# how to deal with slum problem!!



## seeya14 (Mar 28, 2007)

As Mumbai booms, the poor of its notorious Dharavi slum find themselves living in some of India's hottest real estate. 


All cities in India are loud, but nothing matches the 24/7 decibel level of Mumbai, the former Bombay, where the traffic never stops and the horns always honk. Noise, however, is not a problem in Dharavi, the teeming slum of one million souls, where as many as 18,000 people crowd into a single acre (0.4 hectares). By nightfall, deep inside the maze of lanes too narrow even for the putt-putt of auto rickshaws, the slum is as still as a verdant glade. Once you get accustomed to sharing 300 square feet (28 square meters) of floor with 15 humans and an uncounted number of mice, a strange sense of relaxation sets in—ah, at last a moment to think straight.

Dharavi is routinely called "the largest slum in Asia," a dubious attribution sometimes conflated into "the largest slum in the world." This is not true. Mexico City's Neza-Chalco-Itza barrio has four times as many people. In Asia, Karachi's Orangi Township has surpassed Dharavi. Even in Mumbai, where about half of the city's swelling 12 million population lives in what is euphemistically referred to as "informal" housing, other slum pockets rival Dharavi in size and squalor.

Yet Dharavi remains unique among slums. A neighborhood smack in the heart of Mumbai, it retains the emotional and historical pull of a subcontinental Harlem—a square-mile (three square kilometers) center of all things, geographically, psychologically, spiritually. Its location has also made it hot real estate in Mumbai, a city that epitomizes India's hopes of becoming an economic rival to China. Indeed, on a planet where half of humanity will soon live in cities, the forces at work in Dharavi serve as a window not only on the future of India's burgeoning cities, but on urban space everywhere.

Ask any longtime resident—some families have been here for three or more generations—how Dharavi came to be, and they'll say, "We built it." This is not far off. Until the late 19th century, this area of Mumbai was mangrove swamp inhabited by Koli fishermen. When the swamp filled in (with coconut leaves, rotten fish, and human waste), the Kolis were deprived of their fishing grounds—they would soon shift to bootlegging liquor—but room became available for others. The Kumbhars came from Gujarat to establish a potters' colony. Tamils arrived from the south and opened tanneries. Thousands traveled from Uttar Pradesh to work in the booming textile industry. The result is the most diverse of slums, arguably the most diverse neighborhood in Mumbai, India's most diverse city.

Stay for a while on the three-foot-wide (one meter) lane of Rajendra Prasad Chawl, and you become acquainted with the rhythms of the place. The morning sound of devotional singing is followed by the rush of water. Until recently few people in Dharavi had water hookups. Residents such as Meera Singh, a wry woman who has lived on the lane for 35 years, used to walk a mile (two kilometers) to get water for the day's cleaning and cooking. At the distant spigot she would have to pay the local "goons" to fill her buckets. This is how it works in the bureaucratic twilight zone of informal housing. Deprived of public services because of their illegal status, slum dwellers often find themselves at the mercy of the "land mafia." There are water goons, electricity goons. In this regard, the residents of Rajendra Prasad Chawl are fortunate. These days, by DIY hook or crook, nearly every household on the street has its own water tap. And today, like every day, residents open their hoses to wash down the lane as they stand in the doorways of their homes to brush their teeth.

This is how Dharavi wakes up. On 90 Feet Road, named for its alleged width (even if 60 Feet Road, the slum's other main drag, is considerably wider), the cab drivers coax their battered Fiats to life. In the potters' neighborhood, black smoke is already pouring from six-foot-square (one square meter) kilns. By the mucky industrial canal, the recyclers are in full swing. In Dharavi nothing is considered garbage. Ruined plastic toys are tossed into massive grinders, chopped into tiny pieces, melted down into multicolored pellets, ready to be refashioned into knockoff Barbie dolls. Here every cardboard box or 55-gallon (208 liters) oil drum has another life, and another one after that.


----------



## Bond James Bond (Aug 23, 2002)

There was an interesting article on Dharavi in a recent National Geographic. Fascinating read.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

control the birth rate. The country has too much population and that is a sword pointed to it. It is maybe growing now, but in the near future, it will tumble again.

I don't get it why they change the name Bombay (famous) to Mumbai (no one knows that even exists). Anyway, I wish better luck for Bombay in the future and become India's New York.


