinating, and I wish there was more literature on the subject and I had more time to read it. :)
Well the Marwadis and Gujaratis have been traders and businessmen since ancient times. It's kind of like the son of a farmer being a farmer himself. How many daily wage labourers have started their own businesses? Or for that matter, how many IT MNC employees have?
I do not know if there is a bigger proportion of Chinese/Russian/Egyptian businessmen, but I do know that the amount of social stigma attached to leaving a well paying job to do a startup is significantly higher in India than in most other countries.
Chinese are also massively risk-adverse (despite having a massive respect for businessmen). The only Chinese who start businesses are those who have the luxury of being able to afford to take risks (rich parents), and those who can't afford not to.
Author has a very laser-focused view of India. The country is much more diverse that this article supposes. There is still extreme poverty, religious bigotry, no-holds barred traffic lawlessness, corruption, discreet money and hundreds of other very-Indian issues.
Americanization of India is limited to metros and big cities, and there too you see a mind-boggling mix of poverty and abundance.
Yes there is still poverty,religious stupidity,corruption etc etc.
But at least the minds of the bravest and the brightest are now filled with thoughts about entrepreneurship,technology and change.(which the author claims are american values)
Think about what the predominant themes on Indian minds were a few decades earlier.
"There is still extreme poverty, religious bigotry, no-holds barred traffic lawlessness, corruption, discreet money and hundreds of other very-Indian issues."
So does America. The point of the article is that there are some very uniquely American things - consumerism, fast-food, Starbucks, etc. - that have infiltrated Indian culture. I interpreted it as an observation independent of a value judgment.
It's got many, many more people. I'm sure I would be boggled by the logistical problems simply of running the public transportation system in a large city. It's not easy to do things at large scale, as we've learned with Web development.
I think what paraschopra is commenting on is that India has certainly not become the USA. It has a passing resemblance in some places if you limit your vision to 5 degrees in front of you, and small sections of the richest parts of India are getting slowly westernized. But India as a whole, the 2nd most populous country in the world, has certainly not become the USA.
But the NYT isn't going to make money with a headline like India still getting slowly westernized in rich areas
I agree that India is not simply becoming like the US. And I would hope that it wouldn't -- among the many reasons are that we've got lots of problems in the US, including social dislocation and isolation, high rates of divorce and so on.
I think this is one way in which India is decidedly unAmerican (sorry for borrowing an O'Reillyism). Whereas you or I would gape in horror at the kind of poverty that permeates modern India, most "elite" Indians are quite desensitized to the situation. After all, you don't have much of a choice when you see that sort of thing on a daily basis.
Also, people in India are more likely to take a relative view of things, given that they see things from an historical perspective as well. As it states here[0], the literacy rate last year was 75%, which is an enormous improvement over the 12% at the end of British rule.
I think your comment about elite desensitisation is fascinating: I gape in horror (I'm a north-western european these days) when I'm in San Francisco and people casually walk around people sleeping on the sidewalk near their front doors.
1) Literacy
The problem with the 75 % literacy is that many of those uneducated people are old and can not be taught now. The literacy of youth is about 85% which is still bad, but the number is gaining exponentially and should be near American levels in 15 years. That is less than a generation.
India has been free for 65 years. This was after 200 years of Britain stripmining India of its resources. Our politicians were at fault to go into a socialistic cocoon for nearly 45 years before liberating India's potential. And look at progress that has been made in the last 20 years. The poverty has fallen by 10 percentage points, while the population has increased by ~ 30 percentage points.
I don't necessarily agree with the writer's views, it looked more like an anecdote than an actual analysis / story.
But to quote numbers without actually analysing them is just plain bad.
I don't think the "resource strip-mining" probably wasn't that big a factor.
The big problem was, they used "divide and conquer". The British were masters at it - find a minority in a region, and give them guns and military assistance. The minorities can now be relied on to keep the rest of the population under control, and they can't rebel against the British for fear of a reprisal from the majority.
The problem is, it leaves a real mess when the Brits leave.
No, resource strip-mining was a HUGE problem, and was compounded by the fact that India missed the Industrial Revolution at least partially because the British willfully sabotaged Indian attempts to gain technology.
(It was in the interests of the British to force India to sell them raw materials at low prices, feed it to industries in Britan, and sell it back to India as a finished product. In those days, gold was money, and India had a lot of gold.)
I take those literacy and poverty numbers with a grain of salt -- they're manufactured by the govt to make itself look good. While literacy and poverty have both been addressed somewhat, it's a far cry from the official numbers. And frankly I'm worried that the population is growing faster than people are falling out of poverty.
