In medical college in the mid 1970s I once met a young man from Switzerland. He had ridden into India with a friend (who had been hospitalized with a minor injury). This man had parked his fantastic "never-seen-anything-like-this-before" motorcycle in our hostel. He told us that he and his friend worked for 6 months and earned enough money to go away from Switzerland for another 6 months simply to avoid being drafted into the military.
He asked us about poverty in India. Particularly he wanted to know "What are we doing about it?". This was only the first time - but through my life, for many decades, people have asked me "What are you doing about poverty in India" as if I had some special guilt and bore extra responsibility. I had never done a damn thing to increase Indian poverty. Heck I wasn't particularly rich myself - compared to these goras. I always knew that the government had to do something. There was not much I could personally do until I started earning - and even after that my personal contribution could only be miniscule. But Indians are constantly asked if nothing is being done about poverty as if they have to spend their entire lives answering questions about what they should do about poverty in India.
There are two separate facts here:
1. How to decrease poverty (in general, in any country)? I did not learn the suggested answers for many decades after I met the Swiss guy. The ways to decrease poverty are increased literacy, changing the economy from agrarian alone, to industry, services (banking, commerce) and tourism. You as an individual can do very little. Of course you contribute - but overall your contribution is not going to touch 250 or 300 million poor and illiterate. So in the 1970s, India has to industrialize, educate and diversify its economy. Even at that time the number of poor was more than the population of most countries on earth.
2. The second significant fact is that even after 67 years of "industrialize, educate and diversify" India still has more poor than most nations on earth.
This is not because Indians are stupid or Hindu.
If you look at literacy as the route to remove poverty, see this quote
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/literacy-rates
For America:In the 17th century education became an emphasized part of urban societies, further catalyzing the spread of literacy. All told, literacy rates in England grew from 30 percent of about 4 million people in 1641 to 47 percent of roughly 4.7 million in 1696. As wars, depressions and disease riddled 18th century Europe, the pace of literacy growth slowed but continued upwards, reaching 62 percent among the English population of roughly 8 million by 1800.
In other words, literacy was reached in Europe and America at a time when populations were much lower and industrial and colonial economies that used slave labour and mineral wealth from colonies was the norm. It was relatively low populations and wealth that allowed literacy to increase.At the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, nearly 60 percent of about 3 million American adults could read1 but in the following 19th and 20th centuries, literacy rates in America grew rapidly. In 1870, almost 80 percent of 38.5 million Americans were literate and by 1940, almost 95 percent of 131 million citizens could read.
Compare with India, from the same source. This is what India has been doing
But look at the converse - 400 million Indians are still illiterate despite record breaking literacy drives in India. Lack of literacy and poverty cannot go away soon in India. India the nation is doing more than anyone else has done before, and faster. But you are not personally guilty for India's poverty and illiteracy.Compared to relatively slow and steady literacy growth in the U.S. (around 50 percent in the 1600s and 60-70 percent in the 1700s), literacy in India has exploded in the past fifty years. In 1947, when the country gained its independence, only an estimated 60 million Indian adults could read (12 percent of the 500 million adults). Of the now 798 million Indian adults, 510 million (64 percent) can read.
"Two Indias" will continue. There will be areas of India that compete with any 21st century developed nation. There will be areas in India that remain in the late 19th/early 20 century. And they will be mixed up. The squalor and crowds of the latter will exist side by side with the glass and concrete of the former. This only creates a unique situation that is invariably described as "third world squalor" - and not as coexistence of wealthy and poor. If garbage on the road creates ill health, the wealthy have the means to insulate themselves from that as many of us have done for decades. It is the poor who need some protection. And we have just seen how indolent poverty is.
Note that India is continuously bashed by western banks and financial institutions, and agenda-ed or caged people for not having the "Uniform wealth, literacy and living standard" that they think should be the case based on the "universal values" they push. Fact is that they base their views on what happened to Europe or the US 100 or more years ago when economies worked differently. Colonial looting and slave labour was normal and open back then. It is no longer open now.
Indians should stop getting pushed around to meet 19th and 20th century European experiences. We are not going to do that. We will develop in our own way. Poverty, squalor and wealth will continue to exist side by side and will not go away for many decades. But I hope that India will continue to be as tree friendly and animal friendly as it has been. This adds to mud, organic debris, muck and squalor, but earth was never about fields of concrete, or green mono-species lawns, no matter how beautiful those images have been imprinted as being on our minds.
.
