Poverty, footwear and cold water
Published by Yazad Jal May 2nd, 2005 in EconomicsRediff has published a piece by me on how poverty has decreased in India. It started as a response to Dilip D’Souza, but I make one important point. Anecdotes don’t matter. Dilip talks about the overwhelming poverty he saw while on a train trip. I write about how I see more poor Indians wearing shoes, acquiring consumer durables and cellphones. While our observations might be diametrically opposite, both of us are right. How do we then know whether India is poorer or richer (or unchanged) in terms of material prosperity?
The only way is to use some measurement tool (or a combination of them). I’d look at per capita income, the UN’s Human Development Index, and the Economic Freedom Index. By all three measures, India is better off in 2005 than it was in 1990. We’re not doing as well as we should, we’re nowhere near. But we’re doing better than fifteen years ago. That itself should be an indicator that the reforms in 1991 were in the right direction.
Thanks to Aadisht, Amit, MadMan, and Ravikiran who helped in polishing my first ever rediff piece. And a special thanks to Sandeep whose post prodded me to write the retort.
Congrats on being published.
I couldn’t agree more with your arguments in the column. I believed in the India Shining campaign and whatever happened later in the polls was merely telling a different story that suited the Congress. India has definitiely progressed after liberalization, but it must hasten its progress. Economic growth is relative.
Your article is OK but falls into the same trap as that of Dilip’s which uses anecdotal evidence. There is only one line in the actual article where you cite real statistics, the GDP. I couldnt find any reference to HDI or other stats.
The only reason, I point this out is you had gone ballistic when excerpts of an interview of an environmental scientist was published and he spoke of anecdotes. Here you had your chance to write a whole article.
Hey Yazad,
There’s nothing quite as gratifying as having an article I write stimulate another article, even one that claims to be a retort! It’s even more gratifying that the retort is as thoughtful and cogent as yours is. So thanks. I mean that. Were you silently working on this when we met at the Tea Centre?
I actually agree with a lot of what you say in your rediff article. The guy who takes my clothes to get them ironed bought a cellphone. And the truly interesting thing is that he immediately got on a train to a UP village to give it to his parents, who were then saved a 5km trip to the closest STD booth. (And consider that STD booths were themselves a great revolution some 15 years ago). Truly, cellphones are now the tool of the poor, and landlines the tool of the rich — what a fascinating inversion.
The shoes argument has made sense to me ever since I saw that nearly everyone in Cuba wears shoes.
And we are indeed better off in 2005 than we were in 1990. As I said in my piece, I strongly believe the reforms process had to happen and must keep happening.
So where does that leave this argument? Here: my feeling is that the reforms process has not been as wide, as rapid, as sincerely pursued if you like, as it must be. I meet too many people who are yet to see it making a healthy difference in their lives. I don’t believe those people can be wished away, or told that they must wait. After all, they were told they must wait for better times during our years of wrong-headed socialism too. So they see NO difference between the rhetoric from the days of socialism and the rhetoric today: both make promises that they are yet to see affecting them. I think that sentiment must be taken note of.
I travel by train a lot. The flood of destitute people on my most recent trip depressed me. As I said, in some 35 years taking trains, I’ve never seen such a lot of them. That’s where my article(s) came from.
You might want to look at this
earlier post of mine and the exchange in the comments: lots of figures there.
Which leads finally to a note about anecdotes. I quote figures all the time, rely on them a great deal. But also as I indicated in my rediff piece, I usually try to look for evidence that will corroborate the figures. That’s why anecdotes matter. They make the figures credible. Suppose I told you, 75% of Indians are left-handed. What is it that persuades you I’m bullshitting? The fact that the great majority of people you meet are not left-handed.
Once more, thanks.
Yazad, one more point. In that post of mine I mentioned, take a look at an anonymous comment towards the end about the difference between average (i.e. per capita) and median incomes, and how median might be a better figure if we could get it.
Dilip
In your article, you’d written, “I am yet to see the one effect they [the reforms] must have, first and above all: a visible lessening in the level of Indian poverty. Fewer poor Indians around us. I can’t see that.”
In your comment above you wrote, “we are indeed better off in 2005 than we were in 1990.”
But let that contradiction be. Just clarify the following two points for all of us, because we’re not clear where you stand on this: one, do you believe that there has been too little liberalisation, or too much? Two, do you agree with Yazad and me that there should be freer markets with less government interference?
Thank you.
Dilip comment above: “…my feeling is that the reforms process has not been as wide, as rapid, as sincerely pursued if you like, as it must be. I meet too many people who are yet to see it making a healthy difference in their lives. I don’t believe those people can be wished away, or told that they must wait. After all, they were told they must wait for better times during our years of wrong-headed socialism too. So they see NO difference between the rhetoric from the days of socialism and the rhetoric today: both make promises that they are yet to see affecting them. I think that sentiment must be taken note of.”
But I think Yazad has already replied that in his article: “One reason Dilip and others see liberalisation not having any effect on poverty is that the occupations of the poor have not really been liberalised. How easy is it to run a small shop or practice a small trade? On the streets of India’s cities, that’s amongst the most difficult things to do. True liberalisation is making life easier for the poorest of the poor — by getting out of the way.”
So this is what the debate should be about: why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place? Is Yazad’s answer complete?
Cheers
Shivam
Shivam suggests:
So this is what the debate should be about: why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place? Is Yazad’s answer complete?
My responses: Indeed, that’s the crucial question (why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place?). And yes, as far as I’m concerned Yazad’s answer (get out of the way of the poor) is pretty much complete.
Shivam suggests:
So this is what the debate should be about: why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place? Is Yazad’s answer complete?
My responses: Indeed, that’s the crucial question (why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place?). And yes, as far as I’m concerned Yazad’s answer (get out of the way of the poor) is pretty much complete.
Well, when we talk of ‘the poor’, we don’t just mean per capita income, right? The reason why ‘the poor’ as a term is supposed to evoke (invoke?!) compassion is because of their standard of living. IMHO, the standard of living is determined not just be real per capita income, but also by factors such as the quality of ‘public life’ - such as, travelling in Delhi by bus vis-a-vis the Metro.
The role of the state as a welfare state, in my worldview, is not compromised by the existence of a free market.
And that’s why I think Yazad’s answer is not complete: there’s more to it thaan just the government withdrawing its control over small businesses. We need accountability and transperancy, for one.
Any other ideas?
Cheers
Shivam
Shivam,
Perhaps these are fine points; but to me “getting out of the way of the poor” necessarily means things like accountability and transparency too, a safety net too, a move away from the absurdity of slum demolitions too. All that. In one way or another, all these issues make the lives of the poor hard; left to themselves they will find ways to improve their lives.
Hey Yaz! I’m truly honoured :) I already read it last night after MadMan told me about it. Congrats on getting published.
There is no such thing as trickle down. For more :
Trickle-up, not trickle-down
Stupidity trickling down
Stop referring to trickle-down effect.
Cheers,
jayakamal
A few quick replies to the comments. First, thanks a lot for all the encouragement. I hope this is the beginning of many more published pieces!
Patrix, agree with you, except for the Indian Shining bit. India Shining was the BJP’s campaign ad where the BJP was trying to equate itself with India.
