The Indian Government

[Jan Ardena]

Syzygys,

If you lose your job because of increased competition, that is a negative in my book.

So for you it's about survival of the fittest?

It is about MONEY, who pays for it.

The tax-payers.
No body loses, and humans who formerly live worse than animals
have a chance to live like humans.

When did I say I should be?

I assume you do.
Why wouldn't you?

I already explained it, you just don't listen....

I heard you, but we're talking about different things.
I don't say give these people preferential treatment, or money.
I'm questioning, why they are forced to live in such inhuman conditions,
when they don't need to, just by allowing them access to basic needs.
Why would a government feel okay about that?

By the way under Communist rule in the Eastern block there was less suffering, homelessness and terrible conditions, but that lasted on ly a few decades, although the argument could be made that the return of capitalism casued the renewed suffering....Also a major difference was that in the Eastern block the people weren't overpopulating like crazy. They were in China and you can see the result, that even in state communism, the state simply can not provide UNLIMITED for the population if its just keep growing.

Are you advocating communism?
Didn't that system brutally murder millions of people in a New York minute?

There are horrible living conditions in China too....

Could that be due to communism?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Syzygys,

You make it sound as though affording people the very basics of human needs
is a privelidge, and should be used as a control method.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It is in everyone's interest to minimize the conditions in which such diseases can flourish. There are cures for some of them, but it is still more economical to prevent than to cure - although the pharmacy industry disagrees.

This is what I think, but why don't the government, or the super-rich ( of which there are loads in Mumbai), clear this simple problem up?
It wouldn't even cost loads, and the ghetto dwellers could manage it.

jan.

 

[Baron Max]

Leaving things as they are will only create more problems for everyone.

There have been slums in human cities since the beginning of time ...and we still have slums. What "more problems"?

There's nothing idealistic about questioning the motive of a government who seems reluctant to afford its citizens the very basic necessities of life. Especially when it has the means.

Is that the place of "government"? And if so, why don't we all just lie around on our ass and let the "government" take care of all of us?

The problem, Jan (see, I knew your name ...my fingers didn't!) is that "government" can't keep caring for people all the time ...at some point, the taxpayers are going to revolt at be force to provide charity.

In light of that remark and the crisis in Haiti and the enormous charity of the American people (as well as the world, I guess?), I've often wondered if we couldn't just publicize the needs like they do/did with Haiti or other disasters, and ask the public for donations to help. I mean, we respond to the disasters by sending gazillions of dollars (that probably go to some greedy bastards somewhere and not the disaster!), so if we give to the disaster, why not give to the homeless, slum, ghetto, etc "disasters"?

This is why I think you appear naiive. There has been nothing but change, a change which is due to ideas of a utopian world or society.

Yep, and I agree. Except, Jan, it's "change" which has simply remained as the same old thing with a different outside dressing. Jan, people like you have been talking about fixing the slums since time began ....and the slums are still there. People have been talking about fixing "government", and government just seems to remain the same even as it changes its outter dressing.

But, undoubtedly, humans are unique on this planet, which makes them special IMO, not that that is any reason to be disrepectful to other forms of life.

Unique? That's it? We humans can just say "HI, I'm unique!" and that's it? Saying it makes it so?

Sorry, Jan, but I think you're right. Us discussing this issue, as well as most any issues concerning human "rights" is a hopeless cause for us. For me, humans have done nothing but cause untold pain and destruction all over the world, for eons. And you love them?

Baron Max

 

[Syzygys]

Syzygys,

You make it sound as though affording people the very basics of human needs
is a privelidge,

You guys keep believing there is such a thing as a birthright for every human. There isn't. Some guys can write a declaration of human rights but at the end of the day it means horseshit.

Everybody deserves as much right as one can fight for. And yes, in a way it is survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom it has been, in feudalist society it was, in capitalist business it has been, why is it so hard to accept that inreal life one has to fith for everything and you don't deserve nothing outright.

 

[Syzygys]

The tax-payers.

Sure. And why would they do? Who says they have to provide for everyone else? Let me ask you this: assuming you are a millionaire, would you donate everything to the poor keeping just an absolute minimal for yourself? And if not, why not? Who says you can not or shouldn't do more for the poor?

In capitalism, if you aren't represented in the system, you basicly don't exist.

I'm questioning, why they are forced to live in such inhuman conditions,

They are not forced, it just happened. Some animals are born to be lions, some are flies. There has always been unequality among humans and always will be.

But Sam will be soon back so you can ask her what the Indian government is doing for the poor. To start with the Indian governemtn isn't very rich either. And Indiand multiply like rabbits.

Are you advocating communism?

I was just describing the situation. If we compare poor people in the former Eastern block and China, the mmain difference is population growth. China had to seriously limit the rights of the individual to be able to control the growth.

So it seems to me that once overbreeding gets under control, it is easier to bring the poor higher to a more acceptable level....

