5 ms·

How did India get to it's huge population, though? I would have thought that if you don't have food, eventually the population stops growing?

by Tichy 14y ago

kamaal 14y ago
We didn't have famines that killed in millions. Even until say a generation and half back. During my Dad's times it was quite usual for couples to >10 kids. It was considered a sign of pride! Apart from that there are other social issues. Social security is a huge problem in India, Pension is a cruel joke. Other form of income during old age include rent from real estate or meagerly savings. Amidst all this kids are considered as a somebody who can take care of their parents. For the west this might sound strange, but parents are a integral part of the family. In fact family means Parents, siblings and their kids included. In all this Boys are considered cash cows. Because they are perceived as somebody who can earn and feed them in old age. Girls are considered money drains, as they marry and go away to their husbands home, to never return or contribute much. There is also a huge problem of dowry(Mandatory gifts given to girls during marriage) which makes girls look like burdens. The Indian middle class is also shy to send Girls to work. All this contributes to 'reproduce until you get a boy' problem. The rest is left to your imagination. Especially when more population leads to more of it, merely by its very dynamics. So you see the problem isn't that simple. Sometimes its genuine. Imagine you are old, need food, clothes, medical care. You need money for it, you see your neighbor get all the help from his son. While you get no help from your daughters. The natural reaction is ... 'If at all, I had a son... I wouldn't be in this state today'. These problems are not that simple to solve.
- pm90 14y ago
  I agree with most of your points. But: >Imagine you are old, need food, clothes, medical care. You need money for it, you see your neighbor get all the help from his son. While you get no help from your daughters. That's incredibly sexist. As far as I can tell, it is in fact the other way around. Their sons usually try to avoid that responsibility and it is their daughters who actually spend time with them and try to work out their problems
  - kamaal 14y ago
    >>it is their daughters who actually spend time with them and try to work out their problems Time? Alas just 'spending time' doesn't solve all problems. You need somebody who can 'spend money' too. This is not an anti-girl rant. This is the saddest reality of our country. The middle class is overly male chauvinist and doesn't like sending women to work. Once married, the girl contributes literally nothing financially to her parents. Firstly this is not a problem among the rich and the poor. Because Rich have money and poor don't mind women working. Its the middle class which is in this problem. If you turn blind eye to this root cause. You can give as many moral lectures as you want on why this is wrong. Nothing will change. Because people know deep inside them old age is imminent, and they will need money/financial support to survive then. Bitter truth!
  - gingerjoos 14y ago
    I doubt kamaal was trying to be sexist. It's unusual in most parts of India for women to work outside their home. Hence no income if you're a sick man with only daughters.
    - Luyt 14y ago
      What about their husbands? Don't they care about their father-in-law?
      - kamaal 14y ago
        That never happens. In fact its the opposite. In India we have a huge problem of dowry and post marriage gifts and perks which the girls need to get from their parents and give it to their husbands side.
        theSuda 14y ago
        Whenever this type of discussion comes up, I always say that I will never mind taking care of my wife's parents if they need me to. After all they will be her parents just like I have mine. (I am not married, so using future tense). You would be surprised to hear that my friends (girls and guys alike) don't believe me and think I am joking. I have had women who are in their late 30s (so exactly in the age when their parents need support) argue with me on this point. In their opinion, I don't know what I am talking about, and will not care about anyone once I get married. TL;DR, People, even daughters laugh at you when you promise to take care of their parents equally as your own. So when I describe my parents take on dowry (i.e. no dowry, we want a daughter, not a daughter in law etc), people think I am joking. (I don't remember why I am writing this anymore)
- Tichy 14y ago
  It seems so weird because women are actually more valuable than men, biologically seen. It's probably crazy/outrageous, but I wonder if one day matching women from India with Men from China might become a huge success (they'll have a shortage of women in China soon I think). But I can see how there might be a long way to go - if women could work, they could provide and so on...
  - kamaal 14y ago
    There are issues preventing women from working. One direct problem is Indian households have always had a women as 'home makers'. So you have to fight a lot of cultural inertia. There are also security issues. Indian cities haven't been very safe for women especially for women working at night. Crimes against women are common. Also there lack of affordable places like creche's and day care centers for kids preventing women from working post maternity. Most working women quit jobs for this very reason alone. Secondly, even if women work. The situation in India is worse enough to make them spend that money on their own selves and their families, than their parents. But I agree, with you that women must be encouraged to work more.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      Well actually I think the ultimate goal is people having to work less. Getting women to work sounds like a solution from your problem description. But the real problem seems to be welfare of the elderly. If another solution (like social insurance) could be found, perhaps women wouldn't need to work. Perhaps even society would restructure itself. Only 60 years ago it was common in the western world that women had to stay at home to take care of the family and household chores. I don't think it was only feminism that changed that, but also technology. For example washing machines probably saved a lot of time (even a bachelor can wash their own clothes these days). Not sure how widespread access to such technology is in India?
      - yummyfajitas 14y ago
        washing machines...Not sure how widespread access to such technology is in India? GDP per capita is about $3500, adjusting for PPP. 31% of the population has improved sanitation. So, washing machines are not very widespread. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html
pm90 14y ago
that's a very good question. The fertility rate is very high amongst the poor, although they seem to have the worst means to support many children. I guess the main reason is that women were/are not empowered enough to decide how many kids they should have. Another major factor is lack of availability/knowledge of contraceptives. Also, I think children provide the only "entertainment"(using this word very loosely) when you have no TV, no books etc; there may also be a feeling that having many children gurantees that some will survive to carry their "family" ahead (many might die due to lack of access to healthcare). Lastly, child labour. Most of these are purely speculative though. Its what I picked up when I asked my parents precisely the same thing
- kamaal 14y ago
  While ignorance on family planning matters and entertainment stuff(Again using that word loosely) have been factors(Remember the idea mobile phone ad? Where they cite power cuts contributing the other source of 'entertainment' which in turn contributes to population. So use idea 3G and get entertained in the other way). The actual reasons really are 'reproduce until you get a boy' or 'have as many boys as you can' so that you can have something depend on in old age.
  - pm90 14y ago
    I don't think its as simple as saying that there is "actual reason" for anything that is so complex. For example: this obsession with males might be widely prevalent in the northern part of India, but its not as strong in the southern part.
    - realrocker 14y ago
      I would call BullShit, but you are right, Southern states are marginally better. Especially Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Though they too are degrading every year. Stats: http://www.satyamevjayate.in/issue01/learnmore/detail/4/ http://www.satyamevjayate.in/issue01/learnmore/detail/4/
      - 14y ago