Anon, my point was to show that you can easily get anecdotes for both sides of the argument. Which I did.
Dilip, special thanks. It’s great to have a civil debate on issues and I quite like what I’m seeing here between Shivam and you!
The problem with median incomes is measuring them. Per capita income is not directly measured, but indirectly derived by diving GDP with the population. However, your point about the rich getting more weightage can be factored in by using measures of inequality along with per capita income. And Amit makes an interesting point, which you should answer!
Shivam, good debate on. I love it when people carry the post further in the comments section! Superb.
I disagree with The role of the state as a welfare state, in my worldview, is not compromised by the existence of a free market.
Before I respond, I’d like to give you a chance to elaborate on your stance. What all does a welfare state entail in your view? And how will it be maintained? (I.e. where does the money come from ;-)
Jayakamal, that’s spot on!
why hasn’t the trickle down effect taken place.
Answer is simple; There have been no economic services which rural poor can deliver to urban rich for income to trickle down to them.
Agriculture can not bear any more load of absorbing disguised unemployment.
One thing, clearly demonstrated by Naidu and Krishna’s electoral experience is that unless the benefits of reform “ trickle down “ reforms are really in danger. If you are not convinced, just go to Bangalore and see how the urban infrastructure has collapsed. State govt is least bothered, knowing very well that rest of Karnataka bothers least whether Bangalore prospers or not. ( Because Bangalore bothers’ least for rest of Karnataka).
Pretty fearful thought for liberalizers right?
I’m a bit late to arrive, but, Congratulations!
An interesting article in general and one which has an insight on economics and political debate in particular is Blackonomics at Harvard by Steven Dubner at Freakanomics.
Jayakamal’s contempt for the trickle-down effect is neatly answered by Sreedhar. I have no problems not calling it trickle-down, or if you want to say there is no such thing. Be that as it may, the problem with our reforms process is what Sreedhar indicates Chandrababu and SM Krishna found out first hand. It is what all of us need to pay attention to if we want to understand what’s happening around us in this country.
As much as Chandrababu and Krishna were the darlings of the urban middle-class, too many people in their states could not see their (i.e. the CMs’) efforts as being beneficial to them. Therefore these complacent men paid the price at the voting booth.
This is what I meant when I said my feeling is that the reforms process is not as wide and sincerely pursued as it must be. Again as Sreedhar indicates, the collapse in Bangalore’s infrastructure, the growing power problems in Maharashtra — these are signs. Other leaders who are as complacent will pay the same price.
Yazad, of course median income is hard to measure, but there are ways to estimate it. May be an exercise for Praja to take on. The results will be useful.
And you began the civil debate with your article and post. I truly appreciate that.
Sreedhar’s argument is based on a wrong premise, that prosperity “trickles” down, and Jayakamal is dead right in that regard. Read this also in that regard.
And Dilip, your contention that “too many people in their states could not see their (i.e. the CMs’) efforts as being beneficial to them” is absolutely correct. But perception isn’t neccessarily reality, and election is not validation, else one could argue that the people of Gujarat “could see Narendra Modi’s efforts as being beneficial to them”, because they voted him in. But as you and I would agree, Modi’s winning the elections does not mean that he was the right choice.
I agree that knowing the median income is important, because the most common way of measuring inequality is to measure the difference between mean and median income: as that difference decreases, so does inequality. So a measure of that differential between 1991 and today will tell us a lot. For some interesting general reading on that subject, try this paper: “Globalization, Inequality, and Poverty since 1980” by David Dollar. Also this: “Inequality among world citizens: 1820-1992” by François Bourguignon and Christian Morrisson. (Both of these are pdf files.) Would any of you know if there’s a similar study on India on these lines?
And Dilip, please do respond to the questions I’d asked in my earlier comment. We’d all like to know where you stand on those issues.
Hi everyone,
Ever wonder why the millions of poor waited for over 40 years patiently while Nehruvian socialism was going strong but same everyone is getting impatient within 15 years of half hearted reforms?
During those 40 years, socialism kept everyone poor or at least shackled. Now the differences are getting accentuated and hence the trouble.
There is no reform process which can raise levels of entire society or nation without trickle down effect. If no economist has written about this theory, then it is their problem.
However, the problem with trickle down in a pyramid like situation is that at lower levels, the numbers being large the reach and intensity of this effect is limited to few (in proportion to numbers in higher level). So within the same slab, this limited reach causes further differences.
But the effect cannot be wished away.
To check if inequality has increased or decreased post-liberalization, someone could perhaps pull out data on the Gini coefficient.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GiniCoefficient.html
Congrats, Yazad, on your Rediff appearance.
Now I think anecdotes do matter! My ‘justification’ is posted on my blog, as I thought it’s a bit longish to post here as a comment.
Congrats, Yazad, on your Rediff appearance.
Now I think anecdotes do matter! My ‘justification’ is posted on my blog, as I thought it’s a bit longish to post here as a comment.
As a follow-up to my last comment, let me just add that the studies I linked to, and all studies on the subject, find that open economies have less disparity than closed ones, and that the degree to which inequalities are reduced is proportional to the speed with which economies open up. (As in the Sachs and Warner piece I cited here; to repeat: “… open economies double in size every 16 years, while closed economies take 100 years to do so. … in the 1970s, poor countries that opened their markets grew six times faster than those that didn’t. )
Which is where Yazad and I come from when we say that there India needs to liberalise far more and cast of government controls much faster. The longer it takes and the slower the process, the more time it will take to reduce inequalities and eradicate poverty.
hi… congrats for getting this piece published in rediff. I definitely enjoyed reading it and am invariably in agreement with your views. It was, i think, a very practical way to look at the current poverty levels in the country.
Pip Pip and Toodle-oo,
Arvind
I dont think the economic policy makers are as stupid to not let the Indian economy open up. What thwarts India’s progress is scammers like Laloo.
There is no tranparency and accountability at every stage in Indian polity.
hi… congrats, Yazad, for getting this piece published in rediff. I definitely enjoyed reading it and am invariably in agreement with your views. It was, i think, a very practical way to look at the current poverty levels in the country.
Pip Pip and Toodle-oo,
Arvind
Anand,
I think when Yazad said “Anecdotes don’t matter”, he meant that they don’t matter by themselves. Of course anecdotes matter, but only in conjunction with, and as an illustration of, facts.
Dilip’s anecdotes demonstrate that India is still full of poor people (stating the obvious, but stating it well). Yazad’s anecdotes demonstrate that the poor have progressed far better under reforms than before, but that there is still a long way to go, and only more reforms will take us there.
Both sets of anecdotes are important, but any anecdotes that tell you reforms have been bad for India and that statism is better are selective and misleading, not backed up by any facts or data. And you can find anecdotes to illustrate just about any argument. Those are the kinds of anecdotes we should beware of; not these.
Nice article. The answer to India’s problems is certainly too much government control. Where trickle-down theory goes, I agree with Thomas Sowell that more often than not, trickle-down theory is confused with supply-side economics.
