Is that true? Question to all Indian CPians
-
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.
Christian Graus wrote:
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
The 25 USD would probably give her food and education and its a pretty good amount for an organization to look after the child. But to run a family with 300 USD isnt possible. 120 USD to rent a decent house 60 USD if you cook food at home 60 USD for electricity, telephone 20 USD for Internet bill You are already down to 40 USD with which you need to look after entertainment, schooling of kids, transportation, cell phone bill, save some money for the future, etc... In the current times you need atleast 500 to 700 USD to live a decent life in the city.
Tarakeshwar Reddy MCP, CCIE Q(R&S) Experience is like a comb that life gives you when you are bald - Navjot Singh Sidhu
-
Warren D Stevens wrote:
the Governor General also has to give "Royal Assent" to all bills before they are law.
That is just rubber stamping. That is the ceremonial bit.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
There was also a case in Canada when the Governor General refused the Prime Minister's request for an election, so it can be more than just a ceremonial role. This was back in the 1920's but this may be an issue again soon, because we have more political parties now, so minority governments are more likely.
As also happened in Australia in 1975. But the Queen (or King as it was in the 1920s) was very unlikely to have been involved.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
The senate doesn't really do much to effect life in Canada, so the government mainly uses the senate as patronage appointments for their cronies.
Sounds like the House of Lords.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
Not to say that the U.S. always does the right thing around the world or at home, but their system of Government is far superior to the UK or Canada
I disagree. I think the system where the person at the top's only real power is to call a general election is far superior. There is a power of veto also (i.e. not giving "Royal Assent") but it is very weak and would probably result in a sudden change of constitution. I feel that the system's like the US put too much power into the hands of the president. And no one person should have that much power.
*** 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:
I feel that the system's like the US put too much power into the hands of the president. And no one person should have that much power.
I completely agree with the idea of limiting power, which is one reason I prefer the US system to the Canadian system. In Canada the Prime Minister: 1) Appoints the judges to the supreme court 2) Appoints the Senate 3) Picks (and dismisses at will) all of the cabinet ministers. 4) Controls the party whip (tells members to vote with the PM, or you're out of the party) 5) Gets to pick when the next election is called (there is a limit on # of years, but when they've only got 18 months to go, they wait until the opposition has a scandal, or their party takes a jump in the polls, and then call a snap election). All of this effectively gives the Prime Minister total control of their party and (and assuming they have a majority) the government. At least in the US, they have "mid-term" elections, so when the president really screws things up, the population gets to send them a message fairly quickly (as just happened). In our current party system, the Prime Minister is chosen by the party (i.e. not picked by the country in an election), so we get stuck with someone who is a lousy leader, but has built up enough favours, or made enough back-room deals, in the party over the years that they become P.M. There have been many times where I like (or at least, don't mind) the party in power, but I want to replace the leader. For a good laugh, read the WikiQuote for Jean_Chretien[^] where he is described as "20th prime minister of Canada, was known for his wrestling matches with the English language.":sigh: I'd much prefer the U.S. system where you pick the leader separately (notwithstanding the current choice made in that system - a bad result doesn't mean a bad system ;P)
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
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.
-
1. The figure is closer to 40%, as has already been pointed out. 2. I would equate the 'Govt' with the 'politicians', and it is in the politicians' best (self) interest to keep the masses illiterate. 3. I'm ashamed. :sigh:
Cheers, Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
3. I'm ashamed.
Don't be ashamed. Do something about it. Start kicking butt NOW! :) Those who do nothing but claim they are ashamed of the pathetic situation should be shot (I'm not saying you are one of them, just venting).
-
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:
but if it wasn't an integral part of Indian society, would it not have died out in sixty years.
Intellectually speaking, yes. But not so from a practical point of view. It's a wee bit difficult if you have always believed in the caste system, your parents have always believed in the caste system, their parents have always believed in the caste system, and so on. Not to mention that it's in the interest of the politicians to keep it alive. Of course, the educated ones are getting over it, but most people are poorly educated, if at all, so it's taking some time. But I am sure the caste system will only remain a memory in a few generations. The OP didn't say the British invented the caste system in India, just that they encouraged it and took advantage of it. Not pointing fingers, just stating facts.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
3. I'm ashamed.
Don't be ashamed. Do something about it. Start kicking butt NOW! :) Those who do nothing but claim they are ashamed of the pathetic situation should be shot (I'm not saying you are one of them, just venting).
smaaaart wrote:
Don't be ashamed. Do something about it.
