Hello everyone,
Here are two articles on poverty in India; the first one is by an
eminent emerging non-fiction writer and the second by an eminent
Indian blogger. Both are based in Mumbai (Bombay). I wonder what
members of this group have to say about the very rich debate
highlighted in these two articles, as both use "anecdotal evidence"
rather than statistics to prove their point.

Looking forward to a debate on this list,

Cheers
Shivam


o o o o o o


Country on Parade

By Dilip D'Souza
Rediff | April 15, 2005
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/apr/15dilip.htm


The overwhelming impression? Poverty. Two recent 24 hour journeys in
second-class compartments on trains, and I came home stunned -- I mean
this, I was simply stunned -- at the number and variety of people who
streamed through the coach asking for coins. Or who did so from the
stations we stopped at. Or who were obviously destitute and desperate
even if they did not beg.

Eunuchs; blind men; blind couples; men on their behinds with a leg
draped around their necks, one with a bag of grapes hanging from his
toes; young kids doing some little act; young girls singing
tunelessly; boys and men and women sweeping the compartment, some with
the shirts off their backs; filthy mothers with a seemingly lifeless
kid lolling in their arms; a bearded midget who didn't say a word; men
without one or more limbs; men on crutches; a young man who picked up
discarded watermelon rinds from under the train and chewed on them; a
smiling old man who switched from Tamil to English to Tamil again,
asking for money all the while; assorted others. From early in the
morning, all through the day, well into the night. On and on.

I've travelled second-class for over 35 years now: short journeys,
long ones, in every part of the country. For the sense it gives you of
what India is about, it is indisputably the best way to travel. It
occurred to me that on none of those journeys, over all those years,
did I see so many beggars, so much poverty. All of which, like always,
gave me a sense of what my country is about, circa 2005.

Yes, this is 2005. We are a decade-and-a-half into reforms and
liberalisation and the tearing down of socialism that, we have been
told, is addressing India's gargantuan problem of poverty in the most
efficient way possible. The proponents of this great exercise will
quote arguments and figures at length to make that case, to persuade
us that poverty is on the wane. And if you look at their figures, you
will indeed be persuaded. Figures are like that.

But then I do this second-class journey, and I am left with fumbling,
groping questions: Why can't I see it, this dramatic decrease in
poverty that's supposed to be chugging along so nicely? Why, in all
the years that I've noticed and been aware of realities in my country,
have I not felt there is a perceptible drop in the number of poor
people? And on this one journey, why do I see more beggars -- many
more -- than I ever have on such a trip?

Anecdotal evidence, those proponents will say, supercilious smile
spreading on their faces because they believe they know better.
Anecdotal evidence doesn't count. You have to look at the numbers. If
you do, you will understand what we've been saying: the move to free
markets is bringing more people out of poverty faster than anything
else ever has, at any time in our history. In fact, it's a proven fact
that free markets are the only mechanism there is to truly address
poverty.

So just give it some time.

Oh yes, time. After all, who would expect an end to widespread poverty
overnight? It must and will take time.

Then again, the reforms have been in place nearly 15 years. That's
over a third of the time from 1947 till liberalisation began. By any
standards, that hardly qualifies as "overnight" any more. By any
standards, after 15 years during which droves of people escaped from
being poor, I should see around me some perceptible decrease in
poverty.

On this trip, I didn't.

Look at it this way: let's say I've been piling our household trash
outside my front door for a year. Let's say I've steadily ignored my
wife's pleas to clean the godawful mess that's now built up there.
Until today, when I finally tell her I'm going to clean up. It's a
huge job, but I do get started on it. Every day, I show my wife
figures of the number of truckloads of dirt I've carted off from our
door to the city dump.

Four months from now -- one-third of the year that I dumped garbage
uncaringly at our front door -- would she be entitled to expect that
the rubbish pile has visibly diminished?

And if she doesn't see this -- if she instead sees it looming just as
large, perhaps even larger -- would she be entitled to think, this
husband of mine is doing something wrong. If he's doing anything at
all. What's more, would it make sense for me to smile superciliously
at her worries and whip out my figures again? Tell her that her fears
about the non-decreasing pile amount to just so much anecdotal
evidence, and that doesn't count?

Absurd, of course. By themselves, figures mean nothing. The anecdotal
evidence gives them heft and credibility.

Again, look at it this way: If I never had seen Indians defecating on
the tracks, on the rocks at low tide, by the side of the road -- yes,
if I never had seen such sights, it would be difficult to believe the
troubling statistic that nearly seven of every 10 Indians lack access
to reasonable sanitation. But I have seen them. That's why I have a
sense that the figure is likely to be true. What's more, it's the only
way I have of judging the truth in the figure.

In much the same way, our encounters with poor Indians are the
anecdotal evidence that allows us to judge the truth about levels of
poverty; about claims that those levels have decreased. What's more,
they are the only way we have to judge those claims.

There's no doubt in my mind: reforms must happen. But 15 years after
the process began, I can't help feeling that something is wrong about
the way we are pursuing them. For I am yet to see the one effect they
must have, first and above all: a visible lessening in the level of
Indian poverty. Fewer poor Indians around us. I can't see that.