 

[kmguru]

Why doesn't the government of India do something about
the living condition of the people living in the slums?

That is because the Ministers whose job is to take care of this are sleep at the wheel OR dumber than door nail.

Mukul Wasnik - Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment - age:50 Lok Sabha, Maharashtra, - MBA


Kumari Selja - Minister of Tourism and Minister of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation - age:47 - Lok Sabha, Haryana, - MA, MPhil.


C. P. Joshi - Minister of Panchayati Raj and Minister of Rural Development - age:58 - Lok Sabha, Rajasthan, - BA(Law), MSc (Physics), MA PhD(Psychology)

Mallikarjun Kharge -Minister of Labour and Employment - age:66 Lok Sabha, Karnataka, - LLB

 

[Baron Max]

That is because the Ministers whose job is to take care of this are sleep at the wheel OR dumber than door nail.

Mukul Wasnik -

Kumari Selja -
C. P. Joshi -
Mallikarjun Kharge Sabha, Karnataka, ...

So, ...are you saying that these four Indian ministers are holding back from executing the will of the billions of Indian citizens? Everyone else in India wants somethng done for the poor, but these four are holding it all back?

Why don't I believe that? There must be a little more to it than that.

Baron Max

 

[wynn]

This is what I think, but why don't the government, or the super-rich ( of which there are loads in Mumbai), clear this simple problem up?

As noted earlier, there is the problem of ignoring religious laws. Unless you were born a full-blown devotee, you probably have some idea of how hard it is to bring one's behavior in line with religious instructions.

It is not necessarily that the Indian government or the super-rich are completely irreligious or that they aren't trying to improve; it could be that they are trying, but that they lack the spiritual guidance or knowledge.

Also, according to Wiki, "The preamble of the constitution defines India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic."
Which means they officially cannot resort to religion for a specific value system, and instead have to come up with their own solutions to the problems they face. As the history of the Western world readily shows, this approach to solving the problems of life just doesn't work.

My guess is that the proverbial Indian openness and multi-culturalism are what is making it impossible to introduce any effective changes. Whatever the government or powerful individuals or groups would do, there would be some group that would somehow take offense by it or whose right to be as they please would be violated - so it's stalemate.

Cultural and religious diversity, and a flourishing state apparently do not make a good match.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why doesn't the government of India do something about
the living condition of the people living in the slums?

jan.

They've tried - when they provide slum dwellers with alternate living arrangements they give it for rent and move back to their slum dwellings.

The problem is not what to do with the slums, the problem is how to make the rest of India like Bombay. Once all India is like Bombay, where everyone in India wants to live, then there will be no slums.

So now they have left it to the corporations. Currently slums in Bandra are going for rupees two crore per hut [Rs 2 crore = Rs 2, 00, 00, 000 ~ 500,000 USD] which is being given by builders who will then replace the slums with towers where each apartment will sell for Rs 3 crore.

So in the next decade, you'll see the slums disappearing.

 

[kmguru]

Welcome back S.A.M.

I am not sure if the Indian Government and all the NGOs working there support Education , Health and Child nutrition for the kids in those slums. Kinda no child left behind. If the GOI can do that, that will improve the situation within 15 years. Knowledge is power.

 

[S.A.M.]

They must be doing something right. We have doctors and engineers graduating from these slums and the annual turnover from exports is more than 500 million USD from Dharavi alone.

 

[kmguru]

Then it is a matter of time as long as India keeps an eye on industrialization - unlike America who lost it to China and now going downhill fast!

 

[S.A.M.]

I think Indian attitudes towards education are significant. The old man who came to Bombay and started a bhelpuri stall in front of our school 40 years ago like this one:

has a grandson studying civil engineering in a university in New Jersey.

I get requests from second generation migrants in Dharavi [who work in leather goods and export clothes - ie labour and trade] about good English schools for their kids so they can become graduates and improve their lives.

How it will pan out in the next few decades remains to be seen.

 

[kmguru]

India will be fine as long as Chinese do not block access to world market (which they have started) and there are no repeat terrorism like expanded Naxalites or Pakistani nudged activities.

A funny email I got....(warning - off topic)

Top 22 things an Indian does after returning to India from "US".