How did India get to it's huge population, though? I would have thought that if you don't have food, eventually the population stops growing?

by Tichy 14y ago

How did India get to it's huge population, though? I would have thought that if you don't have food, eventually the population stops growing?

kamaal 14y ago

We didn't have famines that killed in millions. Even until say a generation and half back. During my Dad's times it was quite usual for couples to >10 kids. It was considered a sign of pride! Apart from that there are other social issues. Social security is a huge problem in India, Pension is a cruel joke. Other form of income during old age include rent from real estate or meagerly savings. Amidst all this kids are considered as a somebody who can take care of their parents. For the west this might sound strange, but parents are a integral part of the family. In fact family means Parents, siblings and their kids included. In all this Boys are considered cash cows. Because they are perceived as somebody who can earn and feed them in old age. Girls are considered money drains, as they marry and go away to their husbands home, to never return or contribute much. There is also a huge problem of dowry(Mandatory gifts given to girls during marriage) which makes girls look like burdens. The Indian middle class is also shy to send Girls to work. All this contributes to 'reproduce until you get a boy' problem. The rest is left to your imagination. Especially when more population leads to more of it, merely by its very dynamics. So you see the problem isn't that simple. Sometimes its genuine. Imagine you are old, need food, clothes, medical care. You need money for it, you see your neighbor get all the help from his son. While you get no help from your daughters. The natural reaction is ... 'If at all, I had a son... I wouldn't be in this state today'. These problems are not that simple to solve.