These are issues that aren't going to be addressed overnight, no matter Indian elites wishes for or not. These will take years or even decades to be addressed because of the socio-economic differences here and complex to understand cultural issues. There should be steps taken to rapidize the process and main problem which is preventing it in my opinion is the another big elephant in the room - corruption. But in the same time, I'm really happy with whatever progress we've made from 1980s (when i was born) till now. I grew up with it and live between 2 worlds still. But not everyone had the same opportunity I had and definitely it will take decades to address everyone with the huge population we have. Poverty less or fully literate India is most probably not possible in your or my lifetime.
I agree it's difficult, but how about let us think that it is possible and important? I would hope technology can help, we already see that cell phones throughout some of the poorest parts of the world have become the default form of non-local communication. If we can hook this kind of connectivity to the education system the opportunities are boundless.
Not sure if you're Indian or not. But if you're not, your reply seems mean-spirited and misses the point of the article. And as an American, I want to distance myself from this attitude. Each country has its issues that it is dealing with. It's hardly for the elites on this site to tell the elites in India what to do.
I am a first generation American, my family owned a farm in Gujurat, India. I am grateful to have been molded by two cultures that both value Universal Compassion and Scientific Method. Not all members practice it, but the ideals were passed down at least and the future of both nations will depend upon how seriously they practice their founding ideals.
"Be not afraid, for all great power throughout the history of humanity has been with the people. From out of their ranks have come all the greatest geniuses of the world, and history can only repeat itself. Be not afraid of anything. You will do marvelous work." - Swami Vivekananda, a founding father of modern India
You seem to imply that none of the "elites" in India have sought to improve the situation with regard to poverty and literacy. This is an unfair position. There may be corruption, apathy and so on, which impede progress along these lines. But there were similar problems in London, New York and Chicago not too long ago (and in American cities there still are such problems). So it would a double standard to say the least to criticize Indians in this connection on one hand and, implicitly, to rest satisfied with one's own government, on the other. If you are criticizing both them and your own society simultaneously (assuming you're not Indian), this hardly provides support for what seems to be your point that Indians aren't doing enough. And India, not being an authoritarian society, cannot simply decree literacy. There is that messy problem of democratic governance.
Everyone on this site should be considered an "elite" for the purposes of this discussion.
I don't imply that there is no charity in India, but I suggest that when the country habors one third of the worlds poor that there is a way to go.
I find your argument strange if you don't recognize the magnitude of India's poverty compared to the U.S. and Western Europe. My beef with the article is that it in no ways recognizes this problem.
India harbors a large percentage of the world's population; it's not surprising that it has many of the world's poor people. That India is poorer than the US and western Europe cannot be denied. I've been there, and I've seen the poverty. But the challenges it's dealing with are huge. And I don't think criticism from the bleachers will do much to improve the situation.
bleachers, n., "Usually, bleachers. a typically roofless section of inexpensive and unreserved seats in tiers, especially at an open-air athletic stadium."
It would be interesting to know what the elites of America would do if it was easy for a poor person to board a flight and land in the US. I guess stop them at the door by not allowing visas.
poverty and human suffering is a burden that must be shared by everyone who is aware of it. Americans owe their prosperity to many historic factors, including a near virgin land and colonising a native population, apart from the American spirit.
Having said there is no doubt Indian elites must do more.
India is a big, diverse country in terms of people, culture and economy. The article is pigeonholing a country with over a billion people in sparse categories. Any article talking about "India" is mostly generalizing based on a small dataset.
The filty rich, people dressed in filty clothes, and "people in between" co-exist in India. The first experience of India starts right where the airport ends - the crowd of touts and cabs fighting for your attention will come as quite a shock if you haven't faced it already.
The divide between rich and poor will become more profound once you leave the airport and enter the city. One second you are in a neighourhood rivaling the most plush cities in the world, another you are standing by a heap of garbage, watching children in rags hunting the trash for recyclable objects which they sell to earn their living.
India, specially the big cities, are complete chaos, owing to their large population. Someone from a quite neighourhood will be a bit taken aback when he is subjected to insane amounts of traffic accompanied with honking. For the most roads, you will have to jaywalk. However, don't concern yourself too much, as this is standard practice and drivers are used to it.
Apart from the traffic, cows and other animals roaming the strets isn't uncommon. They are big, but mostly harmless.
As far as society goes, the Indian society takes pride in being closely knit and valuing familial values. You will find people living with their parents, which is very uncommon in the west. Also, people don't display intimacy in public - even married people generally keep distance. On the other hand, boys with hands over other boys' shoulders, and girls holding each others' hands is a common sight.