----------



## sprtsluvr8 (Aug 5, 2006)

Darahvi, Asia's largest slum








(flikr)


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

PeterGabriel said:


> I don't get it why they change the name Bombay (famous) to Mumbai (no one knows that even exists).


st. petersburg (leningrad) and beijing (peking) didn't seem to have much of a problem with people getting used to their new names.


----------



## PedroGabriel (Feb 5, 2007)

jmancuso said:


> st. petersburg (leningrad) and beijing (peking) didn't seem to have much of a problem with people getting used to their new names.


interesting. Beijing is Pequim in Portuguese. Didn't even knew they changed it. But it didn't affect us. Maybe Beijing would be Beijim.

Me dá um Beijim, amô. :lol:


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

PeterGabriel said:


> control the birth rate. The country has too much population and that is a sword pointed to it. It is maybe growing now, but in the near future, it will tumble again.
> 
> I don't get it why they change the name Bombay (famous) to Mumbai (no one knows that even exists). Anyway, I wish better luck for Bombay in the future and become India's New York.


Mumbai sounds nicer. We don't need no 'bom bahia!' (it is a damn good bay though...) Also, I'm pretty sure EVERYONE knows Mumbai exists...except for possibly you?

The population IS out of control in India, but India is better suited to deal with it than any other country. It has twice the arable land than China (only here because of similar populations), so as long as infrastructure and water sanitation and power develop along with the economy, the population will be under control

India is simply getting over the hump population wise. The majority of the populace is going into the workforce now. There is logically nowhere to go but up.

To deal with the slum problem all that needs to happen is market liberalisation, but with a vigilant eye from the government - otherwise the companies will throw the jhopdilok out onto the street and build their shiny towers with impunity. I say, BUILD the towers, and rehabiliatate the slum dwellers. However at the moment, the damn left is slowing all this down with their counterproductive moves...


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

sprtsluvr8 said:


> Darahvi, Asia's largest slum
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Looks nice at night!

Also, Dharavi is no longer Asia's largest slum. I think that Karachi's 'Orangi Town' now...but both these metropolises need to get rid of the slum problem in order to fully develop. Mumbai is doing so, but too slowly. There is a hell of a lot of construction though (its crazy...)


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

^^ Wow! That's pretty expansive!


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

northsider1983 said:


> ^^ Wow! That's pretty expansive!


Its big alright...but sadly there are bigger slums. For example, Mexico city has one five times bigger I believe and Orangi town is bigger too. Hell, in Mumbai we have bigger slum expanses...its the sad state of life in developing nations...there is so much wealth flowing now, but only a select few get it. Hopefully this will change soon (it has changed in a lot of India)


----------



## Latin l0cO (Nov 8, 2004)

the Nigel Effect said:


> Its big alright...but sadly there are bigger slums. For example, *Mexico city has one five times bigger I believe *and Orangi town is bigger too. Hell, in Mumbai we have bigger slum expanses...its the sad state of life in developing nations...there is so much wealth flowing now, but only a select few get it. Hopefully this will change soon (it has changed in a lot of India)


Although Mexico City does has it fair share of slums, the one which they refer too in this paragraph are Netzahualcoyotl and Iztapalapa and although both are probably more populous there also alot more developed then the two picture posted here. You could look it up on google earth. Also you're right about the sad state of developing nations, there is wealth flowing in.....unforunatly only few benefit from them. Hopefully in the future this will change, luckily for India its developing quite rapidly and has a bright future so those photos will most probably be obsolete within the next 20 years or so.


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

Netza is more of a large, poor neighborhood than a 'slum.' 

For example, here is Dharavi from Google Earth:










Here is Neza, from approx. the same scale:










There are poorer areas in Mexico city, and some hillside slums, but nothing like the slums of India.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

As for Mumbai, can the government or autorities afford to construct public housing projects for these people?


----------



## eighty4 (Sep 11, 2005)

you could tell george bush there's oil there, im sure it would be cleared in no time


----------



## luv2bebrown (Nov 4, 2004)

Blackwater USA security contractors are out of work now. perhaps the Indian government can hire them, put them inside unmarked black vans and let them loose on the slums.

that was a joke... although admittedly in poor taste


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

WANCH said:


> As for Mumbai, can the government or autorities afford to construct public housing projects for these people?



Mumbai's biggest problem now is lack of infrastructure, whereas the slum problem will take quite a while of economic development to clear. 