Complete article at Capmag
Hey Yazad,
this a great article, and something that I completely believe in. I also feel that anecdotal evidence in cases like this is more important than any silly statistics. Our country consists of one billion people. The statistics are only going show drastic changes after long,long time. In fact the statistics will change long AFTER reforms have had a significant impact. At this point, it is anecdotes like yours, and my own experiences and other people’s that show the direction we’re heading in. if you look at the characters on TV, the storylines of new bollywood films, the fact that my chowkidaar may not have a home but he does have a cellphone and a host of other indicators, it shows that our country is going through drastic changes that are yet to fully surface or be appreciated. BTW, if you want an alternative view, by someone who is a complete India-Hater please go visit www.deeshaa.org. You will have a lot to argue about with the idiot author.
Hello All,
At the outset I must confess that I haven’t read all the earlier posts so apologies if I repeat certain issues.
It would be nice if all of us could be optimistic about our country. Of course, since we are starting from a very low base, even a little progress will be visible, e.g. the number of ppl wearing shoes, carrying mobile phones etc.
However, the point I would emphasise is that we have started too late. We may catch up in 50 years time but by then we would’ve suffered several thousand dead as a result of recurring natural disasters, riots, malnutrition, bad healthcare etc. etc. etc.
Every problem in our country is most certainly fixable. However our bureaucrats and politicians are incompetent and frankly unwilling to fix them. The reason being that they feed off peoples’ misery. So, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I posit that the system of governance will never allow the country to flourish and propser in the shortest possible time. It will be like killing the milch cow! The system will continue to make excruciatingly slow progress till the present generation of politicians and others have made their money! We will then be ruled by the next generation of politicos and bureaucrats for a long time so that they can fleece the system for their own gain. They will pass over to a new generation who repeat the process.
Can anyone imagine the number of ppl that will die as a result of this slow progress towards prosperity.
What is the definition of progress that the optimists offer? It usually is consumption of goods - phones, shoes, cars etc. Has anyone paused to think whether this is actually correct? Has anyone paused to think of the damage to the environment. An example is the number of energy inefficient office & house constructions going on in India. Why cant these builders build something that takes our climate into account and the cost of energy? Yet, our economists only shout about the impact on the ecnonomy in monetary terms!
A single-minded focus on a consumption based economic model is inherently flawed. One should take a systemic view and look at all aspects of development that looks at cultural, economic, environemtal and other aspects of life in India.
Indians frequently talk about our intellectual prowess. Yet, we have not created a single unique intellectual idea in any field since 1990, actually since independence! We have no economic model that reflects the peculiarities of our situation. Any attempt to do so is invariably shouted down!
Now let met use this forum for sharing my article on India on Sulekha.
The URL is
Cheerio! Perhaps I should also say Jai Hind! and Workers of the world, Unite! in a feeble attempt to prove my ideological neutrality! :)
Anil
In case you cannot see the URL above, it is http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/articledesc.asp?cid=307420
Good Article Yazad.
I definitely think that poor in India are better off but don’t you think that based on the evidence you have given, one could also logically argue that it is not that the poor have gotten richer but that the price of consumer durables has gone down so that even the poor can afford it. It is good for the poor but does not necessarily imply that they have become richer, only that things are cheaper - big difference.
I find all the arguments that Yazad made, and most of the comments above fundamentally flawed.
If you take a census now, you might find that a greater percentage of Indians have cell phones in 2005 than the percentage of Americans who had cell phones in 1995. Does that mean India today is richer than america in 1995? Apparantly Yazad thinks so.
Slippers, cellphones, refrigirators and TVs are not indicators of development. Percapita GDP is also not an indicator of development. (Take the most under developed, corrupt country in the world, you would still find out that its per-capita GDP has increased in the past 15 years). So, what is the benefit of taking up reforms?
Every child born into this world has some fundamental rights. Like, the right for healthy food, the right for a decent education, and the right for acceptable health care. The society has a responsibility to ensure that none of these rights are violated until a child is 18 or 21. After that point, the person is responsible for himself, and should earn for himself and contribute to the rest of the society.
The true question here is - what percent of Indians are denied these rights today? What percent of Indians were denied these rights in 1990? Is there a significant difference? I am sure that there is a significant difference from 1990 and 2005 - but I am afraid that the difference might be that more Indians now are denied these rights than in 2005.
Amit Varma wrote: “Both sets of anecdotes are important, but any anecdotes that tell you reforms have been bad for India and that statism is better are selective and misleading, not backed up by any facts or data. And you can find anecdotes to illustrate just about any argument. Those are the kinds of anecdotes we should beware of; not these.”
So there are four types of lies: lies, damned lies, statistics and anecdotes.
I do agree that prosperity has a “trickle-down” effect. That’s what’s going to explain the maid who asks about cheap coaching centers in Yazad’s article. But, as Ravi said above, it is no indicator of the poverty level of the maid. Does the maid’s interest in cheaper coaching classes indicate a healthier family? more nutritious food on a regular basis?
Statistics and even anecdotal evidence is going to be inaccurate or even totally wrong about the poverty status of these people who are the urban poor.
What’s far worse is the status of the poorest of the poor, statisticians may not even reach that strata of the society. There are very few people who would provide such anecdotal fact-based evidence that could trigger some action.
This is where a “trickle-down” has to happen. Nah! not the “trickle-down” of prosperity but the “trickle-down” of life! Its not enough if the government gets out of the way of the poorest people. The freedom to be also ain’t gonna be enough. There’s a far bigger responsibility the “have’s” of the society need to take on. Its not just giving 1000 bucks to an NGO but its actually something bigger, like getting off our butts and getting down into the trenches with these people and help them financially/train them to jumpstart their lives. As long as we are not related to the poorest of the people — to what they want for their life, all the good intentions and discussions would prove to be totally useless.
Karthik
First of all, thanks to both Yazad and Dilip for writing such good, thought-provoking articles.
I don’t take as hard a line against anecdotes as some do. Instead, I think that with anecdotes, as with statistics, one should be careful about determining what the anecdote does or does not show as well as some of the questions the anecdote raises.
If you want to find out what has happened to poverty in the past fifteen years there are several issues to look at: percentage below the poverty line, distribution of income among those classified as poor, whether the prospects of those who were poor in 1990 have improved or not, and so on. This last point is especially important and I haven’t seen it raised: if you want to find out whether people are better off now than in 1990, one can start by simply asking them. It could be that some people who were poor in 1990 have found decent places to live and stable jobs but you wouldn’t know this just by observing today’s poor people. Anecdotes can provide suggestive evidence but these questions need to be tackled with good household-level survey data.
In regards to objections some have raised about whether ownership of consumer goods can be seen as a sign of development, I think shoes and refrigerators are unabiguous indicators of development (they alone do not prove India is developing, but support the conclusion, along with other evidence, that India is developing). Shoes protect one from injury, parasites, and infections and refrigerators reduce the incidence of food-borne illness. And to respond to CK’s point about whether greater ownership of such consumer goods means people are wealthier or whether prices have fallen: it really does not make a difference. These facts indicate that real income among the poor has grown, in other words, the poor can afford to buy more goods. Technological improvements that lower the cost of goods serve to make people wealthier just as much as technological improvements that lead to higher money wages for workers.
