Is that true? Question to all Indian CPians
-
Hello, I just read an article about farmers in india in a german newspaper. Now, I'm not sure about one sentence: > 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly. You are a big player in IT, your economy is growing and growing ... are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers? Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it. :rose: coco
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
-
Hello, I just read an article about farmers in india in a german newspaper. Now, I'm not sure about one sentence: > 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly. You are a big player in IT, your economy is growing and growing ... are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers? Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it. :rose: coco
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
Yes, the situation is pathetic.
Corinna John wrote:
> 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly.
Athough the number is around 40%,
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 59.5%
male: 70.2%
female: 48.3% (2003 est.)IT is the only field India has done well, Biotechnology seems promising but it will have to prove itself.
Corinna John wrote:
are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers?
Isn't that always the case? Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting. The problem is that the system has got accustomed to the viscious circle of illiteracy <=> poverty <=> corruption. The corrupt politicians want the people to remain ignorant so that they keep getting elected, and when a police constable gets get INR 2500(~$50) per month as salary, corruption is difficult to reap out. However, situation is improving. The politicians are illiterate and corrupt but a lot of policies(the low profile ones) some how get created and implemented by the educated (IAS officers - corrupt but educated) who form the backend of the legislature and the Judiciary has started keeping a watch over things. Some hope has been kindled by Free mid-day meals for kids at schools(to encourage parents to send their kids to school instead of work - yes child labour is illegal, but ...) and free education for girls in primary school, but it is a long way to go. please note: it is only 59 years since independence and the British left us in really bad shape.
-
Yes, the situation is pathetic.
Corinna John wrote:
> 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly.
Athough the number is around 40%,
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 59.5%
male: 70.2%
female: 48.3% (2003 est.)IT is the only field India has done well, Biotechnology seems promising but it will have to prove itself.
Corinna John wrote:
are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers?
Isn't that always the case? Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting. The problem is that the system has got accustomed to the viscious circle of illiteracy <=> poverty <=> corruption. The corrupt politicians want the people to remain ignorant so that they keep getting elected, and when a police constable gets get INR 2500(~$50) per month as salary, corruption is difficult to reap out. However, situation is improving. The politicians are illiterate and corrupt but a lot of policies(the low profile ones) some how get created and implemented by the educated (IAS officers - corrupt but educated) who form the backend of the legislature and the Judiciary has started keeping a watch over things. Some hope has been kindled by Free mid-day meals for kids at schools(to encourage parents to send their kids to school instead of work - yes child labour is illegal, but ...) and free education for girls in primary school, but it is a long way to go. please note: it is only 59 years since independence and the British left us in really bad shape.
Thanks a lot for the explanation! So, things are getting better, (even for girls),
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
it is only 59 years since independence
The next question might be "would india be better off, if the British were still there", but I assume that's Soapbox stuff. ;)
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
-
Thanks a lot for the explanation! So, things are getting better, (even for girls),
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
it is only 59 years since independence
The next question might be "would india be better off, if the British were still there", but I assume that's Soapbox stuff. ;)
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
Corinna John wrote:
The next question might be "would india be better off, if the British were still there", but I assume that's Soapbox stuff
For the British to have stayed this long, you would have to undo the WW2. WW2 weakened UK, and along with the hard time Gandhiji and Subhash Chandra Bose gave to the British, forced them to decide how rather than when to leave India. When they left, they left all the hate that can be imagined. The hate India and Pakistan share is hard to imagine for the west. The 4 wars that they have fought have created lots of records(highest, longest since WW2, largest army movement since WW2 etc). The money India and Pakistan spend on defense, could be spend else were. The British did nothing when China took control over Tibet(India's defeat in India-China war in 1962, raised India's worries, the defend budget, and for ever lost a friend in China). India would have been another Africa if the British had stayed any longer.