Also note that the Indian states differ in culture at the macro level, and the country loves to fragment itself at both macro and micro levels. People from the northern part of India(believed to be Arayn descendents) and people from southern India(believed to be Dravidian descendents) are an example of culture difference at a macro level, and Tamil(South Indian) brahmins differentiating themselves from Non-brahmins is an example at a micro level.
India, as a country, has a different sense of privacy and personal space. People will ask all sorts of personal questions, without meaning any offence. It's just the Indian version of small talk, and they feel delighted if the same questions are asked of them.
Talk about programmers - you will find the bell curve at work. But since the number of people who are supposedly programmers is large, and you mostly come across the middle of the normal distribution, it's easy to get the impression that most people are incompetent.
Note that I said believed to be Aryan descendants. I have seen the studies de-bunking Aryan invasion based on the genetic make-up, but I don't believe there is a consensus yet.
More importantly, I was pointing out India as a country fragments itself at all levels. You know what will change if the Aryan invasion was a myth - nothing as far as the north indian and south indian fragmentation is concerned.
I don't have any specific experience with India but I am also always a little skeptical with attitudes like that in the second half of the article. It seems to just be another instance of 'the good old days' syndrome. Especially the anecdote about violence - surely there were never murders in India before McDonald's moved in.
I especially love the part about Panchayats losing their authority -- those old fucks need to all resign, and quickly.
I'm not being anti-tradition or whatever. Panchayats routinely carry out horrific human rights violations against women and lower casts. This barbaric system has to be replaced by actual courts.
A very broad generalization. You are confusing Panchayats with "Khap Panchayats" and other traditional community panchayats which have been in news for honor killings and such. These panchayats are traditional bodies with no powers sanctioned by law or constitution.
Separate from that, there is a whole system of local governance based on panchayats. These bodies play a very important role in letting the local people participate in decision making process for things which are going to affect them. Members of these panchayats are elected through proper electoral process and are not "old fucks" usually. It is a form of decentralization of power which is sanctioned by law and is a good thing.
You are so right. The connection is really weak ...
But as for the audacious title - the article begins the analysis in the correct era - the liberalization of the Indian economy. But more than anything, why India became a "half-hearted" America - is:
1. Because it wanted to - We grow up n stiff competition knowing the holy grail is to crack the IIT entrance exam which is really an assurance for your trip to the promised land. The uncle and aunt staying abroad are a constant source of inspiration, who _defined_ "success" and would return home once every 2 or 3 years like war heroes with loots in the form of Lindt, Ghirardelli or board games that had a strange smell of, well, "happiness"!
2. MTV - MTV India was launched sometime when I was in standard 5 or something. Indian youth till then had seen only two channels which where sacred entertainment came in the form of "Mahabharata", "Ramayana", "Krishna", "Chanakya" - all epics or history heroes, mythical heroes - mind it none at the same time - often years apart. "Chitrahar"/"Rangoli" had some hot sauce - songs from our Bollywood movies - which featured middle aged angry young men dancing with a troupe on a massive drum in a forest. And then there was MTV - a breath of fresh air, new GODS, new way of dressing, and a better glimpse of the promised world. This was followed by the explosion of cable tv - HBO, Star movies, Star World - streamed in streets of New York, Chicago directly to our living room, and engraved it in our hearts.
3. Movies - Some argue Bollywood and cricket can change governments in India. Our movies soon caught up with the cable and MTV - and in no time the colleges depicted in movies started looking more like a school in the US (For any Indian reading this - these are Shahrukh Khan & Yash Raj brand of movies). They defined what is cool. Soon there were fake american brands available in every footpath stalls.
4. Broadband - Internet changes everything. Soon we were talking on chatrooms, downloading pirated mp3-s of Pink Floyd, watching more of Hollywood (yeah - sweet p2p baby). Our regular vocabulary has been enriched by the f-word, Kurt Cobain T-shirt was a must have. Even Indi-porn - which primarily featured voluptuous females taking bath had adopted the new tricks of the trade.
5. Final blow - IT, outsource and call center. This is the only part where America had a direct hand - you Bangalored your overpriced jobs and provided the jet pad we needed to take off for the american dream. Easy money => more american brands + worst_of_both_worlds_accent => Cool. With more purchasing power young college graduates _with_ a job in Wipro, TCS, Infosys etc. were looking for places to spend - and this is what led to mushrooming of shopping malls all over the country. So where did the design inspiration for these malls come from? Well, to cater to the needs of the customer oriented the architects looked West ...