Bar girls and trickle down.
Think about this supposed trickle down that is being prevented by crackdowns
like the one on the bargirls in mumbai. There is a small statistic cited
that 75000 families are dependent on them. Think about those families.
If we even begin to examine the number of goods/services that we are being denied
because of regulation.(And conversely, jobs for those who provide them)
Think about all the construction workers who are not able to build structures
beyond a certain height because of zoning laws. Or the trucks and warehouses that
don’t come up because we are not a single market within india yet.
Or the sandalwood trees that don’t come up because legally they can’t be harvested.
Think of all those poor blokes who could have made a salary as blackjack dealers
in casinos, or bartenders in legalised “pleasure palaces”. Think about the las vegases
that we don’t create. Think about all the tourism and related businesses
that is lost. Think about the immense opportunity losses in the rural sector
just because established banks cannot charge an interest rate of their own choice,
and ofcourse the legal system that is slower than a snail.
And these are just what i can imagine today. The real opportunities of freedom
are manifold.
These are the things that these hypocritical politicians don’t realise. Morality,
exploitation, these are mostly subjective terms. Money in hand ready to buy goods
and services is on the other hand, objective.
Congrats Yazad on your Rediff debut.
Let me add my bit here. Frankly I am no expert(like many others here) in matters of any XYZ-ism and I try to learn from all these sources. And the more I read such viewpoints with sort of hardened stance(either-or approach), the more I find myself convinced - with the arguments & in some measure by my instincts - somewhere in between. This may sound so much like dilly-dallying (taking a safe stand), but frankly that’s the plank I find myself on.
Recently I had an interest’g discussion with Quizman on India’s literacy, where I explained why I tend to take any figures/surveys with a pinch of salt because they tend to mask the real problems as much as they show the sunny side(maybe I should make that as a separate post). So I do agree that anecdotes are important because they are the testing grounds where statistics are proved. And Dilip & Yazad have both made their points effectively with anecdotes. Though Yazad is really saying that anecdotes don’t matter, but in a unintended sort of way, actually these very maid/fridge anecdotes make sense to me. All this brings me back full-circle and confirms my already held belief, that the truth lies somewhere in between.
Anyone who feels similar, or am I a lone ship out there? Do I make sense worth 2 cents ? No ? Then put me back in my place. I would be very much interested to know if anyone shares similar viewpoints. Coz up until now, all I have seen is two sides of a coin. Whereas I feel like some crosssection of a sphere.
Clearly, Yazad, you touched off quite a multi-faceted discussion. Good job. Just a few reax, not all on the subject:
I dont think the economic policy makers are as stupid to not let the Indian economy open up. What thwarts India’s progress is scammers like Laloo.
The first sentence is somewhat naive. After all, we had decades in which our policy makers indeed did not let the economy open up. Therefore just trusting that they are not stupid is … well, naive.
The second sentence is odd. We all have our pet hates, and I know Lalu is a popular one. But my feeling is that picking a scapegoat does not get us anywhere.
TTG, our country is indeed going through a lot of changes. One thing I hope will change is the tendency to label people who have different ideas “idiots” and “India-haters.” I must say I’m not optimistic in the least.
Ravi wrote: I am afraid that the difference might be that more Indians now are denied these rights than in 2005. (Clearly 2005 is a typo). I couldn’t agree more: that is my fear as well. And this should be part of any measure of progress. I think this ties in with Mark’s point about the prospects of those who were poor in 1990.
Yazad, I travelled into town and back last night, past some of this city’s oldest concentrations of pavement-dwellers. Because of your article, I made it a point to look at their feet. I’d say at least half were barefoot. Is the glass half-empty or half-full? (Half-bare or half-shod?)
I made the trip to have dinner with one of our best known entrepreneurs and free-market enthusiasts. He greeted me at the front door with one more reminder of this discussion. He had read my article and so said, “Dilip, our beggars are a result of 50 years of socialism, not liberalisation!”
A little later, he made an interesting point about free markets: it’s one thing to advocate them and put them in place. It’s a far more difficult thing to keep them free. The beneficiaries of free markets, he said, invariably want to keep others out.
The price of free markets, like of freedom itself, is eternal vigilance.
Shivam, loved your line about the four types of lies!
On that note…
Wow. Lots of comments, most of them well thought out. I don’t have the time to respond to all. Allow me to pick just one today!
Ravi claims all my arguments are fundamentally flawed. Let me have a look at his perfect arguments.
If you take a census now, you might find that a greater percentage of Indians have cell phones in 2005 than the percentage of Americans who had cell phones in 1995. Does that mean India today is richer than america in 1995? Apparantly Yazad thinks so.
This is called “scope shift” — I was comparing cellphones in India’s past with India’s present. Wherever did America come into the picture? Ravi inserts statements where there were none. And then purports to draw my conclusions made on the basis of his parameters. Sorry that’s not done. Make your own arguments and conclusions and don’t speak for me!
Slippers, cellphones, refrigirators and TVs are not indicators of development. Percapita GDP is also not an indicator of development.
I never claimed slippers / cellphones / fridges / TVs were indicators of development. Per capita GDP is. Maybe not perfect, but it is. And if Ravi doesn’t think so, could he please tell us what he thinks are indicators of development?
(Take the most under developed, corrupt country in the world, you would still find out that its per-capita GDP has increased in the past 15 years). So, what is the benefit of taking up reforms?
Not true. Those countries have actually seen a decrease in per capita GDP. Look at Zimbabwe, Myanmar, etc.
Regarding rights, why stop there? Why not a right to comfortable housing? Or more? And when you say “society has a responsibility” what exactly do you mean? All of us in “society”? Some of us? Just the rich? And who accepted this responsibility? These are arguments for a welfare state. Need to be elaborated in a separate post.
The true question here is - what percent of Indians are denied these rights today? What percent of Indians were denied these rights in 1990? Is there a significant difference? I am sure that there is a significant difference from 1990 and 2005 - but I am afraid that the difference might be that more Indians now are denied these rights than in 2005.
Well, find out and let us know. Until then your “fear” that more Indians might be denied “these rights” is a scare tactic.
Back up your assertions. It’s easy for me to make exactly the opposite assertion.
Anil wrote “Yet, we have not created a single unique intellectual idea in any field since 1990″.
I work in Computer Science and I can say that India has contributed quite a bit. The most recent contribution being AKS algorithm for primality testing.
I forgot … Tejas asked about the Gini coefficient. Last time I checked, India has a Gini something like .32 or .33. Not bad at all, though I’m trying to locate how it has done over the last several years. Good source (for this and much other interesting data): UN Human Development Reports.
RAVI SAYS: Every child born into this world has some fundamental rights. Like, the right for healthy food, the right for a decent education, and the right for acceptable health care. The society has a responsibility to ensure that none of these rights are violated until a child is 18 or 21. After that point, the person is responsible for himself, and should earn for himself and contribute to the rest of the society.
When you say it is every child’s right to healthy food etc. who exactly do you think is going to see that that right is fulfilled? The govt.? That means my taxes. people who cannot provide for their kids should not be having them in the first place. And if they do its not MY responsibility to feed them!
