> People here may have an axe to grind with Cockburn. But I didn't
> notice that he anyway said that social indicators haven't improved.
>
> Let's cut to the chase: Are there, or are there not suicides
> occuring for the reasons that Cockburn cites, attributing it to his
> host's reportage?
>
> Is it so wonderous that per capita incomes can increase, social
> indicators can improve, yet there are substantial numbers of people
> whose existence has gotten worse and are hurting?
A number of excellent articles on the rural crisis by Palagummi Sainath, Alexander Cockburn's host, are collected here: <http:// www.indiatogether.org/opinions/psainath/>. Those who don't want to hear about the problem from Cockburn might read Sainath. Indians fed up with neoliberal capitalism made possible the United Progressive Alliance Government, but Sainath says that it deserves only "two on ten in the pro-poor exam": "If things have not changed in the past year, it's because the basic policy framework hasn't. Distress migrations are up. Rural jobs are down. Rural debt is up. And farm suicides persist" ("Six out of Ten?" 31 May 2005, <http:// www.indiatogether.org/2005/may/psa-score10.htm>). Is Sainath too impatient for change?
Then again, the rural poor in India may not be as patient as the elite apparently believe them to be. What might be political consequences of neoliberal capitalism's impacts on farmers? <blockquote>In the 1990s, when India began to move towards a free market, the Naxalite movement revived in some of the poorest and most populous Indian states. Part of the reason for this is that successive Indian governments have steadily reduced subsidies for agriculture, public health, education and poverty-eradication, exposing large sections of the population to disease, debt, hunger and starvation. Almost three thousand farmers committed suicide in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh after the government, advised by McKinsey, cut agricultural subsidies in an attempt to initiate farmers into the world of unregulated markets. In recent years, Naxalite movements, which have long organised landless, low-caste peasants in Bihar and Andhra Pradesh, have grown quickly in parts of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh – where an enfeebled Indian state is increasingly absent – to the extent that police and intelligence officials in India now speak anxiously of an unbroken belt of Communist-dominated territory from Nepal to South India. (Pankaj Mishra, "The 'People's War,'" LRB 27.12, <http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/ n12/print/mish01_.html>, 23 June 2005)</blockquote>
Ulhas objects to Doug that India's per capita income on PPP basis is much better than many imagine. According to the World Bank, India's per capita income is indeed $3,100 on PPP basis (at "GNI per capita 2004, Atlas method and PPP," <http://www.worldbank.org/data/ databytopic/GNIPC.pdf>). The World Bank also says the per capita income is only something like $27,840 for the European Monetary Union (at "GNI per capita 2004, Atlas method and PPP," <http:// www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC.pdf>). Is the World Bank anti-European or what? :-> Anyhow, that means that India's per capita income, adjusted for PPP, is now just about 11% of the Euro per capita income, which is only slightly better than the percentage that Doug mentioned.
Let's look at a couple of dozens of countries that the World Bank ranks above India:
121 Albania 5,070 124 El Salvador 4,980 c 125 Swaziland 4,970 126 Philippines 4,890 127 Paraguay 4,870 c 128 Jordan 4,640 130 Armenia 4,270 131 Guatemala 4,140 c 132 Egypt, Arab Rep. 4,120 133 Guyana 4,110 c 134 Morocco 4,100 135 Sri Lanka 4,000 136 Azerbaijan 3,830 137 Ecuador 3,690 138 Jamaica 3,630 139 Syrian Arab Republic 3,550 140 Indonesia 3,460 142 Nicaragua 3,300 c 144 Lesotho 3,210 c 145 India 3,100 c
"GNI per capita 2004, Atlas method and PPP," <http:// www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC.pdf>
Are these figures and rankings credible at all? If so, India is still worse off than Lesotho, Syria, Guatemala, the Philippines, Albania, etc. -- countries that are not exactly known for great economic miracles. Is there any reason to hype India's economy other than the size of its potential market?
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org> * Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: <http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/07/mahmoud- ahmadinejads-face.html>; <http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/07/chvez- congratulates-ahmadinejad.html>; <http://montages.blogspot.com/ 2005/06/iranian-working-class-rejects.html>