New Delhi Looks to Skyscraper Living
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=451644

Mumbai - Green Spaces vs. Property Development 
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=325439

India: Investors Build Free Apartments in Mumbai Slums 
http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=420496


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

eighty4 said:


> you could tell george bush there's oil there, im sure it would be cleared in no time


LOL :hahaha:


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Latin l0cO said:


> Although Mexico City does has it fair share of slums, the one which they refer too in this paragraph are Netzahualcoyotl and Iztapalapa and although both are probably more populous there also alot more developed then the two picture posted here. You could look it up on google earth. Also you're right about the sad state of developing nations, there is wealth flowing in.....unforunatly only few benefit from them. Hopefully in the future this will change, luckily for India its developing quite rapidly and has a bright future so those photos will most probably be obsolete within the next 20 years or so.


Yes, I agree with you. The slums in Mumbai compared to the slums in MC are different...from the image the one in mexico seems more to be an organised barrio while Dharavi is pure chaos...

Mexico is quite a ways ahead of India when it comes to Human Development, in the 'good' area, I daresay. Hopefully India will continue its rapid development

Mumbai is probably one of the most slum-ridden cities in India, simply because of the massive influx of poor migrants to the city. Sadly it is home to some of the richest and poorest of the world...

As to solving this, it wont change quickly unless modernization is sped up by the government

There is already a Dharavi redesignation and rehabilitation plan approved, now bidding is in progress. This is good news, but there is still ways to go


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Economic growth, and sadly some demolition will get rid of them, with new buildings to take their places.

Hey, that's the way the West got rid of slums. Before 1900, plenty of cities here had neighborhoods with sub-standard conditions rife with disease.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

oh, lord. I thought Rio was bad.


----------



## Yörch1 (Oct 31, 2006)

Actually Neza is part of a master plan in the 60's-70's to relocate those peple living in slums at Mexico City.

I wouldn't call Neza a slum since there exists every basic services as drain, water, phone. They even had internet, museums and subway, etc. It is definitely ugly, but far from being a slum.

Dealing with slums is not easy. There is a need of economic wealthness of the population and government and private enterprises projects to finish them.


----------



## seeya14 (Mar 28, 2007)

yaa but i guess it is a very risky task to demolish the whole area,, as they say this area is governed by the underworld ppl. ,, n moreover these ppl are highlyy talented,, they have small industries in this area like tanning, potterryy etc.,,,,and these industries also effect the nearby hospitals by polluting in da center of da city,,,
they are many options made to develop this area,, but the sad part is that these ppl are jus nt ready to migrate frm dis place,,,,


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

The key is to eliminate the problem's source. If there is a need for slums due to the income gap, then razing one will just create another.


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Yeah. The last of Melbourne's slums were cleared out in the 1960s and replaced with Housing Commission towers. But there are still high rates of crime and drug use in those areas, and it has since been found that government housing works best when it is mixed with middle class housing developments instead of concentrating all of them into high rise towers.

But 40 years later, some of these towers now have million dollar views of the city or the bay.


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

The villages of Singapore were cleared in the 1960s-70s. Another phase of clearing villages started in the 1980s and early 1990s. A third smaller phase of clearing villages on offshore islands was in the mid 1990s to early 2000s.

The thing is disputed IMO whether you consider villages as slums because they had been the traditional way of living for hundreds of years.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

redstone said:


> The villages of Singapore were cleared in the 1960s-70s. Another phase of clearing villages started in the 1980s and early 1990s. A third smaller phase of clearing villages on offshore islands was in the mid 1990s to early 2000s.
> 
> The thing is disputed IMO whether you consider villages as slums because they had been the traditional way of living for hundreds of years.


That reminds me of Seoul as well. I saw a picture of the city's last slum which was then cleared.


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

At least in mexico slums are made with concrete but OMG in India!!


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

Remove inequality and the slums will disappear too...


----------



## gabrielbabb (Aug 11, 2006)

What happens in mexico is that in the 40's the city had 2 million people so there was many well-payed work now that the city has grown 10 times there is many people who have to look for many different works bad-payed so there aren't so many places where to work.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

We can always use emminent domain abuse and get them out to have a private developer build an out of scale project that they will never afford to live in. :jk:


----------



## polako (Apr 7, 2005)

Build schools; that is the number one way to move people out of poverty in areas as shown. In America people have access to schools yet(a high percentage) take them for granted and drop out in pursuit of stardom, but what they don't realize is that they don't have a safety net(college education) when things in Hollywood or on the basketball court don't work out and they end up in poverty or struggling. Higher educational attainment of the population creates jobs and is a positive externality. Although there is never enough education one might get. In today's fast changing world you need more and more education. With access to the internet you can learn so much on your own.