Tricke down is clearly down and out, and I eat humble pie. Okay, screw the term; kill it and kill it now. Let’s return to the basics: remember that our principal debaters, Mr Yazad Jal and Mr Dilip D’Souza are agreed that there is a lot of poverty in India and we need to do something about it.
Right?
They may (or may not) differ about the extent and degree and statistics (heck, even anecdotes), but they agree, and so do we all (?), that there are far to many “poor” people in India.
And the debate was about why there’s still so much poverty, 15 years after reforms.
We are all agreed (?) that there’s less poverty, but there’s still too much of it.
Right?
Then: why?
Yazad gave one reason (insufficient liberalisation) in his otherwise anecdotal article in Rediff. And I wanted some more reasons.
Can we get back to that? And if you all following and participating in this exchange, think that enough reasons have been listed in the 44 comments above, will someone please summarise them for us? That’s an important exercise.
Cheers
Shivam
Shivam,
For your question “…why there’s still so much poverty, 15 years after reforms”
0. Magnitude of the task (large nation)
1. Still very prevalent corruption
2. Quality of politicians
3. Illiteracy, Lack of awareness among poor
I separated the first reason as number 0, because it is independent of any other reason. It is always there and no one can do anything about it.
1, 2, 3 (and we can point out more), I believe are interlinked. One leads to another and any attempt at solution becomes a chicken-egg question.
For eg: To reforms have full impact, corruption should go… To remove corruption, we need good administrators… for which we need able (and good) people voted to power… which can never happen unless people start voting based on real issues… which can never happen unless the poor is aware and literate… which can never happen unless reforms reach the poor?
It is my personal opinion that this is where the debate stands… and this is where it has for some time…
Shivam,
My opinion on why there is still so much poverty: none of us give enough of a damn.
I don’t like admitting it, but all said and done, that’s how I feel.
The first sentence is somewhat naive. After all, we had decades in which our policy makers indeed did not let the economy open up. Therefore just trusting that they are not stupid is … well, naive.
To get your argument right, are you claiming that economic liberalization is independent of a country’s development, and hence poverty? As much I have noticed, the effects of liberalization have certainly reached the urban population especially during the BJP government.
I also believe that the BJP did an excellent job of hard pressing the reforms that were already present, but were excessively dormant, in Narasimha Rao’s govt. This gives not a fair enough time window to see the effects of hard pressed reforms manifest in other-than-urban parts of the country. If these reforms continue for the next few years (until communists come into power), I am sure the effects will show up in non-urban-parts of the country.
The second sentence is odd. We all have our pet hates, and I know Lalu is a popular one. But my feeling is that picking a scapegoat does not get us anywhere.
Dont you agree that most of Indian politicians have some kind of corruption at their hand, where Laloo leads the lot? Look at the recent Bihar flood scam or Laloo fodder scam for that matter. Crores and crores of rupees which were meant for the poor were gobbled up by politians and affiliates. I know a few people (relatives) who entered into politics to “make money”. They joined Congress because other parties practice ideologies! (not that BJP does not have goons).
Another reason of slow progess, I think, are flimsy law enforcement. People like politicians slack because they know there is a way out of everything, however bad it may be.
So, rather than just posing the “poverty problem”, I would say that economic liberalization with poor (and farmers) in mind may be the most optimal solution, given some more time (and honesty)!
I was very harsh in my comments about Dilip D’Souza’s article in the Hindu in Ravikiran’s blog. I somehow now feel that he wrote it more out of an impulse than anything else. The scenes that he saw in the train should have moved him.
Our problem is that our population is existentialist. The ‘Here and Now’ is more important to them than a long-term sustainable and prosperous future. Witness how rampant is the so-called ‘Anti-Incumbency factor’. How can every govt. face this during an election? If the govt. did a good job it wouldnt have a reason to be afraid. The reality nevertheless is the electorate votes for the party that offers them the most freebies and takes care of the largest number of vested interest groups.
That the interests of these groups does not coincide with the larger interests of a country does not matter…..
As a country we are doomed to underachievement and mediocrity in large sections of the population.
These discussions will serve no purpose because they will not change the type of governance in india nor the psychology of indians.
Anil
We are all agreed (?) that there’s less poverty, but there’s still too much of it.
Right?
Then: why?
***********************************************************
I feel one of the main reasons poverty has continued to exist 50+ yrs after independence is because of the lack of relatedness between the “have’s” and “have not’s”. We (middle class) relate to them by their shoes, cellphone usage et.al. But that just doesn’t give us the access to their world. I am not even talking about government/bureaucracy over here because they have produced the results thats for every one to see — reasonable but not good enough!
I know my dad started off his life in the village, struggled to establish his existence in the city. Whereas, I started life in the city and have now moved on in life to live in a different country. But, the villagers in my dad’s village never probably moved on. Till early last year, I didn’t even know how things were till someone wrote a stinging article in a newspaper about my village’s infrastructure inadequacy eventhough it is blessed with some of nature’s beauty. I realized at that point how disconnected I am from the village. Probably that’s the case with a lot more people like me, they are disconnected too. Forget the poverty of entire India, they are probably not even connected to the poverty in the village where their ancestors once lived.
To make matters far worse, we are a hypocritical section of the society. We question the need for our participation in alleviating poverty in the society. As someone earlier said, “I pay my taxes, why should I be held responsible?”. If all the middle/rich class people of India/NRIs abroad take this stand then we’ve pretty much made the arena of poverty alleviation for government players.
So, if you’d ask me for a bottomline I’d say what’s really missing right now is responsibility from the middle/rich class/NRIs and strong level relatedness to the poorest of the society. Unless these step in, not much is gonna change.
Thanks!
Karthik
I am amzed that so many of you expect miracles. Rome was not built in a day and the you dont get be a developed country from grinding poverty in a heartbeat. Only revolutionaries expect (foolishly, i might add) such miracles. UK started its development process at least 250 years back, Japan at least 150 years back, Korea 50 years back. India started it 20 years back. Moreover, india is starting off an extremely low base, thanks to 150 years of colonial rule during which our compounded annual growth rate was 0.3%! For those who understand the power of compounding, if we had grown at 3% per annum for those 150 years, we would be as rich as the US in per capita terms. Most of the relative differnce between India and the advanced world in terms of per capita income can be attributed to the gorwth differential during the 150 years of colonial rule.
That is not to attribute all of our current state to the British. We might well have grown 0% without the British. The point is that growth and development are gradual processes. Remember that the seeds of modern Anglo-Saxon instituitons were sown 800 years back in the Magan carta. Impatience only begets revolutions that set back the process by decades.
Just to give a sense of progress India has made. At the turn of the last century, life expectancy was 27! today it is in the mid 60s. Take literacy. At the time freedom, literacy rate was 17% (if i recall right) for males and 3% or some such abysmal number for females. They are far better now and in some states like Kerala and TN, enrolment at primary and into secondary is 100% for both sexes. Of course, during British rule, we used to have periodic famines in which hundreds of thousands, if not millions, used to die. Since Independence, we have not had any large-scale famine related deaths, although we have had pockets of problems like Kalahandi.
All this of course does not deny that we should be doing nothing about poverty. We should. But we should also be realistic about how quaickly we can expect results.