-
Hello, I just read an article about farmers in india in a german newspaper. Now, I'm not sure about one sentence: > 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly. You are a big player in IT, your economy is growing and growing ... are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers? Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it. :rose: coco
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
I am not Indian, but the child we sponsor through World Vision is. So, either world vision is ripping me off, or there are clearly two worlds in India, one urban and growing, one rural and not necessarily doing so well.
-
I am not Indian, but the child we sponsor through World Vision is. So, either world vision is ripping me off, or there are clearly two worlds in India, one urban and growing, one rural and not necessarily doing so well.
no, world vision isnt ripping you off (keep on sponsoring the child)
Christian Graus wrote:
one urban and growing, one rural and not necessarily doing so well.
Im not so sure I'd even use 'urban' and 'rural' here - maybe 'IT Literate' and 'everyone else' - to illustrate my point, if you went to Bangalore or Pune, you only have to step outside the door of an air-conditioned IT office before you're back in the third world 'g'
-
Corinna John wrote:
The next question might be "would india be better off, if the British were still there", but I assume that's Soapbox stuff
For the British to have stayed this long, you would have to undo the WW2. WW2 weakened UK, and along with the hard time Gandhiji and Subhash Chandra Bose gave to the British, forced them to decide how rather than when to leave India. When they left, they left all the hate that can be imagined. The hate India and Pakistan share is hard to imagine for the west. The 4 wars that they have fought have created lots of records(highest, longest since WW2, largest army movement since WW2 etc). The money India and Pakistan spend on defense, could be spend else were. The British did nothing when China took control over Tibet(India's defeat in India-China war in 1962, raised India's worries, the defend budget, and for ever lost a friend in China). India would have been another Africa if the British had stayed any longer.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
India would have been another Africa if the British had stayed any longer.
Curiously, the story I heard that was that the British treated the Indians differently than in Africa. In India they kept the Indian middle-classes in administrative positions. In Africa they did not. When independence came for India the middle-classes were already in place and able to administer the country effectively - all they needed was a few people to step up and be the polititians. In Africa none of that structure was there so the system collapsed because when the British left there was a void, a vaccum.
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
Yes, the situation is pathetic.
Corinna John wrote:
> 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly.
Athough the number is around 40%,
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 59.5%
male: 70.2%
female: 48.3% (2003 est.)IT is the only field India has done well, Biotechnology seems promising but it will have to prove itself.
Corinna John wrote:
are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers?
Isn't that always the case? Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting. The problem is that the system has got accustomed to the viscious circle of illiteracy <=> poverty <=> corruption. The corrupt politicians want the people to remain ignorant so that they keep getting elected, and when a police constable gets get INR 2500(~$50) per month as salary, corruption is difficult to reap out. However, situation is improving. The politicians are illiterate and corrupt but a lot of policies(the low profile ones) some how get created and implemented by the educated (IAS officers - corrupt but educated) who form the backend of the legislature and the Judiciary has started keeping a watch over things. Some hope has been kindled by Free mid-day meals for kids at schools(to encourage parents to send their kids to school instead of work - yes child labour is illegal, but ...) and free education for girls in primary school, but it is a long way to go. please note: it is only 59 years since independence and the British left us in really bad shape.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
when a police constable gets get INR 2500(~$50) per month as salary, corruption is difficult to reap out.
In the 1970s corruption in the police in the UK was rife. A backhander here, and expensive evidence going missing there. Then in 1979 Margaret Thatchers came to power and one of the first things she did was to raise the police salary by a significant amount. Of course, in 1984 it became apparent why she had done that - She needed the police on side in her battle against the miners. But corruption in the UK police dropped significantly during the 80s.
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
I am not Indian, but the child we sponsor through World Vision is. So, either world vision is ripping me off, or there are clearly two worlds in India, one urban and growing, one rural and not necessarily doing so well.
