> Really? Please say more. The GDP growth figures for India aren't just
> statistical artifacts, but are translating into real material
> improvement for Indians? How many? The standard Western left version
> of events is that the benefits of growth are enjoyed by a small
> portion of the population, and everyone else is left behind or worse.
> Aren't there hundreds of millions of Indians living in absolute
> poverty by the World Bank definition (incomes under US$1/day)? Are
> those numbers rising or falling?
Yes, hundreds of millions of Indians live in absolute poverty by almost any definition. But this has always been the case. The question is whether conditions have worsened in absolute terms in the preceding two decades, the context being Chomsky's explanation for the need to beef up the repressive state apparatus. Government of India's national per capita income surveys claim that poverty is less. The official surveys claim that the number of families below poverty line has fallen from 36% to 27% in the previous decade, when standards by which poverty is defined are miserable, though standards have been applied consistently over a long period. There is a controversy about the validity of government numbers, since there are questions about the change in the base year, sampling techniques etc., so there is little point in accepting or rejecting official claims. Even 27% below poverty line families give you 270 million people, which is a very large number.
I am saying that I see little visual, anecdotal evidence that inequality of income, wealth and opportunity has worsened to such extent that the effect of trebling of the GDP in 20 years has been wiped out. ( Btw, India's GDP at constant prices has roughly grown from $70 bn in 1950 to $450 bn in 2000, the population has in the meanwhile has roughly gone up from 350 million to 1 billion.)
Consider colour TVs. Even black & white TVs were almost unknown 30 years ago. Today there are 60-70 million CTVs in India. TV viewers are estimated at 300 million. This is huge, though it's only 30 % of total population. More people watch TV in India than in the US ! India produced 5.5 million CTVs in the fiscal 2001-2002. In the coming decade, it is expected to go up to 10 million per year. One can be very poor and can still have a TV set.
Consider telephones. When India gained independence, there were only 86, 000 telephones. 5 years ago, the number was 15 million. Today there are 40 million telephones and by the end of the decade, there will be 100-150 million telephones., You may say 150 million is too little, but for a nation with only 86,000 telephones 50 years ago, it is a big jump.
People use $1 per day as per capita. But I live in a big city with a population of 15 million (btw, this is bigger than Cuba and one has to have a sense of proportion, when global comparisons are made). I can buy a good quality banana for 2 cents. I could buy 50 bananas every day with 1 dollar. Without taking into account relative prices, per capita comparisons have limited value.
Obviously picture is a mixed one. Some people are left behind, others are stagnating. Some groups have improved their condition in varying degrees. The point is that the number in each category probably runs into hundreds of millions. The main thing is to decide what is exactly 'a small number' or 'a big number', because all demography related numbers are large in India. This is frequently not realised. I have seen some Leftists comparing India's per capita income with, say, Guatemala ! The problem with the large sections of the Left is that they can see and acknowledge, what their framework allows them to see. The framework says that true national independence and real economic growth are possible in the socalled Third World, if the working people are victorious under the leadership of a M-L vanguard. It is this framework that needs to be questioned.
Where the poor are organised (as in Kerala), the HDI is high. Kerala is not
rich in per capita terms, when compared with the rest of India. Its the organised Left, which makes the difference. The poor suffer as much due their inability to organise themselves, as from low productivity and skills.
Ulhas