It is true that Indians, especially the affluent ones, have become inured to poverty around them. That is not because they are all heartless SOBs. People cannot forever remain agitated over something that they see around since childhood. They have simply made their peace with the reality around them. otherwise they would become mad.
Cultural-based explnations are seductive and often thrown about recklessly. I would be careful not to use facile cultural explanations such as indians are lazy, corrupt, lack civic participative spirit, so on and so forth. You would be surprised to see how much today’s india resembles how the US was in the early stages of its nationshood or how england was during the early stages of industrial revolution. The only cultural explanation that I agree is that there is something unique, great, and desirable about the Anglo-Saxon institutions–formal, informal–and belief systems that are conducive for the pursuit of capitalism and freedom. If some value system is not compatible with these aspects of Anglo-Saxon institutions then either those value systems have to be given up or that society cannot achieve one or both of capitalism and freedom (to use Friedman’s title).
Yazad: I do like th title of your blog. I am a capitalist libertarian too. I am not sure that I like the anarchy bit. institutional stability is vital for a capitalist society.
Regards
As commented earlier here’s my post in defence of giving weightage to both numbers and anecdotes. This one’s in the context of literacy vs education.
And it’s really great to see so many optimistic comments. Hope we as a generation can do our bit here.
Oops,
I forgot to add something.
Much has been made of how Mr Naidu or Mr Krishna or Mr Vajpayee have been thrown out because the poor were not seeing the benefits of liberalization or trickle down effect. This line of thought promoted by India’s socialist/left leaning intellectuals seems to have been taken hook line and sinker by almost everyone without even thinking twice.
The truth is that people threw out those governments because they were not delivering. Not because they were opposing liberalization. All people want the benefits of liberalization. Everyone wants development. But the governments failed to meet the aspirations of the people by not liberalizing fast enough and not spreading out development work. So the fault doesn’t lie with liberalization but with the way it is being implemented in bureacratic India - NOT FAST ENOUGH.
The election was just a barometer of the undecisiveness of the Indian electorate - the verdict was more or less split with a tendency to lean towards to a new government led by the Congress and its allies. If I am not mistaken, India’s richest constituency threw out the BJP. Why did that happen?
As an anecdote, you will often hear dictatorial countries say that democracy is not right for poor countries with illiterate people. They often use India as an example of what’s wrong with democracy. What they don’t realize is that it’s not democracy which is the demon, but how it is implemented or abused in India.
It’s kind of interesting to see that the leftist elite, whom we consider liberals, are the most vocal opponents of liberalization.
It’s like the other puzzle as to why the right wing demands capital punishment but opposes abortion and the left wing opposes capital punishment and supports abortion [albiet as a woman’s choice]
Now before you jump to conclusions, I consider myself leftist, have always voted left and consider myself a down to earth liberal. I also have no qualms in opposing leftist rhetoric and I don’t oppose capitalism just because I am leftist. There is no shame is accepting the positive side of every system. That’s where the elite among both the right and left fail.
Hammer, in response to my suggesting your sentence was naïve, you ask, To get your argument right, are you claiming that economic liberalization is independent of a country’s development, and hence poverty?
I don’t follow. You suggested that our policy makers are not stupid enough not to let the economy open up; I pointed out that that is indeed what they did for pretty much half a century. What is the connection to your question in italics above?
Of course I believe most of our politicians are corrupt. I don’t think Lalu leads the lot, though. We like to think he does, that’s all. Other than that, I’m not getting into a BJP vs Cong vs others debate here, apart from saying that over the last 15 years, none of them were any more than half-hearted about reforms.
About this: economic liberalization with poor (and farmers) in mind — now here, I couldn’t agree more. This is just the point I sought to make with my article. I don’t believe the reforms/liberalization process has been done with the poor truly in mind.
Lakshmi, I have no idea about your comments and being harsh, but there’s this I will say: I almost never write on impulse.
Anil, I learn one lesson the hard way every day, and it has to do with your statement about the larger interests of a country. The lesson is that everybody has different ideas about what the interests of the country really are. They see their interests as the country’s interests. And I wonder if it should not be that way.
Tea: good cautions about not expecting miracles, about reminding us that we should also appreciate the progress we have made. What worries me is what I’ve said earlier: I meet too many people who are getting tired of waiting. They believed the slogans under socialism, about how garibi would be hataoed; that didn’t change things much so they listened to the mantras of liberalization and reforms; and now they are tiring of those mantras too, because they still haven’t seen much change, even though they can see plenty of change happening very rapidly in economic strata above them. As P Sainath once said, “These are 400 million of your fellow citizens. Take them seriously please.”
Sourav, I don’t write my articles to show you my pain or empathy. Assume I am an unfeeling brute. Does that change my point? I wouldn’t think so. Of course I’d see different things if I took a flight. But does it answer the worries about poverty I raised to simply look in another direction? You see, I have no use for weeping, and I’m all for celebrating our progress. I’m just saying this: my feeling is that something is wrong with the way we are pursuing the reforms process. Too many people don’t see that they have a stake in it, and I think any reasonable proponent of the reforms has got to take note of that.
Too many people don’t see that they have a stake in it, and I think any reasonable proponent of the reforms has got to take note of that.
Every reasonable proponent of reforms does takes note of that, which is why we all say there should be more reforms. It is the statists and the leftists who prevent more reforms from taking place, and those who imply that reforms aren’t working. So your ire should really be directed at those who stop us from widening the scope of reforms, and not to those who believe in them.
Dilip, I notice that while you keep complaining about the state of the poor, you repeat the same old bromides about the reforms not being carried out properly. Why don’t you give us some concrete policy suggestions then? I don’t understand why you are so wary of spelling out where you stand. To repeat the questions I posed in my first comment:
One, do you believe that there has been too little liberalisation, or too much? Two, do you agree that there should be freer markets with less government interference?
Anybody can point out problems and diss existing solutions. What’s your solution?
Dilip, thanks for responding.
About this: economic liberalization with poor (and farmers) in mind — now here, I couldn’t agree more. This is just the point I sought to make with my article. I don’t believe the reforms/liberalization process has been done with the poor truly in mind.
So you do agree that econmic liberalization is not independent of economic development of the poor (and rich/middle-class).
Just a test to check if comments are working.
Mike check mike check
There seems to be a huge difference in mindset between the older Indians (50+) and the Zippies (the below 25-group) — the latter blow me away with their confidence/ attitude/ exposure.
India’s certainly shining for them, and in their faces.
However, I suspect this holds true for only a section of society — the educated/ urbanized sections that can take advantage of the benefits of liberalization.
What do the Zippies living in rural areas have to say?
Hammer:
> So you do agree that econmic
> liberalization is not independent of
> economic development of the poor (and
> rich/middle-class).
I do. But am I missing something? This seems like a trivially obvious thing to say.
Prashant, there are a few of us caught between the Zippies (25-) and the older set (50+). Only a few, but we’re here…
see http://mallroad.blogspot.com/2005/05/unethical-business-is-enemy-of.html
Dilip says..”Prashant, there are a few of us caught between the Zippies (25-) and the older set (50+). Only a few, but we’re here…”
Hey, I’m a member of this in-between group too..
