Is that true? Question to all Indian CPians
-
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 -
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
22% middle class 65% workers
What's the definition of a worker ? How does it exclude poverty ?
I'd say a worker is someone who earns above minimum wage. Poverty includes those households where the adults are unemployed or earn close to the minimum wage (or below it).
*** 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
-
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.
there are no two worlds in India the IT people specially teachers/trainers mostly (more than 90%) have a salary under 6000 INR (~ 130 $)/month an average programmer with 2 to three years of experience earns around 15000 INR (~ 300 $) /month i myself gone to HCL (a medium size company ) (at that time my experience was around 6 months) (around 4-5 months before now )they took interviews which stretched along one month and had seven rounds (the technical rounds were real tough ones) out of 300 candidates 7 of us were selected and what they offered us was 6000INR/month and a three year bond with a static growth (in salary) of 15% p/a and if we breach the contract (ie leave company before 3 years ) we have to pay 100000INR (~2200$) and all other sectors have same problems too that's why most of the big Indian brains are out of India
It is Good to be Important but! it is more Important to be Good [My Question]
-
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
Warren D Stevens wrote:
I can't stand any system that will makes Charles head of my government
Once again, Charles cannot be the head of your government unless you elect him. He may become the head of your state. These are two separate things in a constitutional monarchy. From what I remember the only power that the head of state has is to dissolve parliament and call a general election - something that is done under instruction from the head of government(normally... In 1975 the Governor General of Australia dissolved the parliament because the incumbent was in a stalemate situation and it was the only way to resolve it. Afterwards he became almost universally unpopular, despite the election resolving the stalemate situation, that he had to leave Australia and now lives in England). Everything else is just rubberstamping and carries no more than a ceremonial role. You could keep the same system (if you like the system) and just do away with the monarch. You would end up with more-or-less the same situation, because the governer general won't really ask the Queen on these things as the power is given to him to act on behalf of the Queen, nothing more. By the way, I totally understand where you are coming from wanting to remove the British monarch as your head of state. I'm just pointing out that with a minimum of fuss you could delete that element - and then you could have someone else's pictue on the money (that really confused me when I visit Canada. Even in Scotland we don't have the Queen on our bank notes [we have people like Adam Smith, Robert Burns, Sir Walter Scott and Robert the Bruce]). Personally, I'm hoping that when Scotland gets its independence we could ask Princess Anne to become our Queen (I happen to think the model of Constitutional Monarchy to be a rather good system of government) but we'll probably end up with Charles (or George as he apparently wants to be known)
*** 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
-
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.
Hi,
Corinna John wrote:
> 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly.
I don't know the current data, but this wikipedia link Literacy In India[^] gives the data from 2003. And according to it India has achieved 61% - 73% litercy rate from the 12% at the time of Independence. (it's been almost 60 years) And I think it's a very good progress, though lot to do yet. And there are lots of government program to improve it. And just by achieving litercy is not going to reduce the poverty. IMHO, Poverty would be the bigger problem for india then litercy in coming years. Lots of other factors population, corruption, politics are the reasons, but the hope is it's changing fast. And change doesn't come overnight. One more thing i want to point out is outside india people see only the IT industry beign the sole growth industry. But it's not true. Lots of other sectors are growing really fast lately for example health care, turism and retail etc. Ankita
-
I'd say a worker is someone who earns above minimum wage. Poverty includes those households where the adults are unemployed or earn close to the minimum wage (or below it).
*** 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
So middle class involves not yet rich, but well off ?
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Poverty includes those households where the adults are unemployed or earn close to the minimum wage (or below it).
I'd say that group is definately the one that's on the increase then.