22. Use Nope for No and Yep for Yes.
21. Tries to use credit card in road side hotel.
20. Drinks and carries mineral water and always speaks of health conscious.
19. Sprays deo such so that he doesn't need to take bath.
18. Sneezes and says 'Excuse me'.
17. Says "Hey" instead of "Hi".
Says "Yogurt" instead says "Curds".
Says "Cab" instead of "Taxi".
Says "Candy" instead of "Chocolate".
Says "Cookie" instead of "Biscuit".
Says " Free Way " instead of "Highway".
Says "got to go" instead of "Have to go".
Says "Oh" instead of "Zero", (for 704, says Seven Oh Four Instead of Seven Zero Four)
16. Doesn't forget to crib about air pollution. Keeps cribbing every time he steps out.
15. Says all the distances in Miles (Not in Kilo Meters), and counts in Millions. (Not in Lakhs)
14. Tries to figure all the prices in Dollars as far as possible (but deep down the heart multiplies by 43 times).
13. Tries to see the % of fat on the cover of a milk pocket.
12. When need to say Z (zed), never says Z (Zed), repeats "Zee" several times, if the other person unable to get, then says X, Y Zee(but never says Zed)
11. Writes date as MM/DD/YYYY, on watching traditional DD/MM/YYYY, says "Oh! British Style!!!!"
10. Makes fun of Indian Standard Time and Indian Road Conditions.
9. Even after 2 months, complaints about "Jet Lag".
8. Avoids eating more chili (hot) stuff.
7. Tries to drink "Diet Coke", instead of Normal Coke.
6.. Tries to complain about any thing in India as if he is experiencing it for the first time.
5. Pronounces "schedule" as "skejule", and "module" as "mojule".
4. Looks suspiciously towards Hotel/Dhaba food.
3. From the luggage bag, does not remove the stickers of Airways by which he traveled back to India , even after 4 months of arrival.
2. Takes the cabin luggage bag to short visits in India, tries to roll the bag on Indian Roads.

Ultimate one:
1.. Tries to begin conversation with "In US ...." or "When I was in US..."

 

[S.A.M.]

India will be fine as long as Chinese do not block access to world market (which they have started) and there are no repeat terrorism like expanded Naxalites or Pakistani nudged activities.

We will all be terrorists eventually, so that shouldn't be an issue. But yes, the China issue is a problem. However, its off topic.

Back to the slums, one of the major problems is the Indian mindset, what we call the kaam chalao mentality. If there is a cheaper alternative, most Indians will not spend money on "better" stuff.

So for Dharavi to go away, people should start thinking about their lifestyle choices. Television is a good madhyam for such social manipulation and if you see our serials with their exaggerated lifestyle choices you can understand what will be the choice created for the consumer.

Indians are getting ready to stop living simply. And now they can afford it.

 

[kmguru]

One great thing going for India is the Business Process Outsourcing from USA. This is a precious intellectual capital that India can use for internal development. Combine that with all the TV will nudge the population towards a higher base. With a 7% to 9% growth, it is a matter of time where people learn and absorb new ideas that permeates throughout the country fast - thanks to the digital communication.

 

[Syzygys]

I think it also has to do with numbers. 1 homeless is a tragedy, 10K is avery bad thing but 10 million, you just shrug.

Since India has 1 billion people, I would say 50 million is a safe guess who live in poverty/slums. Now try to provide decent homes for 50 million people and see how hard it is.Otherwise Sam summed it up, it is probably about the mindset.

There will always be slums, unless an epidemic whipes out a big part of the population....

 

[Baron Max]

There will always be slums, unless an epidemic wipes out a big part of the population....

I agree. I'm just sure that even in the days of the cave men, there were some caves that were ....slums!

I honestly keep wondering, however, if it's more the nature of the people or if it really is something like disasters in their lives that led people into the slums in the first place.

If you have, say, only fifty families on the whole Earth, how many of them will end up in "slums"? Is there a segment of human populations that simply don't give a shit and ultimately "create" the slums?

Look at the homeless populations in the USA, for example; so many of them actually and honestly prefer to live out on the streets! Yes, there are some "crazy" people or troubled people, etc, but I'm talking about more "normal" people ....they prefer to live on the streets.

Is there a gene in human DNA that leads some people to the slums, and another one that leads others to penthouses in Manhattan?

If we could, and we took every single person out of the slums, how many would go right back to it?

Baron Max

 

[Jan Ardena]

Syzygys,

You guys keep believing there is such a thing as a birthright for every human. There isn't. Some guys can write a declaration of human rights but at the end of the day it means horseshit.

I think you want me to think this, so it fits with your argument.

Everybody deserves as much right as one can fight for.

This is not an intelligent attitude, and smacks of the evilution philosophy.

And yes, in a way it is survival of the fittest.

Yes, the elimination of what is considered the weak, non-productive, and not very nice looking, human beings. I'm way ahead of you.

In the animal kingdom it has been,

That is the animal kingdom.
Despite attempts by evilutionists, once we get passed the basic functions of
life (eating, sleeping, sex, defending) we are completely different to animals.

in feudalist society it was, in capitalist business it has been, why is it so hard to accept that inreal life one has to fith for everything and you don't deserve nothing outright.

I'm not saying we deserve anything outright.
If the powerfull want, they can just kill everyone they don't like.
But don't you think every living being has the right to clean water, in order
to survive. And if they live in a city where the government sanctions pollution
of the water, then some effort should be made to afford its citizens (animals also) the right to survive?

jan.