... end this way.
Ever seen a hero and a villain make peace at the end of a movie, and carry on with their good and bad lives as if nothing ever happened between them? I haven't. And I suppose its the same in real life.
Specifically, once you exchange a certain three-word-phrase with someone, and both of you really mean it, there simply is no going back to being friends or acquaintances. The story either ends in marriage or estrangement.
This kind of estrangement is weird - it does not have plain hatred or dislike at its root, cause u cant hate someone u once loved. U know they are still basically the same person, and there is always a soft corner - however small. But a few mistakes or deeds or acts can be unforgivable and unforgettable - leading to complete cutoff.
But this cutoff is still better than the 'gray area' where u love someone and know that it cannot work out in the long term. The way it ended is quite sad, but i guess i should be glad it IS over.
Aug 12, 2006
Aug 2, 2006
Gini index
An interesting after-note to the previous post on Indian Economy.
Another load of bull we've heard recently is that Indian growth is very lop-sided. Some cities are growing with the force of IT, ITES, Finance etc, while 'the real India' that lives in villages isnt getting any better. This argument becomes most important during election time with Opposition parties championing the cause of the 'aam aadmi' and 'rural India'.
The rich-poor disparity is measured using an economic index called the Gini index which essentially measures the difference between a perfectly uniform income distribution and the actual distribution.
India has a Gini index of 33%, compared to 41% for the United States, 45% for China, and 59% for Brazil. This means the distribution of wealth in India is more even than any of these countries. So, the 'aam aadmi' and the 'gawar' in India are better off, compared to their counterparts in US, China and Brazil.
Im sure the parties in Opposition wouldnt agree :)
Another load of bull we've heard recently is that Indian growth is very lop-sided. Some cities are growing with the force of IT, ITES, Finance etc, while 'the real India' that lives in villages isnt getting any better. This argument becomes most important during election time with Opposition parties championing the cause of the 'aam aadmi' and 'rural India'.
The rich-poor disparity is measured using an economic index called the Gini index which essentially measures the difference between a perfectly uniform income distribution and the actual distribution.
India has a Gini index of 33%, compared to 41% for the United States, 45% for China, and 59% for Brazil. This means the distribution of wealth in India is more even than any of these countries. So, the 'aam aadmi' and the 'gawar' in India are better off, compared to their counterparts in US, China and Brazil.
Im sure the parties in Opposition wouldnt agree :)
Of Indian Economy...
Beautiful piece here by Gurcharan Das, the former CEO of P&G India, whose celebrity-like status I havent quite been able to understand. But he does write well.
This piece expalins clearly what many of us suspect or believe - that India is growing inspite of the State rather than because of the State and its policies. That also explains the unique anti-incumbency trend in India. In most other fast-developing countries, parties do some good work and get voted back to power because people are generally happy with economic growth. Here, parties in power just get in the way of development, and then try to claim credit with campaigns like 'India Shining', only to be duly booted out by a frustrated public.
I've never understood why Jawaharlal Nehru is always voted as the best PM India has had, in any survey. The facts suggest quite the opposite. His 'socialist' philosophy for India wasnt in sync with the age of globalization. He's the one who nationalized everything and created incompetent PSU behemoths, that sapped the adrenaline out of India. But of course, in school we are all taught how great he was and what a wonderful thing it is to be a 'socialist, secular, democratic republic . Im sure the 'socialist' was a bad idea, and have some reservations about the secular and democratic parts also.
I also doubt the so-called 'Non-aligned movement' that we are taught as if it were gospel. Did it really make sense to go it alone and become irrelevant, rather than take a side and stay in the mainstream of world politics and trade?
India is now on the right track. But I am worried about the indoctrination of school education. We are forced to align our thinking with principles that are clearly irrelevant in this day and age, if not altogether wrong. Our past is glorified, and not critiqued till you get to late-college, and even then traditional thinking is challenged only in a few good colleges, with thinkers like Dr Veeraraghavan.
Ive heard many people voicing the opinion that Indians are too risk-averse. We lack the killer instinct, we dont have enough entrepreneurs, our best brains defect to the West. Well, you want all that to change, start with encouraging free thinking at school! How realistic is to expect children - who are taught a load of bull and pressurized to get higher grades with little freedom given to develop social, artistic, or athletic interests - to develop into risk-taking torchbearers of a new Indian economy later in life?
This piece expalins clearly what many of us suspect or believe - that India is growing inspite of the State rather than because of the State and its policies. That also explains the unique anti-incumbency trend in India. In most other fast-developing countries, parties do some good work and get voted back to power because people are generally happy with economic growth. Here, parties in power just get in the way of development, and then try to claim credit with campaigns like 'India Shining', only to be duly booted out by a frustrated public.
I've never understood why Jawaharlal Nehru is always voted as the best PM India has had, in any survey. The facts suggest quite the opposite. His 'socialist' philosophy for India wasnt in sync with the age of globalization. He's the one who nationalized everything and created incompetent PSU behemoths, that sapped the adrenaline out of India. But of course, in school we are all taught how great he was and what a wonderful thing it is to be a 'socialist, secular, democratic republic . Im sure the 'socialist' was a bad idea, and have some reservations about the secular and democratic parts also.
I also doubt the so-called 'Non-aligned movement' that we are taught as if it were gospel. Did it really make sense to go it alone and become irrelevant, rather than take a side and stay in the mainstream of world politics and trade?
India is now on the right track. But I am worried about the indoctrination of school education. We are forced to align our thinking with principles that are clearly irrelevant in this day and age, if not altogether wrong. Our past is glorified, and not critiqued till you get to late-college, and even then traditional thinking is challenged only in a few good colleges, with thinkers like Dr Veeraraghavan.
Ive heard many people voicing the opinion that Indians are too risk-averse. We lack the killer instinct, we dont have enough entrepreneurs, our best brains defect to the West. Well, you want all that to change, start with encouraging free thinking at school! How realistic is to expect children - who are taught a load of bull and pressurized to get higher grades with little freedom given to develop social, artistic, or athletic interests - to develop into risk-taking torchbearers of a new Indian economy later in life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)