That in a nutshell how India is becoming America. Nothing is good or bad, its just the way it changes.
I'd have to say the more appropriate title is India is on the trajectory to become America.
But there are several caveats.
America doesn't have huge pockets of the population isolated in illiteracy, poor sanitation, lack electricity/clean water and such like.
Societal transitions-wise, it faces many of the challenges that America did in the 50's and 60's with a few more complexities. The opportunity exists for a great story provided there is no major war or natural calamity that depletes or hijacks its course over the next couple of decades.
One thing you can be thankful for is that the democratic system, and people power, continues to thrive as proven in this weeks elections in the state of UP. Powerful governments, bullying party organizations and divisive agendas were voted out and people with the message of development and unity were voted in (of course, whether the people campaigning this way follow through is another question)
Notice I didn't mention corruption. A relevant challenge, it is another discussion for another day. Though India's corruption challenges exist starting right at the grass roots level, even America hasn't found a way to effectively take it out everywhere.
Link bait title. The author is advertising his upcoming book.
The gist of the article is that anything other than Socialism is 'American'. Since when houses with concrete roofs, foreign brands, shopping malls, office buildings and being optimistic represent only America? The author needs to travel other parts of the world.
Articles like this which draw parallels between two countries often do disservice to both the countries. America is not all about consumerism and India is not all about a poor imitation of America.
This article is almost unbelievable in this day and age. While there is a constant shift in values in urban India towards the West, it was never the case that "Ancient social structures are collapsing under the weight of new money", this is pure Orientalism, India is (and was) always changing like the rest of the world is, it was never "frozen in time", like some Western commentators like it to be (as well as some Indian ones, such as "R. K. Narayan, that great chronicler of India in simpler times", times were never "simpler").
The urban Indians did drift considerably westward during the last two decades, while most villages and towns regressed economically and never adopted Western values (hence the growing "red corridor").
The last two decades were marked by the rise of the Indian Middle Class in urban India (encouraged by the Indian PM Manmohan Singh and his Neo-liberal agenda), and middle classes all over the world seem to share similar values and perspectives. The author might benefit from researching some more, and relying less on his personal impressions and his obsolete (even colonialist) hermeneutic.
The "good old days" bit at the end was a bit obtuse. Clearly life expectancy and quality of life has gone up. People are less likely to die a horrible death. Even if there are more violent crimes driven by new money and disparity between classes, if it isn't just increased connectivity and a huge amount more news making more people hear about violent crime more often, then people are still better off.
But it seems like everywhere people are driven by their crappy human risk assessment system. The west has been inundated with the stats about crime rates going down but the "fear of crime" going up (seems like the fear is more correlated to the news cycle than the crime rate but that's besides the point).
So the irrational "good old days"/out of proportion fear of rare events thing seems be another common American and western trait. I guess he's inadvertently supporting his premise with this misunderstanding as well.
Another disillusioned Indian here. I'm in the middle of a month long vacation after living in US for 3 years.
After a boom of 10 years, we now have really good highways in most part of the country. However I saw at least one bullock cart, some stray cows and people trying to cross a 4 lane US Interstate like Highway. Also the entries to highways were ill-planned. Traffic regulations and speed limits were not updated in light of recent developments.
Tamil Nadu, one of the growth engines of Indian economy gets 10 hr power cuts everyday because the chief minister refuses to open a newly constructed nuclear power plant.
Engineering colleges in India track their students round the clock and report to parents on their activities. Someone I know goes to a school where they conduct "aptitude" classes 3 saturdays+ one sunday a month for preparing students to attend Infosys(Wipro, TCS)( All three have the same business models, body shops) interviews. Kids literally buy their thesis(project) from companies that have a ready made project for them, so they could focus more on getting into one of the Body Shops.
Also I just read that many of the companies that got into "emerging "(Airlines, Telecom) Indian economy are either running on losses or never made a profit.
I think it is a much better analysis and look at the underlying issues that plague India as it struggles to deal with modernization and globalization. The article in this post wasn't quite an analysis but more of a description or summarization of the what is happening. The article from last summer, while it doesn't exactly cover the same scope and exact subject matter, focuses on many of the same phenomenon. Definitely worth checking out.
As someone who knows little about Indian society and have never set foot on American soul, I'm obviously a bit limited wrt the subject matter. That said, this text reads to me as a shallow piece of nationalism. The comments here (which are - I might add - much more interesting to read) seems to confirm that.
I'm wondering if the author is naïeve or if it's deliberate propaganda. If the latter - which groups would promote such views and are they dominant in India?