Regardless, what do the non-IT/ BPO / non-English educated, rural dwelling Zippies have to say?
For I am yet to see the one effect they must have, first and above all: a visible lessening in the level of Indian poverty. Fewer poor Indians around us. I can’t see that.
Yes, the lessening in level of poverty is a must. It may, however, not be the first effect of economic liberalization.
I do strongly object to your 15 year age given to liberalization. I insist that the first few were very half-hearted (or conservative) and the later were most agressively persued which is why India is now known for Software rather than for snakes, elephants and Gandhiji.
When I came to US in ‘98 and went back in 2000, I could see the difference even in my remote home town. With money, I could buy any possible damn thing right in India.
I would give another 5 years to let the lower middle class take its churn out of the stack.
Moreover, how many Indians (let alone Govt. policies) care about the marginalized and the poor? Very few. I was reading a study done at Harvard about Indian American charity - cant recall the exact reference. But it said, Indian Americans (I say all Indians) give least towards charity compared to their cumulative incomes. Only if someone travels sencond class (like you do, and me too), would they realize the real crux of the problem. Education and jobs can be the biggest counters againsts poverty; Honest policy making people (rather than policies themselves) and Philanthropy are a much needed addendum.
Prashant asks: what do the non-IT/ BPO / non-English educated, rural dwelling Zippies have to say?
A lot, I’m sure. But I suspect it’s unlikely too many of them are reading this.
Hammer says: India is now known for Software rather than for snakes, elephants and Gandhiji.
Good thing? Bad thing? Neutral thing? (My choice: the last).
In response to my question, what do the non-IT/ BPO / non-English educated, rural dwelling Zippies have to say?,
Dilip says
A lot, I’m sure. But I suspect it’s unlikely too many of them are reading this.
That’s a given.
So, what fora do the other Zippies have to express themselves?
If I’m a a 25-yr old in rural Tamil Nadu who is educated but doesn’t know English and doesn’t have access to the computer/ Internet?
Apart from the ballot box, what other fora do I have to express my opinion?
I’m creeping into this discussion (not jumping in) since Dilip drew my attention to it.
I won’t pretend I’m qualified to comment on whether poverty is going up or down, since I haven’t been in the field long enough; I hadn’t even witnessed any desperate poverty until 2000 (cosseted in my small-town middle-class cocoon….and the poor I did meet were too proud to shout out their grief).
All I can say is - I see poverty; too much of it. And there’s no ‘relative’ about this poverty. Indian poverty just ‘is’ - staring you in the face in the shape of children with distended bellies and girls with straw-coloured hair. In the shape of women sleeping on the streets. In the shape of farmers killing themselves.
I don’t know about whether or not the poor carry cell-phones. But how can you ignore the fact that the poor forced to migrate to big cities, to seek work (hence the need for cell-phones for the old parents in the village?).
I care about the fact that more than half my city lives in filth and insecurity, and is grudged even that (was it so, in 1990? In 1980?).
I care about the fact that every other month, I hear about kids dying of starvation, and I go there, take their pictures, write about it and nobody does a thing (”Starvation? What starvation? There’s no starvation here… these damn tribals are not interested in saving their children’s lives… they only want to collect compensation money from the government”)
I care about the fact that my own ‘native-place’ has turned into a scouring-ground for newbie criminals. That the landless, jobless young men are killing strangers on the streets of Bombay, because the mafia will pay them 2000 rupees, which they can take back home. Or that wheat fields are fast being converted to poppy fields (Now, you know where they got their shoes?!).
And I really don’t care whether people die barefoot, or with their shoes on. It doesn’t matter, does it?
But perhaps, things are better, after all. My history textbook told me of famines and droughts in the nineteenth century. Thousands dead, in a single summer…. that doesn’t happen anymore.
And I think it doesn’t happen anymore because we are no longer allowed to just let the poor be. It is no longer acceptable to let a whole village starve, while we sit on our gym-crafted/ liposuctioned behinds.
And that is because, when we hear of fifty people dead, the government is forced to send someone over to take a look. Because there are protests; there is rioting and arson; there is mass migration to the cities.
So, when things are very bad, the collector, the cops, the DM, the politicians… they pay the poor a visit. They announce relief. They send rations. Sure, some of it is spirited away. But even with cuts, commissions and the black market… even if 40% of the PDS grain finds its way to the people, they will survive the lean season.
I’m not qualified to comment upon economics, free trade, socialist systems, intervention, small entrepreneurship or other things discussed above, but I don’t think we should leave the poor to their own devices. I think we should, for a change, leave them with some devices.
Annie
No one disputes the point you are making: there are poor people. The only question is how to tackle this poverty. And every study on the subject shows without doubt that there is a direct corelation between open economies and erosion of poverty. (See here for more.) I’d be glad to see any coherent argument to the contrary that has basis in facts rather then rhetoric.
And of course they should be left with some devices. In a statist system like ours, though, they’re not allowed to have any. The last para of Yazad’s piece sums up the way to go: we must empower the poor instead of condescending to them.
I sense this discussion is winding down, unless Annie’s passion sparks something more. I hope it does. Thanks Annie.
So it’s a good time to bring up something I mentioned in passing somewhere far above: slum demolitions.
Why would free market enthusiasts, people who sincerely believe their prescriptions are tackling poverty in the best way possible, support slum demolitions? Why would they support a measure that so visibly and surely increases poverty?
Your thoughts welcome.
Dilip
Well done shifting goalposts. I see you didn’t bother to answer my questions, but I can understand why you are wary of taking positions on policy.
Your questions about the slum demolitions has been addressed in the past, such as by Ravi here, when you yourself participated so enthusiastically in the comments. But let me ask you a counter-question:
If, when you were out or asleep, someone came and squatted in your living room, built a small shanty, diverted the water supply from your kitchen and claimed property rights, would you throw him out, “in a measure that so visibly and surely [would] increase their poverty”?
The slum dwellers who were evicted broke the law at the time of occupying their slums, and were aware of it, and took that risk knowingly. They can’t complain when their bluff is called.
And I’m sure you believe that the ridiculous rent-control act is one of the causes for this fiasco. Well, so do free-marketers. Think about it.
I cannot believe this!
Amit - The utter hopelessness of internet debates stares me at my face after reading your last response.
It is okay to shift goalposts is it? Just for the heck of commenting away in this blog??
And in the hurry of responding, what a hopeless response you have provided. Did the 10 year old kid who was born in the slum break the law and knowingly took the risk? The risk of coming out of the womb???
Dilip - However much you try to ignore/hide the fact that you have only posed questions, no answers - and are not planning to look for answers - is very very clear.
You probably get a sense of satisfaction in rhetoric. Its okay, but not enough.
Now you can feast on Amit’s response with more rhetoric and cliches!
I have started with a few above. But you will definitely have better responses.
You win.
Swami
Of course it is not ok to shift goalposts, and I was commenting on Dilip doing that. The “well done” was sarcastic, for god’s sake!
And if your house was occupied illegally for a year in your absense and a child was born in that time, would you not evict the illegal dwellers because it wasn’t the child’s fault?