Christian Graus wrote:
one urban and growing, one rural and not necessarily doing so well
even urban India is not doing too well. Do a google search for "Mumbai" and "slums". Mumbai is the kind of NY of India(+all the slums of course). There are not really just 2 class(the rich and the poor). I don't have data for this, but the picture is more like: a very small percent of rich people (less than 3-4%), a large middle class(25%) and rest poor(My definition of poor: Someone who does not have a house/misses meals because of no money/is unable to keep children away from work till age 14). The Indian government draws the line of poverty at $1/day(~INR 45), and according to latest estimates around 25% people lie below that. (For perspective: 1 kg of wheat = INR 13, 1 kg of potatoes = INR 15, 1 litre of petrol = INR 50).
-
no, world vision isnt ripping you off (keep on sponsoring the child)
Christian Graus wrote:
one urban and growing, one rural and not necessarily doing so well.
Im not so sure I'd even use 'urban' and 'rural' here - maybe 'IT Literate' and 'everyone else' - to illustrate my point, if you went to Bangalore or Pune, you only have to step outside the door of an air-conditioned IT office before you're back in the third world 'g'
Garth J Lancaster wrote:
to illustrate my point, if you went to Bangalore or Pune, you only have to step outside the door of an air-conditioned IT office before you're back in the third world
OK. I have a friend who goes to Bangalore a lot, but we've never really talked about this stuff.
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
India would have been another Africa if the British had stayed any longer.
Curiously, the story I heard that was that the British treated the Indians differently than in Africa. In India they kept the Indian middle-classes in administrative positions. In Africa they did not. When independence came for India the middle-classes were already in place and able to administer the country effectively - all they needed was a few people to step up and be the polititians. In Africa none of that structure was there so the system collapsed because when the British left there was a void, a vaccum.
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
India did not collapse because India had the concept of democracy from pre-historic periods and India won her freedom because of a non-violent force. To prove my point: India and Pakistan were governed similarly, while India has had a relatively stable government, Pakistan has had Military dictatorship longer than democracy. And without US assistance, it would have been indistinguishable from Afghanistan. So, it wasn't how British managed us, rather what we choose to do later. The British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it. The hate among groups gives hope to the corrupt politicians, who are doing their best to ruin the nation(minority appeasement) while the "educated" few don't vote(they don't see any hope). Note: I am 23 and have voted thrice. I am doing my part by working in India, paying my taxes and helping the economy(there is always opportunity for me to leave my nation and head for the west, but I think I will pass).
-
Yes, the situation is pathetic.
Corinna John wrote:
> 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly.
Athough the number is around 40%,
Literacy:
definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 59.5%
male: 70.2%
female: 48.3% (2003 est.)IT is the only field India has done well, Biotechnology seems promising but it will have to prove itself.
Corinna John wrote:
are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers?
Isn't that always the case? Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting. The problem is that the system has got accustomed to the viscious circle of illiteracy <=> poverty <=> corruption. The corrupt politicians want the people to remain ignorant so that they keep getting elected, and when a police constable gets get INR 2500(~$50) per month as salary, corruption is difficult to reap out. However, situation is improving. The politicians are illiterate and corrupt but a lot of policies(the low profile ones) some how get created and implemented by the educated (IAS officers - corrupt but educated) who form the backend of the legislature and the Judiciary has started keeping a watch over things. Some hope has been kindled by Free mid-day meals for kids at schools(to encourage parents to send their kids to school instead of work - yes child labour is illegal, but ...) and free education for girls in primary school, but it is a long way to go. please note: it is only 59 years since independence and the British left us in really bad shape.
hi we are trying to come up from this situation even on code project i put the main objectives of our forth coming project but i didn't get any suggestion on how to improve that and i know many people who are working actively for improvements in India hope we will heal fast :):)
It is Good to be Important but! it is more Important to be Good [My Question]
-
India did not collapse because India had the concept of democracy from pre-historic periods and India won her freedom because of a non-violent force. To prove my point: India and Pakistan were governed similarly, while India has had a relatively stable government, Pakistan has had Military dictatorship longer than democracy. And without US assistance, it would have been indistinguishable from Afghanistan. So, it wasn't how British managed us, rather what we choose to do later. The British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it. The hate among groups gives hope to the corrupt politicians, who are doing their best to ruin the nation(minority appeasement) while the "educated" few don't vote(they don't see any hope). Note: I am 23 and have voted thrice. I am doing my part by working in India, paying my taxes and helping the economy(there is always opportunity for me to leave my nation and head for the west, but I think I will pass).