This article references Bangalore & Chennai for the most parts. Both the cities have higher majority of educated people is higher and large influx of "MNC Incomes". Cliche as it may be the "real" India is still in villages.
You can't make statement like "India Became America " based on 5-10 cities in India.
As majority of India doesn't have
- Basic Education
- Basic Health services
- Electricity
- Minimal Infrastructure to grow (including Road, Housing)
There are a lot of interesting comments here, and I especially appreciate the comments from people who know India (a place I have never been). The author of the submitted article says he grew up mostly in India and in Minnesota, the place where I was born, grew up, and now live. The article seems to suggest, with its anecdote
"She leads a simple life (impoverished even, by American standards), but she is immeasurably better off than she was a couple of decades ago. She grew up in a thatch hut. Now she lives in a house with a concrete roof, running water and electricity. Her son owns a cellphone and drives a motorcycle. Her niece is going to college.
"But not long before we talked, there had been a murder in the area, the latest in a series of violent attacks and killings. Shops that hadn’t existed a decade ago were boarded up in anticipation of further violence; the police patrolled newly tarred roads."
that crime will increase when "Americanization" happens to a society. I think that is a mistaken conclusion. I have lived overseas, for two three-years stays, in Taiwan, both before and after Taiwan's democratization. Reduction in crime seems to depend crucially on both effective law enforcement and on a civil society that builds cohesion and community norms against crime. Rapidly transforming societies--in whatever direction they are transforming--seem to suffer a breakdown of social order and an increase in crime rate. That's just what was happening in the United States as I grew up. But today crime rates in the United States are actually much lower, for nearly all types of crime, and especially for violent crime, than they were in my early adulthood. My Minnesota neighborhood and the whole large suburban municipality surrounding it is essentially crime-free, with almost the only life-threatening form of crime being driving while drunk. My whole family, including my young children, can walk or bicycle anywhere within more than a five-mile radius at any hour of day or night and have no fear of any kind of crime. I have urban habits formed in childhood of looking the door of our house every evening, but it's no worry if we ever leave the house without looking it up, and possessions like bicycles and skateboards and patio furniture can be left outdoors unattended for days on end with no one stealing them or damaging them.
More generally, in view of the many interesting comments here, I think India has a much brighter future from today than, say, China. India has a great many problems, according to every person from India I know, but India has a free press and moderately fair elections and a great deal of openness about talking about societal problems. China, by contrast, does not permit such open criticism of corruption, political favoritism, and police inaction against crime as is routine in India. Both because India has a government that must be accountable to voters and a free press to watch the government, and because people from India have access through the English language to the consequences of different political and economic systems around the world, I expect India to fix more of its problems more smoothly over the next few decades than China, and ultimately to be a leading example for countries around the world in how to build a cohesive, diverse, and thriving society with much freedom to choose the best of the traditional and modern.
At this point, I'd happily like to point out that my country - Australia - weathered the GFC better than pretty much anyone else and has an exceptionally strong currency, low unemployment, and is generally up near the top on any quality of life measure. Starbucks came here, opened nearly a hundred stores... and failed horribly - they were too shortsighted to see that we already had a quality coffee culture (born of our Italians, Greeks and Turks) and their shitty coffee made no inroads here.
(an aside - the one and only time I've had anything from starbucks was an iced chocolate in LA on a hot day - and it was gritty)
So I read this article and wonder if they've totally misread another market. Whatever the case may be, having Starbucks is not a sign that your country is successful.
The funny thing is that Turkey (Or at least, Istanbul) has quite a few Starbucks. (And Gloria Jeans, for whatever reason, really took hold there.) But the point is that if you have a Starbucks, you have people who can afford Starbucks.
That's a good point, but opening a single store (as in the article) is nothing to hang your hat on - pretty much every country has a social elite who could support a few stores.
In the heart of Hanoi there's a KFC (there's a few throughout VN, at least in the tourist areas) and the Vietnamese economy is booming... in Vietnamese terms. They're still incredibly poor with a 30% inflation rate, and the KFC is charging Vietnamese prices, not western prices. KFC may have plonked some stores down and localised them a bit, but that doesn't mean that the locals have anything like a western quality of life.
I found it interesting that although the food in the KFC was different (though still fowl), it was the same experience in terms of disinterested teenage staff, overloud music, and grimy plastic seating...
1. Propaganda by affluent and successful Indians claiming the country is as successful as they are.
2. Westerners overstating Indian progress to feel more comfortable that there is a friendly and reliable challenger to China from the developing world.
I don't know, I may be wrong on both counts but the reality is that we are a dirt poor country with not just deep institutional problems, but also moral and psychological ones.