Still digging out of the Amberlanche
Note to self: the next time someone asks whether they can link to you, don't forget to ask about their daily hit rate before saying yes. Mostly, I think, I wanna just sit tight and wait until the tour buses pull out, but I can't help saying to my dear, dear dozen-ish regular readers: if I ever implied you weren't enough...well, I'm sorry. I won't do it again for at least a week.
That said, one of the kids had a decent point: doesn't India's rapid economic growth prove that my personal opinion is factually wrong?
I'm no economist -- as will shortly become very evident -- but I have to wonder about the origins of that GDP claim, especially because I am a statistics fan, and I'm all too familiar with the kind of folks who'll crow about the airtight chain between the results of their multiple regression and the original dataset...forgetting that the chain doesn't end there, but continues back to the proverbial night watchman, who enters into his ledger anything he damn well pleases. GIGO, and all that.
But even if the claim is right, and isn't driven in large part by black market activities, it's also irrelevant, because the rewards aren't flowing in to the (essentially nonexistent) middle class. I'd call it the Mexican model of income distribution, but -- let's be frank -- these days, the media are associating it more with the U.S. and Europe. Sixty percent of Mumbai's population live in slums, and "slum" is utterly the wrong term if it conjures up an image of a tenement in a bad neighborhood. If you don't have access to my photos, go read Shantaram. (The plot is crap, but the descriptions of the slums are accurate.)
I'll go one step further and defend my maligned statement that India's lack of civil society and civic-mindedness will keep it from the sort of social transformation enjoyed by the East Asian tigers. I've never been accosted by street children in any other impoverished nation -- ones substantially lower than India on the development index -- in the numbers I have in India. Other countries don't have the numbers that India does. And that, I think, is the most frightening thing about the country. Right now, the street children throng, harass, and pound on car windows. They don't break car windows, and they don't try to open car doors. There's obviously a thin bit of civic glue that prevents that. But a country of one billion people is an improbability device. Somewhere, sometime -- and I think it'll be soon, and I think it'll be triggered by the widening of the wealth chasm -- a group of kids is going to wade into traffic and take rather than beg. And once it happens, without the social forces in place to keep the phenomenon in check, any possible talk of future comparisons to Shanghai or Singapore will cease, and we'll only be able to talk in terms of Bogota or Port-au-Prince.
That said, one of the kids had a decent point: doesn't India's rapid economic growth prove that my personal opinion is factually wrong?
I'm no economist -- as will shortly become very evident -- but I have to wonder about the origins of that GDP claim, especially because I am a statistics fan, and I'm all too familiar with the kind of folks who'll crow about the airtight chain between the results of their multiple regression and the original dataset...forgetting that the chain doesn't end there, but continues back to the proverbial night watchman, who enters into his ledger anything he damn well pleases. GIGO, and all that.
But even if the claim is right, and isn't driven in large part by black market activities, it's also irrelevant, because the rewards aren't flowing in to the (essentially nonexistent) middle class. I'd call it the Mexican model of income distribution, but -- let's be frank -- these days, the media are associating it more with the U.S. and Europe. Sixty percent of Mumbai's population live in slums, and "slum" is utterly the wrong term if it conjures up an image of a tenement in a bad neighborhood. If you don't have access to my photos, go read Shantaram. (The plot is crap, but the descriptions of the slums are accurate.)
I'll go one step further and defend my maligned statement that India's lack of civil society and civic-mindedness will keep it from the sort of social transformation enjoyed by the East Asian tigers. I've never been accosted by street children in any other impoverished nation -- ones substantially lower than India on the development index -- in the numbers I have in India. Other countries don't have the numbers that India does. And that, I think, is the most frightening thing about the country. Right now, the street children throng, harass, and pound on car windows. They don't break car windows, and they don't try to open car doors. There's obviously a thin bit of civic glue that prevents that. But a country of one billion people is an improbability device. Somewhere, sometime -- and I think it'll be soon, and I think it'll be triggered by the widening of the wealth chasm -- a group of kids is going to wade into traffic and take rather than beg. And once it happens, without the social forces in place to keep the phenomenon in check, any possible talk of future comparisons to Shanghai or Singapore will cease, and we'll only be able to talk in terms of Bogota or Port-au-Prince.
9 Comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 2:17 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 4:21 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 9:12 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 9:25 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 1:44 AM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 2:22 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 7:11 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- 9:48 PM
-
esquiver said...
