7 ms·
I live in India, so I can give a bit of overview. I don't have sources right now, but I have experience. You can roughly divide India into two parts, the Briti
by RandomCSGeek 9y ago
I live in India, so I can give a bit of overview. I don't have sources right now, but I have experience.
You can roughly divide India into two parts, the British controlled, and the non-British controlled, based on the pre-independence situation.
The british controlled areas, mainly the northern states like UP, bihar, bengal have huge number of poor families. UP has too many people, and most of them are poor.
The non British controlled ares, like Maharashtra and some southern states, are generally a bit better off, and here is where you find most rich and middle class.
The central states are riddled with decades old insurgency, which could be solved using military, but govt doesn't want to use military on it's own people. These areas contain tribal people, and they are very poor.
Now, all this is not a perfect science, but this is how it generally is. Now when a foreigner visits India, he/she might visit places like Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, maybe North eastern Himalayan areas, Goa and some beaches in Lakshadweep. The image you get is that of extremely rich people and extremely poor people, along with a lot of middle-class people living in these cities.
But outside these cities, when you go to central India(you won't, as rebels will kidnap you), you can see extreme poverty. Same with other non-tourist areas.
- sumedh 9y ago70 years after independence and you are still blaming the british. When will this finger pointing stop?
- ravivooda 9y agoI wonder, if you will agree, the rich always have an advantage compared to the poor. In terms of education, better life etc. So I can see why we blame British; the parts where they were most effective are factually poor when compared to the other side. Not in any way mean that we should blame them even after 70 years.
- sumedh 9y ago> So I can see why we blame British We blame Britain because it's easier to have scapegoats, it's much harder to acknowledge failure and actually fix the problems.
- RandomCSGeek 9y agoI am not blaming British. It's just a fact that the places they ruled strongest are generally poorer compared to those places where they didn't.
- sumedh 9y agoYes you are blaming the British. By the way have you heard correlation does not imply causation? First of all your original comment is factually wrong. Bombay and Pune were British controlled so your theory is wrong that non British controlled areas are doing better.
- sumedh 9y ago> when you go to central India(you won't, as rebels will kidnap you), you can see extreme poverty You dont even have to go to central India, just go 90 kms outside Mumbai. http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/over-254-children-died-of-malnutrition-in-palghar-district-maharashtra-cm/story-OQICmsGDVkcLpHxm52q27I.html http://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/over-254-children-...
- pm90 9y agoThis is incorrect. Bombay Presidency contained the city of Mumbai and most of Maharashtra and Gujarat, perhaps one of the most industrialized/developed regions in India. The poverty of the Northern areas is not in lieu of them being exploited by direct British Governance (although I'm sure it contributed much towards it). Its mainly lack of coastal trade routes, population explosion and ridiculously high levels of corruption/poor governance. The Southern states have done better mostly because their populations have not exploded as much, and being on the coast, they're able to participate in international trade a lot more (key to prosperity in the modern economy). There also seems to be more emphasis on getting more education in the cultures of the South which has led to a highly educated labor force. (I don't have statistics on hand, this is from reading other analyses)