The comment you madre to Dilip is exactly right, and mirrors mine a few comments back (# 56) . Anyway…
Your “sarcasm” reached me, Amit! Yes, the last time! For God’s sake!
But I hated it that you (and hence now probably everyone else) took the bait offered by Dilip!! Which meant that it is okay with you! You are willing to let it go!!
If you really want me to answer your question, your comparison of slum dwellers to people creeping into my house and claiming it theirs etc. just does not sell. I can ask counter questions, and also answer yours. But I dont want to argue with you, here.
I am more interested in getting one answer out of Dilip for the topic under discussion.
I’m only responding to the recent flurry of comments because there are some odd things that have been said.
First: “shifting the goalposts” — the tired and rusty sword that gets unsheathed when there’s nothing else.
I mentioned slum demolitions earlier, but nobody picked up on that. Which is fine. Then I thought Annie alluded to slums in her post (”the poor forced to migrate to big cities, to seek work … more than half my city lives in filth and insecurity, and is grudged even that”). And I thought the rest of the discussion was winding down. So I ask about slum demolitions. Suddenly, that’s “shifting the goalposts.” Right.
Second, apparently I “participated so enthusiastically” in a discussion on Ravi’s site. News to me, because I haven’t visited Ravi’s site since January, nor do I plan to do so now, and have no idea what posts/discussions happen there.
That’s all I plan to say on those two points.
Swami, whatever else I might have done, in my years of writing there’s one thing I’ve always tried to do right: think about and respond to questions from people I respect. I get no satisfaction from rhetoric, I am not interested in bait, and I take people like you seriously.
There are plenty of times I’ve suggested solutions to poverty over the years. For just one because it’s come up here: don’t demolish slums. I believe there are better ways to address the problem, and I’ve pointed to several, written about them too.
The thing is, those who want to demolish them brush aside this as “leftist” and so forth, and having brushed it aside repeat “what’s your solution?” Or “why do you only pose questions, but don’t have answers?”
One more time, here’s a solution, an answer. Don’t demolish slums. As P Sainath, again, might say: take it seriously please.
Dilip, regarding your slum demolition question.
I think asking a free-market guy to talk about slum-demolitions is like asking an MBBS doctor his opinions about how to repair ill-effects of using a tantrik-remedy. An MBBS would say why didn’t you use my methods in the first place? You’ve gone ahead and used the tantriki stuff and are now expecting me to cure you in a day?
Now, what do I, as a libertarian think about the slum demolition?
In principle I am in favour of demolishing slums altogether. However, the manner in which it is being done smacks of myopia. Before slums are demolished, Jurassic laws such as ULCRA and Rent Control Act must be scrapped. An environment must be created in which it is legal as well as profitable for entrepreneurs to provide inexpensive housing to the slum dwellers. Timelines must be set, notices served, and only then should such demolitions be initiated.
The reason the slum problem keeps growing is because currently, everyone thinks of it as only a two-dimensional problem.
One one side you have cowboys like Deshmukh who would take bulldozers and flatten slums in a month, without really thinking where these slum-dwellers will go? They can’t possibly jump into the Arabian Sea, can they?
On the other side, you have bleeding-heart-left-liberals who will come to the demolition sites in their snazzy cars wearing their 800-rupee designer kurtas, shed tears at how these poor people have lost their all, without registering the fact that these poor people were squatting illegally after all.
Neither of them will utter a word about scrapping ULCRA. It’s only be cleched fists, charging bull-dozers, bleeding hearts and lots of tears.
We need some logic, brain and common sense out there.
Second, apparently I “participated so enthusiastically” in a discussion on Ravi’s site. News to me, because I haven’t visited Ravi’s site since January, nor do I plan to do so now, and have no idea what posts/discussions happen there.
Really? My mistake. Maybe the Sudhakar Nair who shares your Iqara Broadband IP and your computer configuration, and leaves petty ad hominem comments on other people’s blogs, is just a friend who uses your machine at home, even late in the night. Give our regards to him.
And you still haven’t answered any questions. Not demolishing slums is not a solution to poverty in India. You’re still refusing to answer the macro questions: One, do you believe that there has been too little liberalisation, or too much? Two, do you agree that there should be freer markets with less government interference?
But do keep writing evocatively about the poor and talking about their problems. We need such compassion. Well done, you are such a good man.
I’m having a hard time stopping the laughs. Ah, so much falls in place now, down to a mysterious comment I got some days ago about Sudhakar. Since someone else also sent me a note addressed to “Ninan” at the same time, I ignored both as typos.
So I see there are some people who seem to think he and I are the same person? The result of much investigative journalism, no doubt? Yeah right, let me go tell his wife that. Please go right ahead thinking it, we are both greatly delighted.
And since this has nothing to do with the subject of Yazad’s post, that’s where I stop this.
By the way, letting the slums be, which is what Dilip seems to advocate, because as he says -
“here’s a solution, an answer. Don’t demolish slums”
Leaving slums there is also a very obvious measure that increases poverty. Why would you advocate a move that increases poverty, Dilip?
Of course you’re not Sudhakar, Dilip, I accepted as much in my last comment. You’re a good man, brimming with compassion, and we are all grateful that poverty exists, or we would not get a chance to see this noble side of you.
And no, you have no time for the kind of irrelevant questions I posed, or that Gaurav poses in the comment above (# 78). You’re above all this. After all, you have already answered the big question, of how poverty in India can be reduced: by not demolishing slums. Goalposts? What goalposts?
Hello Yazad,
I am posting this in response to someone who had commented on my blog. It is also related to your article on rediff.
Cheers,
Zainab
Dear Anup
Thank you for your comment. One of the things I have been thinking is about is what is our calculus for wealth? Can there be a universal indicator of wealth and prosperity?
Recently, I read Yazad Jal’s article on rediff where he was commenting on Dilip D’souza’s piece. Dilip D’souza was apparently quite taken aback by the poverty which he had seen in the local trains. Yazad responded in his article by his observations of how more people wear shoes now than before, how people have various mobile phones, etc. I was taken up by Yazad’s article and began wondering whether wealth is all about material possessions. What are our notions of poverty and how are these defined?
Watching children at the railway station indulging in drugs, I have wondered about interventions which social workers make in their life – needing to ‘discipline these errant kids’. How can we judge as a society who needs disciplining and who does not? I believe that these interventions are often attempts at homogenizing lives. By some criteria, we believe that everybody has to be at a certain level. I am definitely not sure about these attempts. There can be different kinds of lifestyles and different people have the right to lead different lifestyles.
For those who are poor, we need to intervene to make their lives better is a belief. The question which I am asking myself is whether charity is the way forward? Also, by what indicators or markers am I judging a person to be poor and therefore unhappy? Is there a link between happiness and money?
About your observations of people at Kurla station and how you think they don’t have enough opportunities to realize their potential, I believe that there have to be conditions of freedom whereby people can choose for themselves – conditions where people’s entrepreneurial talents can flower. How can these conditions be created is what I am thinking about right now.
I still believe that each one of us has the right to be and intervention in the name of upliftment or by the state is not what I want in my life. However, I also recognize these are complex questions and for now, I speak only for myself.
Cheers,
Zainab