What makes you think I'm not?
Cheers, Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.
-
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:
Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting.
Why should this be the government's problem? The government is overly abused, yet so many still want to be fed, clothed, and housed by it.
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
-
Warren D Stevens wrote:
but if it wasn't an integral part of Indian society, would it not have died out in sixty years.
Intellectually speaking, yes. But not so from a practical point of view. It's a wee bit difficult if you have always believed in the caste system, your parents have always believed in the caste system, their parents have always believed in the caste system, and so on. Not to mention that it's in the interest of the politicians to keep it alive. Of course, the educated ones are getting over it, but most people are poorly educated, if at all, so it's taking some time. But I am sure the caste system will only remain a memory in a few generations. The OP didn't say the British invented the caste system in India, just that they encouraged it and took advantage of it. Not pointing fingers, just stating facts.
The OP said: "the British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it" Which seems to imply that the British bear a large responsibility for the caste system. My point was that the caste system really didn't need much encouragement (note: I'm not saying it wasn't taken advantage of, just that it doesn't seem to need encouragement) 1) It was there before the British 2) It was there after the British 3) Castes are not present in other (former) British colonies, so it's not something the British were going around pressing on people (unlike, say, speaking English and the English system of law, which you will still see in almost all former colonies). It's fair to say that education/literacy was not good under the British, but if literacy can make incredible progress since the British left town, the caste system should have gone away if it was their fault too. And that is NOT to say that colonialism was a good thing, just that the vast majority of the any blame for the caste system causing divisions/problems should not be dumped on the British.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
-
Anand Vivek Srivastava wrote:
Someone will always be poor, however the fact that the system(not only the government) does not do enough is quite dishearting.
Why should this be the government's problem? The government is overly abused, yet so many still want to be fed, clothed, and housed by it.
"Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" - 2 Timothy 2:15
"Judge not by the eye but by the heart." - Native American Proverb
I never said it was government's responsibility alone to feed/cloth/house everyone. And that is why I used the word system(The industry, the government, the voters, the NGOs) the instead of the government. And if this is not the government's problem, what is? I don't see anything worse than a hard worker dying of hunger (it has happened on multiple instances when farmers died of hunger). If you want to ask what is government's fault, I will give you an example. there is around 59% tax on petrol which affects all other costs and the inflation at the moment is quite high. The money it gets is wasted on policies like giving free electricity to farmers in Punjab(one of the richest farmers are from this state)
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I feel that the system's like the US put too much power into the hands of the president. And no one person should have that much power.
I completely agree with the idea of limiting power, which is one reason I prefer the US system to the Canadian system. In Canada the Prime Minister: 1) Appoints the judges to the supreme court 2) Appoints the Senate 3) Picks (and dismisses at will) all of the cabinet ministers. 4) Controls the party whip (tells members to vote with the PM, or you're out of the party) 5) Gets to pick when the next election is called (there is a limit on # of years, but when they've only got 18 months to go, they wait until the opposition has a scandal, or their party takes a jump in the polls, and then call a snap election). All of this effectively gives the Prime Minister total control of their party and (and assuming they have a majority) the government. At least in the US, they have "mid-term" elections, so when the president really screws things up, the population gets to send them a message fairly quickly (as just happened). In our current party system, the Prime Minister is chosen by the party (i.e. not picked by the country in an election), so we get stuck with someone who is a lousy leader, but has built up enough favours, or made enough back-room deals, in the party over the years that they become P.M. There have been many times where I like (or at least, don't mind) the party in power, but I want to replace the leader. For a good laugh, read the WikiQuote for Jean_Chretien[^] where he is described as "20th prime minister of Canada, was known for his wrestling matches with the English language.":sigh: I'd much prefer the U.S. system where you pick the leader separately (notwithstanding the current choice made in that system - a bad result doesn't mean a bad system ;P)
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
Warren D Stevens wrote:
All of this effectively gives the Prime Minister total control of their party and (and assuming they have a majority) the government
Well, I assume that each party has a way of electing their leader. How the individual parties organise themselves is upto the party. For example, the Labour party in the UK operates on a college system of sorts. 1/3 of the votes come from party members, 1/3 from trade unions and 1/3 from elected members - This gives elected members a huge weighting. However, that is how the Labour party operate internally and it is up to them how they do that.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
I'd much prefer the U.S. system where you pick the leader separately (notwithstanding the current choice made in that system - a bad result doesn't mean a bad system )
True, but I think the US president has too much power for one person. It needs to be spread around more. You could argue that the Canadian system (which looks identitcal to the British system) puts too much power in the hands of the PM. However, people have been known to ignore the whip and that can really put the cat amongst the pigeons. The appointments to the senate sound like the appointments to the Lords - and while I believe strongly in a bicameral parliament, because it spreads the power around more people, I feel the Lords needs a lot of reform (so I agree with you regarding the Senate) - Hopefully, I won't have to worry about the Lords for much longer. If the SNP win in Scotland we should have an indepenendce referrendum within 4 years.
