Poor Little Rich Country

How do you categorize India, a nation that is at once fantastically wealthy and desperately poor?

BY PATRICK FRENCH | JUNE 24, 2011

In May, the Indian government announced that it was giving $5 billion in aid to African countries in the interest of helping them meet their development goals. "We do not have all the answers," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, "but we have some experience in nation-building, which we are happy to share."


Once Upon a Time in Bombay
An FP Slide Show

The British could be forgiven for being annoyed with Singh's largesse. Britain, after all, currently gives more than $450 million a year in aid to India, and has plans to continue doing so for at least the next few years. The British economy is bumping in and out of a recession, while India's gross domestic product is growing at more than 8 percent a year. This has put the British government in the rather bizarre position of having to sell bonds in order to donate money to Asia's second-fastest-growing economy, even as the latter is itself getting into the philanthropy business.

The policy is unpopular with most of the British press, which argues that because India has a space program and some flamboyant billionaires, it does not need aid -- especially when Britain cannot really afford it. (When the Labour government was voted out at last year's general election, the departing Finance Minister Liam Byrne left a one-line note on his desk for his successor: "I'm afraid there is no money." It was a joke -- but it was also true.) Nevertheless, Britain still sees itself as a donor nation, with all the obligations and international prestige that entails. This comes in part from a sense of postcolonial guilt: Prime Minister David Cameron spoke recently of a "sense of duty to help others" and the "strong moral case" for giving aid.

The situation suggests just how dramatically the economic rise of Asia has undone centuries of experience, and the expectation that the West will retain the hegemony it has had for the past 400 years. It is increasingly difficult to classify whether a nation is rich or poor, and terms such as "the Global South" and "the Third World" have to be heavily qualified to take into account the fact that large sections of the population in countries like China, Brazil, and India now have a purchasing power matching that of people in "the West."

In 1951, the American diplomat Bill Bullitt described the condition of India in Life magazine: "An immense country containing 357 million people," he wrote, "with enormous natural resources and superb fighting men, India can neither feed herself nor defend herself against serious attacks. An inhabitant of India lives, on average, 27 years. His annual income is about $50. About 90 out of 100 Indians cannot read or write. They exist in squalor and fear of famine." Today, it would be hard to make such an absolute statement about India. Poverty certainly remains a chronic problem, but it exists alongside pockets of substantial wealth. An Indian's life expectancy at birth now stands at 67 years, and continues to rise. It is necessary perhaps to think in a different way, and to see that a country like India, like Schrödinger's cat, exists in at least two forms simultaneously: rich and poor.

The most important change of the last two decades, since the beginning of economic liberalization, has been the transformation of middle-class Indian aspiration. Although the stagnant days of the controlled economy and the "Permit Raj" -- when important decisions depended on a bureaucrat's authorization -- had their own stability, they also stifled opportunity and individual talent. Members of the professional middle class frequently preferred to seek their fortune in more meritocratic societies abroad.

The modern Indian middle class has a new chance to shape its own destiny in a way that was not previously possible. You can move to your own house using a home loan and live outside the joint family; you can buy a car that is not an Ambassador or a Fiat; you can travel abroad and see how people in other countries live; you can watch your politicians accept bribes or dance with prostitutes on television in local media sting operations while surfing your way to Desperate Housewives or Kaun Banega Crorepati, an Indian adaptation of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Businesspeople who have succeeded on their own merits overseas, such as PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi, are presented as national heroes.

DESHAKALYAN CHOWDHURY/AFP/Getty Images

 

Patrick French is a writer and historian, and the author, most recently, of India: A Portrait, published this month. He is also editor of The India Site.

HEADOFFICE

7:10 AM ET

June 25, 2011

thanks patrick

thanks for raising this point, since mr singh anounced this aid for african countries, i was wondering someone is gonna raise this point why not he is ready to feed his own poor country men. whole world wonders how world's biggest poverty container launching space programes without any reasonable plans to eradicate poverty...

 

JDENG

11:45 AM ET

June 25, 2011

The great divide

The fact is that the gap between the rich and poor in these countries like India and China are widening with the poor getting poorer and rich getting richer. The aid by the British government may be a legacy issue and it is certainly something to be reviewed. There is no reason anymore that UK should be sending aid to countries like India and India needs to figure out a better way to help the poor close the gap. A survey has showed that 80% of the wealth is concentrated only on 5% of the population.

 

MADHURAM

10:25 PM ET

June 27, 2011

Disclose Unaccounted Money

That's exactly what I thought JDENG. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. I hear that if the unaccounted money of Indian politicians and businessmen locked in Swiss and other foreign banks, is brought out, India can lend to the World Bank. I'm sure that its not going to happen though.