-
- 12:28 PM
Post a CommentNot only are you factually way wrong about India but your observations and conclusions about India reflect a very superficial and slow mental process. For example just one mountain you make out of a molehill is the scary prospect of streetchildren pounding on your car window. This'll give a hearty laugh to anyone who has ever spent some time in India. These are harmless kids, period. As far as being scammed for a few rupees ( a few pennies for you ), that's nothing compared to the thousands of dollars this immigrant is being scammed out of by some of his American customers. These are no fly by night operators. They lie, renege on their promises and use their vendors' payables to subsidize not just their businesses but their lavish personal lifestyles. While I frantically call them from my windowless, baseless studio to pay my dues, their secretary on the other end tells me they are vacationing in Hawaii!
Lack of civil society in India? If you ever fall sick in Mumbai one thing you can be sure of is strangers will come to your comfort and nurse you back to health. I am not sure if you can expect that in DC. I haven't been articulate in responding to your quarter-baked thesis on India, but you have given me enough material for my upcoming book. Also you seem to not have any local friends but that's no surprise given your unwarranted disdain of the locals, some of whose blogs' coherence and fairness might put yours to shame. Your general awareness is also pretty low. Not a day passes by in the Western media without one postive story coming out of India and here you are, I don't know why, training your eyes to see only the bizarre while ignoring the regular.
Ms. Esquiver,
I was the first poster in the comments section from your “Welcome, Bamberites!” post. I did not mean to sound so harsh or condescending. I spent a substantial chunk of my day reading your blog; it is funny and well written.
Regarding India's GDP, you write, “[o]ther countries don't have the numbers that India does. And that, I think, is the most frightening thing about the country.” I do not know which development index you are using, but taking another look at the GDP may explain part of the story. If we look at the GDP as a whole, India does well with only the United States, the EU, Japan, and China ahead. If we, however, look at per capita GDP, that is the overall worth of the economy divided by the population, India does far worse. It is 159th in the world with a per capita GDP of $3,400. Thailand is 93rd with a per capita GDP of $8,600. Thailand has more than double the amount of money, per citizen, than India has.
Perhaps the differences that you encounter between Thailand and India are not so much related to differences in culture or a lack of a civil society, but rather that Indians, as a whole, are poorer. You could argue that most Indians are poor because of an inequitable distribution of wealth, but India's level of inequality (as measured by the Gini coefficient) is similar to that of the United States.
Anyway, after having read your blog, you seem to have been in a disproportionately high number of funny situations (they were probably less funny from your perspective), so I can't really blame you for wanting to escape. I won't clutter up your comments section anymore. Take care.
Here is the ranking of GDP by nation.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
Here is the ranking of per capita GDP by nation.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
Inequality measures – Gini index.
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/indic_126_1_1.html
I think my point was the admittedly much more difficult one to prove of alleging causality between lack of civil society and per capita GDP, but I do appreciate your post (this time). Thanks.
As for the first anonymous:
"If you ever fall sick in Mumbai" - Heh. "if." That's cute.
One positive story per day, you say? My goodness, I stand corrected. I must, in actual fact, love India.
esquiver,
I think you are confusing people's actual criticism of your remarks about What Indian Is Like with criticism of what you are highly qualified to write, What India Is Like For Me. As I mentioned to Amber, your experience probably is a better predictor for how she would feel in going to India than mine would be, and I don't even like going to India. (Only have gone for family obligations, never because I thought I would enjoy traveling on my own.) You detest India and write funny posts about it, and anyone who criticizes you for that is being stupid. However, when you venture into making grand statements about the nature of a nation, its people, its economy, its social cohesion and its future, you must expect that people will critique and ask for more than your well-written anecdotes to back it up. That my NY super is lousy at getting anything done for my apartment unless I threaten to withhold rent -- to the point that my apartment had almost as many problems as the subject of a pro bono housing case -- says something about my super. I don't use it to say, "See, non-rent-controlled apartments don't actually get better services than rent-controlled ones, therefore the market argument is wrong!" It's my experience.
The first commenter above also is assuming that you assign only bad qualities to being Indian. (I haven't read enough of your blog to know whether you have some posts where you ascribe positive characteristics to the Indian character.) While we all engage in stereotyping, to see a particular ethnicity purely in negative terms will tend to get people of that ethnicity defensive.
PG,
Ok. Since you've called me funny, I'll quit being grumpy at you.
But your comparison is inapt, because the degree of service in rent vs. non-rent-controlled apartments is an empirical question, and questions about something's future generally can't be, and ones about the nature(s) of things sort of are, but only through complex approaches that only ever approximate the issues in any event. I try to restrict myself to the sorts of grand, sweeping speculation that doesn't lend itself to empirical methods. Furthermore, it's so obviously my opinion that I refuse to insult the intelligence of my readers by labelling it as such. Whose else would it be?
Finally, please don't confuse your stereotypes with mine. For the record, I think it's meaningless to talk about "the character of x," unless x = "humans." I do, of course, see our evolved and biological human nature as mediated by culture. And in this blog I describe how and why I think Indian culture is dysfunctional, with particular attention to the way in which it squanders 50 percent of its human capital. I fail to see why that would necessarily upset anyone. Sure, if someone attacked my "ethnicity" (whatever that means), I might feel defensive; if they critiqued my national culture, I might chime in with a few more examples in support of their argument that they overlooked. But, fair enough, I'm sure I must have written somewhere something along the lines of "Indians are x," which I can only explain as shorthand (or stylistic license) for "Indian culture is x," given that most of my readers know me personally and already know my views on such things.
As a long-time friend of Esquiver, I can confirm that E's point in the last paragraph is true. I love E precisely because of these views (and particularly the way that they are expressed), even if I may not agree with them at all times or even have enough context to have a personal opinion in the first place.
Can we all agree that people are entitled to their opinions, so long as they are not inflammatory (i.e., intended to inspire readers to commit personal crimes against others)? (Note to the dozen faithful readers who might have followed this past thread: In the spirit of the season, I deliberately chose NOT to use the gender-neutral, third-person-singular pronoun above because of possible confusion with the rather-gender-specific, third-person-singular pronoun to which it is identical.)
It follows logically that those who post anonymous rants (or even quasi-rants) in response to these opinions are similarly entitled to their opinions, under the same proviso. (But perhaps they should keep those opinions to their own blogs?)
In short, can't we all just get along?
The Internet is a wonderful place for public discourse, but suffers from limitations (especially with respect to nuance, implication, or connotation) inherent in all non-verbal media, particularly those that are generally one-sided such as a blog. Although I'm fairly certain that E's views on India are generally not positive, I don't think they represent the sum total of everything that E currently thinks or has thought about India. As E says, there's a lot of shorthand (if only to keep entries from getting weighed down with health warnings).
I champion any form of public discourse that rises above the usual tripe of celebrity weddings and reality television. Thus, it saddens me to see posts such as the first "anonymous" post above.
Why attack so personally? E's opinions about India do not diminish anyone else's personal experience there. Even if E's views are completely non-representative of anyone else's experience, do you think that E is really in a position of influence to change the course of events in India with just her words? And if you are going to attack, don't you think your own opinions are more likely to be "accepted" (i.e., in the spirit of lively public discourse) if you own up to them instead of choosing to remain anonymous? If your goal is to change minds, that may be the better course of action.
I always doubt the veracity of the anonymous post in the same way that I question propaganda, which (like such rants) probably intentionally lacks an author willing to be held accountable for such views.
I recognize that everything you say is your opinion, but you state it with such a degree of certitude that it sounds less like "one person expressing how she feels" as opposed to "one person expressing how she feels and how everyone else ought to feel." Hence my remark that your posts sound much more like "This Is What India Is," like you're an authoritative source somewhere between wikipedia and britannica, rather than "This Is What India Is for Me."
"K, of course, does not have to deal with nonpersonhood in India... I've often complained that India is simply pre-feminist; it's as if nothing in terms of women's rights had ever happened elsewhere in the globe. Living here gives me an idea of what the fifties must've been like... In fact, once we landed in Delhi, I had to point out to him that he really had to put the seat up, or else K and I couldn't exit our row, and he seemed rather surprised: oh, you want to exit? Mentally file and save, good readers, because I'll get around to an entire entry on Indian solipsism at some point..." and then the post on scamming.
Saying that you're not criticizing people, you're criticizing their culture, is a bit disingenuous. Culture is not an abstraction hanging in the air; it exists only if people enact it. If you say Indian society is locked into the lose-lose outcome, you're saying that this is the dominant character of Indian people. Again, there's quite a difference between that and saying "*I* have been scammed a lot." No, based on -- what, I'm not sure -- you declare that all the Indian people are scamming one another as well and thus the whole country is "going nowhere."
And I'm guessing by neither you nor your friend pointing one out that there aren't any posts where you describe Indian people in a positive fashion. So I'll stop intruding on your normal set of readers :-)
PG, I'm very certain it's my opinion; hence the certitude. FWIW, a quick check of your own blog revealed a tone no less forceful.
The point about culture is that, unlike "character," people can opt in or out to varying degrees. Indian society is locked into the lose-lose cell because the culture supports (enourages, has structured incentives for, etc.) individual gain at group expense. To say that that's a quality of an individual is nonsensical. Indeed, the whole point is that, in this environment, scamming ends up being the rational strategy.
The "scamming one another" bit is based upon daily personal experience and observation, discussion with Indian friends and colleagues across a wide SES swath, and lots and lots of local media consumption. Your insistence that it doesn't happen seems to be based on Indian ancestry and self-described limited travel for family obligations. Appreciate the dissent, but I'll stick with my views.
<< Home