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
India won her freedom because of a non-violent force.
I never questioned how India won her independence. My country, Scotland, is also trying to win independence from Britain through non-violent means also. See Celebrate or Commiserate (the Act of Union)[^]
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
The British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided
Which also means that the middle-classes (or your caste system's equivalent) was kept in place. In Africa tribal leaders were removed or ignored.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
India did not collapse because India had the concept of democracy from pre-historic periods
And that probably helped a lot. But, if there was no structure in place within Indian society at the point of independence then the country would have collapsed. India would have come out of it, but it would take a fair amount of time to do that. To my knowledge, India did not collapse when independence came.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
The hate among groups gives hope to the corrupt politicians, who are doing their best to ruin the nation(minority appeasement) while the "educated" few don't vote(they don't see any hope).
I think that is normal. Look at the voting record in places like the US or the UK. Tony Blair is in power on the vote of just 23% of those actually eligible to vote. If the other people would stop complaining and get into the polling stations things might be different.
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
I am 23 and have voted thrice. I am doing my part by working in India, paying my taxes and helping the economy(there is always opportunity for me to leave my nation and head for the west, but I think I will pass)
I've never missed an election yet. Once, I forgot to arrange a postal vote as I knew I was out of the country and I flew across Europe to get to the ballot box and then flew out again. (That was my famous Woke up in Paris, went to bed in Madrid via 2 other European Capitals in one day [3 other capitals if you count a change
-
India did not collapse because India had the concept of democracy from pre-historic periods and India won her freedom because of a non-violent force. To prove my point: India and Pakistan were governed similarly, while India has had a relatively stable government, Pakistan has had Military dictatorship longer than democracy. And without US assistance, it would have been indistinguishable from Afghanistan. So, it wasn't how British managed us, rather what we choose to do later. The British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it. The hate among groups gives hope to the corrupt politicians, who are doing their best to ruin the nation(minority appeasement) while the "educated" few don't vote(they don't see any hope). Note: I am 23 and have voted thrice. I am doing my part by working in India, paying my taxes and helping the economy(there is always opportunity for me to leave my nation and head for the west, but I think I will pass).
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
The British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it
It's not fair to blame the British at all for the caste system at this point. India has been independent for ~60 years at this point. The British didn't invent the caste system. You can argue that it may have been encouraged, but if it wasn't an integral part of Indian society, would it not have died out in sixty years. Take a look at Indian dating sites like: http://www.jeevansathi.com/[^] The fourth combo box in the filter is "Caste". You can't blame the British for that one. 3) Not being from India or Britain, but from another British colony, I can say that we have some hold-overs that never would have come about except for the fact that we were a former British colony. For example, our official head of government must be 1) Anglican and 2) is chosen by hereditary. I really don't agree with this, but all things considered, being in a former British colony is a lot better than the alternative in today's world.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
Christian Graus wrote:
one urban and growing, one rural and not necessarily doing so well
even urban India is not doing too well. Do a google search for "Mumbai" and "slums". Mumbai is the kind of NY of India(+all the slums of course). There are not really just 2 class(the rich and the poor). I don't have data for this, but the picture is more like: a very small percent of rich people (less than 3-4%), a large middle class(25%) and rest poor(My definition of poor: Someone who does not have a house/misses meals because of no money/is unable to keep children away from work till age 14). The Indian government draws the line of poverty at $1/day(~INR 45), and according to latest estimates around 25% people lie below that. (For perspective: 1 kg of wheat = INR 13, 1 kg of potatoes = INR 15, 1 litre of petrol = INR 50).
