Ulhas reels off fact after disquieting fact (has been for years, going by the archives) and he is dismissed as impressionistic.
==================
Who dismissed Ulhas as "impressionistic"? And, what's "disquieting" about the facts he presents?
Speaking for myself (and who else could I speak for?) I've no vested interest in holding onto a view of India as totally and relentlessly impoverished.
I don't question, for even a fraction of a fraction of a nanoslice, the many economic, technological and related achievements that have occurred in recent decades.
If anything, my view is probably colored too much by Bollywood glamor and my U. Penn educated, cosmopolitan neighbors who hail from New Delhi and routinely test my net security knowledge via our scheduled wifi hacking contests.
No dismissals from this corner.
So, who has been dismissing the information Ulhas provides?
Specifics, si vous plait.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> "Champagne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends"...Momus