-
there are no two worlds in India the IT people specially teachers/trainers mostly (more than 90%) have a salary under 6000 INR (~ 130 $)/month an average programmer with 2 to three years of experience earns around 15000 INR (~ 300 $) /month i myself gone to HCL (a medium size company ) (at that time my experience was around 6 months) (around 4-5 months before now )they took interviews which stretched along one month and had seven rounds (the technical rounds were real tough ones) out of 300 candidates 7 of us were selected and what they offered us was 6000INR/month and a three year bond with a static growth (in salary) of 15% p/a and if we breach the contract (ie leave company before 3 years ) we have to pay 100000INR (~2200$) and all other sectors have same problems too that's why most of the big Indian brains are out of India
It is Good to be Important but! it is more Important to be Good [My Question]
But I sponsor a child and her family for US$25 odd a month. That makes your $300 a month look pretty good, I would have said.
-
Hi,
Corinna John wrote:
> 50% of all indians cannot read and write properly.
I don't know the current data, but this wikipedia link Literacy In India[^] gives the data from 2003. And according to it India has achieved 61% - 73% litercy rate from the 12% at the time of Independence. (it's been almost 60 years) And I think it's a very good progress, though lot to do yet. And there are lots of government program to improve it. And just by achieving litercy is not going to reduce the poverty. IMHO, Poverty would be the bigger problem for india then litercy in coming years. Lots of other factors population, corruption, politics are the reasons, but the hope is it's changing fast. And change doesn't come overnight. One more thing i want to point out is outside india people see only the IT industry beign the sole growth industry. But it's not true. Lots of other sectors are growing really fast lately for example health care, turism and retail etc. Ankita
The thing is, if a lot of call centre/IT work flows into India, money flows in, and the new middle class want to eat out, buy cars, go shopping, furnish their houses, etc. So, any sector that becomes a major employer will create growth in service industries and retail.
-
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"
No. When the British left, the literacy rate was near 15%. Since the British left, population hs tripled yet literacy rate has gone up. Which means that Independent India has educated more of its people than the British ever did.
-
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.
We don't have a single spoken language in India - so it's hard to spread literacy. Perhaps if India'd standardize on English, instead of each state focusing on its local language, our education system could be speedily improved from its current rotten state. Of course a massive population, where the poorer a family is, the more children they seem to have, is not helping much either. If India's population was 1/4 billion instead of 1 billion, everyone would have 4 times as much as they have now.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
But I sponsor a child and her family for US$25 odd a month. That makes your $300 a month look pretty good, I would have said.
yes it is considered good in India too but the less paid trainers quit their jobs for that and the other trainers who comes in place of them are not so capable and as soon as they learn basics they also quits their jobs for a good one and this cause a poor trained crowd and i myself see most of them joining as teachers (deficiency of good trainers leads to down standards of eligibility criteria) , join as computer operators (non technical), call centers(BPO) or just data feeders this trend is dangerous and (our government) instead of taking some good steps they just increased the reservations (politics for quick vote) in different institutes (including IIT)
It is Good to be Important but! it is more Important to be Good [My Question]
-
So middle class involves not yet rich, but well off ?
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Poverty includes those households where the adults are unemployed or earn close to the minimum wage (or below it).
I'd say that group is definately the one that's on the increase then.
Christian Graus wrote:
So middle class involves not yet rich, but well off ?
Yes, I'd say so. Well enough to be comfortable.
Christian Graus wrote:
I'd say that group is definately the one that's on the increase then.
Probably. My take is that that group's size (along with the workers) fluctuates the most.
*** 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
-
We don't have a single spoken language in India - so it's hard to spread literacy. Perhaps if India'd standardize on English, instead of each state focusing on its local language, our education system could be speedily improved from its current rotten state. Of course a massive population, where the poorer a family is, the more children they seem to have, is not helping much either. If India's population was 1/4 billion instead of 1 billion, everyone would have 4 times as much as they have now.
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*)Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
We don't have a single spoken language in India - so it's hard to spread literacy
I don't think that has anything to do with it. I also thought for a long time that population was the problem. But now I don't think it is. Sinagpore is far more populous than India (density wise) yet they are extremely well off economically. I think economic freedom is what is required.
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -Brian Kernighan