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
but the picture is more like: a very small percent of rich people (less than 3-4%), a large middle class(25%) and rest poor
That sounds about right for most countries. I'd say the following, give or take a few percentage points for each group is fairly normal: 3% rich 22% middle class 65% workers 10% poverty
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
but the picture is more like: a very small percent of rich people (less than 3-4%), a large middle class(25%) and rest poor
That sounds about right for most countries. I'd say the following, give or take a few percentage points for each group is fairly normal: 3% rich 22% middle class 65% workers 10% poverty
*** Developer Day 4 in Reading, England on 2nd December 2006 - Registration Now Open *** Upcoming Scottish Developers events: * Developer Day Scotland: are you interested in speaking or attending? My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
22% middle class 65% workers
What's the definition of a worker ? How does it exclude poverty ?
-
Hello, I just read an article about farmers in india in a german newspaper. Now, I'm not sure about one sentence: > 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly. You are a big player in IT, your economy is growing and growing ... are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers? Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it. :rose: coco
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
Corinna John wrote:
why your government does not do anything against it.
- There are (about) 1 Billion people in India. 2) Their government budget is about 118 Billion[^] US dollars. With a billion people, what can they do? That's not a completely rhetorical question. When you have that many people, do something for everyone is extraordinarily expensive.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
The British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it
It's not fair to blame the British at all for the caste system at this point. India has been independent for ~60 years at this point. The British didn't invent the caste system. You can argue that it may have been encouraged, but if it wasn't an integral part of Indian society, would it not have died out in sixty years. Take a look at Indian dating sites like: http://www.jeevansathi.com/[^] The fourth combo box in the filter is "Caste". You can't blame the British for that one. 3) Not being from India or Britain, but from another British colony, I can say that we have some hold-overs that never would have come about except for the fact that we were a former British colony. For example, our official head of government must be 1) Anglican and 2) is chosen by hereditary. I really don't agree with this, but all things considered, being in a former British colony is a lot better than the alternative in today's world.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
Warren D Stevens wrote:
For example, our official head of government must be 1) Anglican and 2) is chosen by hereditary.
Head of state. Your head of government is the Prime Minister. That is, if your profile is correct and you're from Canada. And I, as a British Citizen (in my own mind, not Subject), don't agree with it either. Elizabeth Windsor isn't too bad I suppose but I'm not a great fan of Charles.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Warren D Stevens wrote:
For example, our official head of government must be 1) Anglican and 2) is chosen by hereditary.
Head of state. Your head of government is the Prime Minister. That is, if your profile is correct and you're from Canada. And I, as a British Citizen (in my own mind, not Subject), don't agree with it either. Elizabeth Windsor isn't too bad I suppose but I'm not a great fan of Charles.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
Mike Dimmick wrote:
Head of state. Your head of government is the Prime Minister
Yes, my profile is correct, I'm Canadian (but also a U.K. citizen). And yes, you've probably got the correct terminology. But my point remains the same, since the Queen still officially runs Canada. To quote Wikipedia: "The Prime Minister and their Cabinet are formally appointed by the Governor General (who is the Monarch's representative in Canada). However, the Prime Minister chooses the Cabinet, and by convention, the Governor General respects the Prime Minister's choices." Essentially no one cares enough to change the system, but I do find it offensive to have our elected Prime Minister go off to the Governor General's house to "ask the queen" if it's okay with her if we form a government. I can't stand any system that will makes Charles head of my government. :mad: If this were 500 years ago, I'd be the first person in line rebelling and dragging Charles off to the gallows. I wouldn't follow that guy out of a burning building...
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
Hello, I just read an article about farmers in india in a german newspaper. Now, I'm not sure about one sentence: > 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly. You are a big player in IT, your economy is growing and growing ... are there two parallel worlds in india? One world of educated people, and another world of poor losers? Please tell me if it is true and (if true) why your government does not do anything against it. :rose: coco
____________________________________ There is no proof for this sentence.
Corinna John wrote:
50% of all indians cannot read and write properly.
The same statement could be made of Americans, I imagine. Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith