Food or the non-availability of it should not be the only criteria for judging BPL. It is seen that in most of the cases of pavement dwellers, their offspring (which are ofcourse in greater numbers) also end up similarly on pavements, maybe even more squalid and crowded conditions than their parents... and the chances of improving their own lot is as worse, if not worser then their parents. Regarding the rural poor, the same abysmal & pre-historic farming methods are not helping the villagers, who true to the cinemas, are pushing their young to the cities for the difficulties in surviving in the village, forget scope of much oppurtunity to develope / improve.
Oppurtunity to avail healthcare and education should also be a criteria to define poverty.
The disparity between rich and have-nots is be widening more & more and prohibitive costs fueled by demands for elitist facilities are pushing even basic amenities beyond reach of the poor.
Re: Food for thought.
by some one on Apr 25, 2010 10:14 AM
Poverty is not the lack of economic means that the poor suffer, and its consequences for their health and access to prosperity, but the extreme social discrimination between certain predetermined classes of people due to their birth. It is not punishment for any acts of theirs but merely society's decision to keep their families poor forever.
Removing the discrimination could in theory be enough to make poverty go away on its own. The catch is that mankind does not know of any tried and proved method of non violently making a population of a country give up such extreme social discrimination. Till date certain cases of violent revolution are the only cases where it got removed. Even USA with its extreme economic prosperity was unable to remove massive poverty from certain traditionally inferior social classes, agagin caused by person's birth rather than any acts of the individuals.
Great economic progress is not a precondition for removing poverty. In fact it is irrelevant.
Re: Food for thought.
by some one on Apr 25, 2010 10:10 AM
In theory every child is born equal, free of any habits, ignorance, attitudes. Those things are added by bringing up.
Indian society does not care whether a child grows up to be poor, ignorant, deprived, etc. but only whether it is born to parents of X or Y social class. Irrational social discrimination keeps poverty going, and thereby satisfies this ancient need of the people belonging to superior social classes in India.
Concentrated attention to economic methods of removing poverty is with an ulterior motive: to keep everyone's attention diverted away from the real cause and thereby to prevent its solution.
The Chinese and before them the Russians, who did not continue this diversion of attention, removed poverty within about five years although their economy had not progressed much within that period.
In America, the poor may not have a vehicle, too. Poverty in the US is drawn on lines of color, illiteracy and lack of education is more among the blacks or indigenous American tribes. Similarly, poverty in India is also historically more among those of lower social strata. If you compare the real poor of the US, i.e. the blacks, to the poor of India, you cannot make such summary contrasts. But yes, the poor of India are poor in spirit, mainly because they are mostly vegetarian, and so less prone to drug addiction, the works.
If you travel by Udyan or Kurla you can come across with different types of disabled persons requesting for alms from the passengers. Before you get down at destination, in case you want change for a 1000 rupee note, one of these will provide that.
Re: Re: Re: Save India
by Save Hind on Apr 24, 2010 06:46 PM
Blood is already boiling, more so because we are so unaware of this. Europe, America are fighting againt this. Dont know why Indian are quiet. We have to spread awareness atleast if not become terrorists like them
Re: Save India
by Ram Sharma on Apr 25, 2010 04:27 PM
One of the reasons why many Muslims r poor is that they produce many children. This is disastrous for the whole world.
Re: Save India
by DingDong on Apr 24, 2010 06:40 PM
We never see anyone complaining of a "surplus" of money. How can we complain of a surplus of children then? Money cannot substitute good children, and good children can make money and also do good deeds, and evidently, limiting the number of children doesn't result in happier or wealthier conditions in the long run. So why are people refraining from having children after all the above reassurance from the Creator Himself? It is a shame that people are regarded as a useless surplus when human capital is a valuable economic resource.
Re: Re: Save India
by Save Hind on Apr 24, 2010 06:44 PM
Good children is nice, not jihadis with the intention os destroying every religion. They stay here, they abuse our religion, our government, ask for favours in the name of minority. wait till they reach 505 majority. Hindus will become slaves in this country under Sharia law
Re: Re: Save India
by Riff Raff on Apr 24, 2010 07:22 PM
Hey man, it'd be better if use your head , not that ding-dong of yours to think rationally and realise that the world with it's limited resources cannot sustain an over-burgeoning population.
and immediate ban on religious conversion that skews the whole debate, we can not be talking senses. We should focus on human development that he or she decides what to chosse for life, profession,and rest will follow suit. Then charging 1000 or350 or 150 ruppes for an hour for one's work will take care of its self in market place of products and people.
Rethink and get out of this majority-minority india that is painted on our TV.