*** 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
-
smaaaart wrote:
Don't be ashamed. Do something about it.
What makes you think I'm not?
Cheers, Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
What makes you think I'm not?
Firstly, like I said in my post, I wasn't saying that you were one of those who keep on saying they are ashamed without actually doing anything. I don't know anything about you, to say or imply anything like that. Secondly, it's my experience that most of the people who talk like you, don't actually do anything. They just say all these things to feel superior to other Indians. Once again, I am not saying you are one of those people. Either become an agent of change, or stop complaining and feeling ashamed. Because you are part of the problem. (Again, to clarify, the "you" here is said in the generic sense, not directed at you, Vikram Punathambekar, personally.) So, tell me. What have you been doing/have done?
-
The OP said: "the British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it" Which seems to imply that the British bear a large responsibility for the caste system. My point was that the caste system really didn't need much encouragement (note: I'm not saying it wasn't taken advantage of, just that it doesn't seem to need encouragement) 1) It was there before the British 2) It was there after the British 3) Castes are not present in other (former) British colonies, so it's not something the British were going around pressing on people (unlike, say, speaking English and the English system of law, which you will still see in almost all former colonies). It's fair to say that education/literacy was not good under the British, but if literacy can make incredible progress since the British left town, the caste system should have gone away if it was their fault too. And that is NOT to say that colonialism was a good thing, just that the vast majority of the any blame for the caste system causing divisions/problems should not be dumped on the British.
Need Icons? Huge list of Stock Icon collections (free and commercial): www.IconsReview.com
Warren D Stevens wrote:
The OP said: "the British encouraged the caste system to keep the masses divided, and we are having a hard time overcoming it" Which seems to imply that the British bear a large responsibility for the caste system.
I can't see how it implies that. It was obviously there already, for the British to "encourage" in the first place. No one is suggesting it's the fault of the British people. They just used it as a strategic advantage.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
It's fair to say that education/literacy was not good under the British, but if literacy can make incredible progress since the British left town, the caste system should have gone away if it was their fault too.
For the caste system to go away, we need people with broader minds, that can overcome past beliefs ingrained from generations. And for that, we need good education. Note that literacy is not the same as education. So no matter what the percentages are for literacy, most people are still not free from the old ways. Most of these so called literate people have never gone to college. That said, things are improving. For example, in the past, a person from a higher caste would not even touch a person from a lower caste, sit next to them, or eat food prepared by them, etc. The situation was terrible. But now you won't see this anywhere. Intercaste marriages are happening too. You won't really understand the magnitude of this change and its significance unless you actually live here, and actually understand the Indian mentality and history. It's easy to say that the caste system should have gone away, but how do you actually do it? You have hundreds of millions of people who don't even get two square meals a day, and live half naked even in the cold winter because they can't afford clothes. They can't think for themselves, because all they can think about is how to get the next meal. And it is in the interest of the politicians and the upper class to keep them that way, to keep exploiting them for votes and/or cheap labor. The politicians would like to divide the people as much as they can and set them against each other, to secure their vote banks. In this respect, they are just like the British of the old times.
Warren D Stevens wrote:
the vast majority of the any blame for the caste system causing divisions/problems should not be dumped on the Br
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
What makes you think I'm not?
Firstly, like I said in my post, I wasn't saying that you were one of those who keep on saying they are ashamed without actually doing anything. I don't know anything about you, to say or imply anything like that. Secondly, it's my experience that most of the people who talk like you, don't actually do anything. They just say all these things to feel superior to other Indians. Once again, I am not saying you are one of those people. Either become an agent of change, or stop complaining and feeling ashamed. Because you are part of the problem. (Again, to clarify, the "you" here is said in the generic sense, not directed at you, Vikram Punathambekar, personally.) So, tell me. What have you been doing/have done?
Sorry, my bad.
smaaaart wrote:
What have you been doing/have done?
Sponsoring a kid's education. Planning to: join/contribute to CRY. Teach a poor kid or two over weekends.
Cheers, Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.