EgglessCooking

 

SPEAK YOUR MIND

11:53 PM ET

June 25, 2011

I dont get the logic of charity abroad

I never understood why a country like India, with a significant poor population, should be donating money to Africa, or Sri Lanka etc
Charity begins at home, I thought.

 

MRMONDAY

5:03 AM ET

June 27, 2011

Not really theirs to give...

It think it is very reasonable that Britain is a little upset at India's "generous" aid program. I am not sure you are entitled to receive aid, then give it to someone else and bask in the glow of niceness. It's like lodging someone else's tax return and then keeping all the refund. I think the establishment of a space program should have signaled the end of aid to India.

 

MAZO

7:23 AM ET

July 5, 2011

Whinny

Perhaps the biggest gripe heard from Britain with regards to giving aid to India is the refrain that India has a space program that disqualifies it to "aid". I fail to see the logic of this argument completely. The "space program" is neither a luxury nor a program built for bluster. The Indian space program has existed since the late 50s when sounding rockets were taken to the launch pad on cycle rickshaws by a bunch of scientists who made rockets in a shed!

The Indian space program has done more to uplift Indians and remove poverty than all the "aid" given by Western nations combined since Indian independence due its reach and its scope! The Indian space program was started because Western nations balked at the idea that India wanted to launch satellites and saw it as the preserve of only the "developed world". The Americans tried use this desire by India to use space to uplift its poor by dangling rocket technology to woo India over to its side during the Cold War unsuccessfully. Later on during the middle of the 21st century, the West accused India's space program of being a test bed for "missile technology" and again tried to quash it behind sanctions and restrictions and treaties. Didn't work.

Today, the Indian Space program exists "despite" the best efforts of the West and the global technology denial regime. Today, the Indian space program is the reason, telecommunications, weather forecasting, soil development, urban planning and ocean monitoring are being used to uplift millions of people in India through government policy. Today, the Indian space program is responsible for enabling even the farthest flung Indian village to get a window to the outside world. Today, the Indian space program is responsible for enabling the Indian IT revolution that brought millions of jobs to India by providing a reliable connection to the outside world.

So, the argument that because India has a space program, it doesn't deserve aid doesn't make sense. Why don't we state the facts frankly; the UK doesn't have the money to be an aid donor any longer and you are looking for any way to cut aid. Honestly would be far more appreciated by the rest of the world than some rant against India and its space program.

 

SLIMANDSEXY

4:59 PM ET

June 27, 2011

Strange but true

It is quite interesting that Britian is giving to India and then India is giving to African countries at the same time.
But the president of India do have a point, if it knows how to grow a country then why not use it's expertise and "help other nations. That is what we are here to do, to help others. And there is no better country to do that than India which is growing at a rate of 8% per year while other countries are slipping in and out of recession.
If we can help, then we should

 

OLIVERH

9:09 PM ET

June 27, 2011

No...

Actually, if *you* can help, then you *may*. If there's one essential principle missing from most people's view on what constitutes charity and/or foreign aid, it is the fact that charity is an act of individuals, not nations. Only individual people can and should decide whom they want to help and how. This almost seems obvious yet it is all too common to find our generous, altruistic, benevolent politicians posturing about "why we should help" while missing--worse, evading-- entirely the notion of human choice in the matter. In the case of India, they expropriate--through taxation--the wealth produced by a nascent economy (India), which takes aid from an already struggling economy (Great Britain) and give it away. All of this largely at the expense of lower and middle-class working people (in both India and Great Britain) who are given little, if any, say in the matter at all. It's repulsive.

The next time you're tempted to say "If we can help, then we should" you should think about where the money for this help comes from. What you *should* do is remember is that neither you nor the government has the moral right to help some at the involuntary expense of others.

 

SHIKARISHAMBU

9:35 PM ET

June 27, 2011

Charity begins at home

It would be wise to help the poor in India before we do some nation building in Africa or Afghanistan. But, we have always had illusion of grandeur. Or, maybe the govt thinks the govts in Africa/ Afghanistan are less corrupt their own and so the money will actually make some difference.

We may not have computerised systems/ an local demand for software but we do service the world. We do not offer healthcare services to our own citizens but love to invite others to experience medical tourism.