This train journey, in which Indian poverty streamed past me as if we
were t some surreal alternate Republic Day parade, showed me as much.


o o o o o

Poverty, footwear and cold water

Yazad Jal
Rediff | May 02, 2005
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/may/02guest1.htm



Dilip D'Souza has been 'overwhelmed' by the poverty he saw during some
of his recent train trips. And he's not persuaded by 'figures'
pointing otherwise, especially those that compare India's poverty
before and after liberalisation.

Let me see if I can persuade Dilip (and other readers) without using
numbers as crutches. His observations make for interesting anecdotal
evidence and I won't counter that. Instead I would add my own
observations.

When I was a boy, seeing people walk about barefoot was common. I
remember asking my mother's aunt (who used to help take care of me)
"Why don't these people wear shoes or slippers?" and she'd shush me
up, a bit embarrassed.

Today as I walk down the same roads of my childhood (my current office
is located on a road parallel to where my grandaunt lived), I have to
strain to see someone barefoot. I actually took a walk yesterday
around those lanes of Grant Road just to check that out and I could
not find even a single barefooted person.

Even the poorest labourers at a construction site wore rubber Hawaii
chappals. This is not true just in Bombay. I've observed it during my
trips to Pune, Bangalore, Delhi, Kolkatta, and across Madhya Pradesh.
Even the poorest have some sort of footwear. Being barefoot was common
twenty years back. It's not any longer. People can afford slippers,
fancy sandals and shoes. Shoes! Look around. You'd see more people
decently shod today than at any other time in the past that I
remember.

I also see many more poor people using public transport. Twenty years
back our maids would walk two kilometres. Today they catch the bus.
What about education? Twenty years back our maids would beg us to find
a maid's job for her daughters. Today she asks us to look for cheap
coaching classes. These may be small indicators, but they matter as
much as seeing beggars in trains.

Perhaps the most shocking insight I got was during a survey in Delhi's
slums three years ago. A colleague and I had just finished an
hour-long interview in the horrendous summer heat of Delhi. The slum
dweller asked us if we would like something to drink. My thirst
overcame my wariness of the water quality and I said yes. Pat came the
reply "thanda pani peeogey?" (Will you have some cold water?) Cold
water? In the middle of a large slum?

Well, the next room had a nice fridge. And as we explored around, the
slum (where the poor stay) was decently equipped. A few fridges, many
televisions, and even a few coolers! I doubt you would have found
these appliances in 1980.

Wait, that wasn't the most shocking insight. Seeing my bannerwallah
sport a cell phone was. This was the guy who painted banners for the
seminars I organised. Lived on the road and at a time when incoming
calls were not free, he needed a cell phone to stay in touch with his
customers (like me). This was five years back. Today, it's difficult
to travel in a train or bus without hearing a cell phone ring every
five minutes.

It seems everyone has one. Not just the middle class. The taxi drivers
have them. Fishermen use them. Security guards who earn less than Rs
3,000 per month have them. We've had cell phones in India for around
ten years only (started in September 1995). At that time, it was
looked upon as be an expensive toy made for the rich to indulge it,
one more luxury. Just a decade later, there are more cell phones than
land lines in India.

So how have so many poor people got themselves the money for shoes,
transport, private education, fridges, television, coolers and cell
phones? Maybe those figures have some answers after all. They're worth
a brief look. India's GDP per capita in 1990, before liberalisation,
was $1,300. Today it's $2,830, more than double. It's increased at
around 5.33 per cent per year.

For the sceptics, a small factoid: a growth rate of just 7.2 per cent
per year will double incomes in ten years. (These are purchasing power
parity

Of course figures don't tell the whole story, there are many poor
people in India. However, the numbers have lessened, both in absolute
as well as percentage terms. Not lessened to the extent that would
make either Dilip or me happy though. There is still more poverty than
what I care to see.

My perspective is unabashedly middle class, and I'd like to see more
people leaving poverty and getting into the large middle class morass.
The best way of doing so, is to let people be. That means getting the
government out of our lives as much as possible. One reason Dilip and
others see liberalisation not having any effect on poverty is that the
occupations of the poor have not really been liberalised. How easy is
it to run a small shop or practice a small trade? On the streets of
India's cities, that's amongst the most difficult things to do. True
liberalisation is making life easier for the poorest of the poor -- by
getting out of the way. Leaving them free to do what they want (as
long as they don't impinge on the freedom of others). That's what a
free economy, nay, what freedom itself is all about.

Yazad Jal is CEO, Praja Foundation,which works for good governance. He
also has a personal blog at www.yazadjal.com where he debates
controversial ideas. The views expressed here are personal.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/NJYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

��������������������������������������������������������
This is ZESTEconomics. Post economics-related articles and event info to 
[email protected]

If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTEconomics by sending a 
blank mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, visit 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTEconomics/join

==theZESTcommunity======================================

[1] ZESTCurrent: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCurrent/
[2] ZESTEconomics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTEconomics/
[3] ZESTGlobal: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/
[4] ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/
[5] ZESTPoets: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTPoets/
[6] ZESTCaste: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/
[7] ZESTAlternative: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTAlternative/
[8] TalkZEST: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkZEST/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTEconomics/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to