pm90 14y ago
I agree with most of your points. But: >Imagine you are old, need food, clothes, medical care. You need money for it, you see your neighbor get all the help from his son. While you get no help from your daughters. That's incredibly sexist. As far as I can tell, it is in fact the other way around. Their sons usually try to avoid that responsibility and it is their daughters who actually spend time with them and try to work out their problems
- kamaal 14y ago
  >>it is their daughters who actually spend time with them and try to work out their problems Time? Alas just 'spending time' doesn't solve all problems. You need somebody who can 'spend money' too. This is not an anti-girl rant. This is the saddest reality of our country. The middle class is overly male chauvinist and doesn't like sending women to work. Once married, the girl contributes literally nothing financially to her parents. Firstly this is not a problem among the rich and the poor. Because Rich have money and poor don't mind women working. Its the middle class which is in this problem. If you turn blind eye to this root cause. You can give as many moral lectures as you want on why this is wrong. Nothing will change. Because people know deep inside them old age is imminent, and they will need money/financial support to survive then. Bitter truth!
- gingerjoos 14y ago
  I doubt kamaal was trying to be sexist. It's unusual in most parts of India for women to work outside their home. Hence no income if you're a sick man with only daughters.
  - Luyt 14y ago
    What about their husbands? Don't they care about their father-in-law?
    - kamaal 14y ago
      That never happens. In fact its the opposite. In India we have a huge problem of dowry and post marriage gifts and perks which the girls need to get from their parents and give it to their husbands side.
      - theSuda 14y ago
        Whenever this type of discussion comes up, I always say that I will never mind taking care of my wife's parents if they need me to. After all they will be her parents just like I have mine. (I am not married, so using future tense). You would be surprised to hear that my friends (girls and guys alike) don't believe me and think I am joking. I have had women who are in their late 30s (so exactly in the age when their parents need support) argue with me on this point. In their opinion, I don't know what I am talking about, and will not care about anyone once I get married. TL;DR, People, even daughters laugh at you when you promise to take care of their parents equally as your own. So when I describe my parents take on dowry (i.e. no dowry, we want a daughter, not a daughter in law etc), people think I am joking. (I don't remember why I am writing this anymore)
Tichy 14y ago
It seems so weird because women are actually more valuable than men, biologically seen. It's probably crazy/outrageous, but I wonder if one day matching women from India with Men from China might become a huge success (they'll have a shortage of women in China soon I think). But I can see how there might be a long way to go - if women could work, they could provide and so on...
- kamaal 14y ago
  There are issues preventing women from working. One direct problem is Indian households have always had a women as 'home makers'. So you have to fight a lot of cultural inertia. There are also security issues. Indian cities haven't been very safe for women especially for women working at night. Crimes against women are common. Also there lack of affordable places like creche's and day care centers for kids preventing women from working post maternity. Most working women quit jobs for this very reason alone. Secondly, even if women work. The situation in India is worse enough to make them spend that money on their own selves and their families, than their parents. But I agree, with you that women must be encouraged to work more.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    Well actually I think the ultimate goal is people having to work less. Getting women to work sounds like a solution from your problem description. But the real problem seems to be welfare of the elderly. If another solution (like social insurance) could be found, perhaps women wouldn't need to work. Perhaps even society would restructure itself. Only 60 years ago it was common in the western world that women had to stay at home to take care of the family and household chores. I don't think it was only feminism that changed that, but also technology. For example washing machines probably saved a lot of time (even a bachelor can wash their own clothes these days). Not sure how widespread access to such technology is in India?
    - yummyfajitas 14y ago
      washing machines...Not sure how widespread access to such technology is in India? GDP per capita is about $3500, adjusting for PPP. 31% of the population has improved sanitation. So, washing machines are not very widespread. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/india_statistics.html

pm90 14y ago

that's a very good question. The fertility rate is very high amongst the poor, although they seem to have the worst means to support many children. I guess the main reason is that women were/are not empowered enough to decide how many kids they should have. Another major factor is lack of availability/knowledge of contraceptives. Also, I think children provide the only "entertainment"(using this word very loosely) when you have no TV, no books etc; there may also be a feeling that having many children gurantees that some will survive to carry their "family" ahead (many might die due to lack of access to healthcare). Lastly, child labour. Most of these are purely speculative though. Its what I picked up when I asked my parents precisely the same thing

kamaal 14y ago
While ignorance on family planning matters and entertainment stuff(Again using that word loosely) have been factors(Remember the idea mobile phone ad? Where they cite power cuts contributing the other source of 'entertainment' which in turn contributes to population. So use idea 3G and get entertained in the other way). The actual reasons really are 'reproduce until you get a boy' or 'have as many boys as you can' so that you can have something depend on in old age.
- pm90 14y ago
  I don't think its as simple as saying that there is "actual reason" for anything that is so complex. For example: this obsession with males might be widely prevalent in the northern part of India, but its not as strong in the southern part.
  - realrocker 14y ago
    I would call BullShit, but you are right, Southern states are marginally better. Especially Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Though they too are degrading every year. Stats: http://www.satyamevjayate.in/issue01/learnmore/detail/4/ http://www.satyamevjayate.in/issue01/learnmore/detail/4/
    - 14y ago