 

TEJINDERKAUR

2:29 AM ET

June 28, 2011

Largesse unfounded

India can hardly afford to act like a rich philanthropist. With over $760 billion in debt and rising (equal to 56% of GDP), and millions of people who are homeless, jobless and hungry, the government cannot and should not be allowed to give 'gifts' to other developing countries.
Blog by Travis

 

MASHAHALLAH

8:40 AM ET

June 28, 2011

Indian Aid

Before we jump to ill informed conclusions, it should be understood that The "Aid" in question extended by India to African countries is in the form of Export credit for health, education and infrastructure projects in the continent. I.e. it will be in the form of grants and soft loans for national governments to pay for such projects to the extent they employ Indian vendors for the same.
Hence, it is more of a trade/investment enabler for the Indian private sector in the African continent and not a dole for charity work.
This should also be seen in the light of the India- China rivalry shaping up in the continent, where China is pouring in many more billions directly for natural resources, completely by-passing the citizenry of the continent.

To say that India should take care of its poor first before undertaking charity outside is a nonsensical notion anyway. There are many other considerations at play and India has every right to engage with the African continent for its strategic interest.

Nations and national strategy are not built on "one problem at a time" principles.

 

ALLCORRECT

12:19 PM ET

June 28, 2011

Fixing our own home first

While the above statement is accurate to the extent that political initiatives like Aid to Africa are absolutely necessary for India to hold and extend her influence in the world , it is much more true that internally focused aid and upliftment programmes will ultimately benefit the nation and make it stronger.
Of course these aid programs and influence-extending measures will help Indian industry which in-turn will be good for the Indian people, as well as for India as a whole. This is not an excuse not to have divisions that focus inwards though.

For people who seem to think that these are mutually exclusive options, for a nation as big as India, they are not. We can chew gum and walk at the same time.

 

SPEAK YOUR MIND

12:17 AM ET

June 29, 2011

Thanks - Understand this better

Ultimately it is not completely charity, and it is geopolitics at work. Does it make sense to someone starving or dying in Inida?

 

MAZO

6:58 AM ET

July 5, 2011

To ALLCorrect

What says we aren't fixing out own home first ? India spends more than 9% of its GDP on social programs domestically. How come you ignore this fact ?

Also, do you believe that India shouldn't provide external aid because there are still people internally who need help ? If that were the criteria to provide external aid then why would any nation provide any aid considering that there is no nation on this planet whose citizens are free from poverty or some other misfortune.

 

GSHRESTHA

8:34 PM ET

June 28, 2011

big picture

It is true that India has a big big problem of poverty within. But one should be aware that India is playing a big chess match in Asia-Africa region. I am sure most of the posters remember/know how China has increased its influence in Africa by eliminating debts, building infra-structure, leasing land and strengthening economic ties with many African countries. China is not only securing resources for its future but also developing overseas markets in these poor African countries for its exports. While the need at home is enormous, Indian leaders seem to understand the necessity to garner influence in these places.

 

MUFI

1:02 AM ET

June 29, 2011

Foreign Policy matter

its just dat India wants to promote good relations with african nations for its burgeoning raw material requirements.....$5 billion figure can b misleading as we dont know xact details...moreover it is spread over many years....this aid can hav spinoff benefits for indian firms in form of more contracts.....this move is in response of China's moves in african nations.....

 

THOMASOROURKE

10:11 AM ET

July 4, 2011

The Indian Government should

The Indian Government should ensure that it knows how to look after its own people before donating such substantial amounts of money to other nations. While I can't help but agree with the sentiment, the gift seems quite ironic considering the abstract poverty in the country. However, the UK does need to stop taking advantage of India and its people. For example, the large-scale dumping of electronic waste which should be replaced with WEEE recycling programmes. There are clear solutions to the issues.

 

RSKSQUARE

6:36 AM ET

July 8, 2011

Missing the point

$ 450 million is not material either to UK or India (both have a GDP of over $ 1 trillion). It is probably a legacy of some old programs and bureaucrats on both sides are continuing to follow it.

I do know that India has declined several aid programs in the last 5-10 years. It would be best to stop this trickle and save everyone an embarrassment.

 

CARRY RUDEN

11:08 AM ET

July 23, 2011

Poor Little Rich Country

How do you categorize India, a nation that is at once fantastically wealthy and desperately poor? Before we jump to ill informed conclusions, it should be understood that The "Aid" in question extended by India to African countries is in the form of Export credit for health, education and infrastructure projects in the continent. I.e. it will be in the form of grants and soft loans for national governments to pay for such projects to the extent they employ Indian vendors for the same. Hence, i moving services India can hardly afford to act like a rich philanthropist. With over $760 billion in debt and rising (equal to 56% of GDP), and millions of people who are homeless, jobless and hungry, the government cannot and should not be allowed to give 'gifts' to other developing countries. Blog by Travis.