----------



## LMCA1990 (Jun 18, 2005)

^^ compltely agree with you. education insures poverty will come down. for example, 10 yrs ago 70% of colombians were impoverished when free education began and now it's 45% and colombia has become one of Latin America's highest spenders in education.


----------



## enterprise (Aug 8, 2006)

There is a very easy solution to 'deal with the slum problem', firstly you need a democracy and secondly you need to embrace capitalism. There is a direct correlation between prosperity and capitalism, there is a further correlation between slums and socialism….


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

enterprise said:


> There is a very easy solution to 'deal with the slum problem', firstly you need a democracy and secondly you need to embrace capitalism. There is a direct correlation between prosperity and capitalism, there is a further correlation between slums and socialism….


Yea...because that works real well, and cities like NYC and Chicago have no slum areas...</sarcastic> They may not be tin shantys but there are definitely POOR areas of US cities. Capitalism in it's very nature produces poor. There has to be winners and losers.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

enterprise said:


> There is a very easy solution to 'deal with the slum problem', firstly you need a democracy and secondly you need to embrace capitalism. There is a direct correlation between prosperity and capitalism, there is a further correlation between slums and socialism….


As northsider1983 points out Capitalism is certainly not the answer..

India have both democracy and capitalism.. but they still have plenty of poor people...

What you need is Socialism - the Nordic version to be precise... 

( basicly just balance the wealth out on the people - but make sure working pays off too )

With an unemplyment rate at 3.2%, no slums what so ever and the best economy and largest surplus in the EU we must be doing something right


----------



## redstone (Nov 15, 2003)

WANCH said:


> That reminds me of Seoul as well. I saw a picture of the city's last slum which was then cleared.


Singapore only has 3 villages left. These 3 villages are less than half their original size due to govt land acqusition. Totalling only less than 80 families. It's also part of our heritage.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Mr_Denmark said:


> As northsider1983 points out Capitalism is certainly not the answer..
> 
> India have both democracy and capitalism.. but they still have plenty of poor people...
> 
> ...




Actually it's the socialism that has kept India poor. India has embraced capitalism only in 1991 when it was on brink of bankruptcy. Currently India needs pure capitalism. In 1 decade or 2 when Government has good enough money to spend, India can move to Nordic model.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Mr_Denmark said:


> As northsider1983 points out Capitalism is certainly not the answer..
> 
> India have both democracy and capitalism.. but they still have plenty of poor people...
> 
> ...


Very wrong. India has democarcy, but it is still closer to a socialist nation than a capitalist one. It has always been a ECONOMICALLY socialist nation. Only recently has true capitalism hit India, and it has caused a lot of profit to be made and a massive improvement in the nation as a whole.

No, India has been following a socialist growth model for the first 50 years of its existence, and that is the reason its economy never grew and its people went from poor to poorer. It is capitalism that is making Indians rich now, and pure capitalism with no socialist holdbacks is all that can eradicate poverty in India. You cant adapt the Nordic model, a model used in tiny nations with developed economies, in a developing country of a billion people. its not feasible or sensible


----------



## tablemtn (May 2, 2006)

The Nordic model only works when your society is very cohesive, and has strong rule of law. For one thing, it relies on most of the people paying their taxes promptly when taxes are due. There is so much bribery and tax-dodging in many under-developed countries that this is just not realistic for them, yet.


----------



## leo_sh (Oct 23, 2006)

MaitreyaSequeira said:


> Very wrong. India has democarcy, but it is still closer to a socialist nation than a capitalist one. It has always been a socialist nation. Only recently has true capitalism hit India, and it has caused a lot of profit to be made and a massive improvement in the nation as a whole.
> 
> No, India has been following a socialist growth model for the first 50 years of its existence, and that is the reason its economy never grew and its people went from poor to poorer. It is capitalism that is making Indians rich now, and pure capitalism with no socialist holdbacks is all that can eradicate poverty in India. You cant adapt the Nordic model, a model used in tiny nations with developed economies, in a developing country of a billion people. its not feasible or sensible



India has never been socialist. A few government investments and state-owned enterprises do not make socialism. A lot of countries adopted similar measures on a much larger scale, and even they have not claimed to be socialist.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

jmancuso said:


> st. petersburg (leningrad) and beijing (peking) didn't seem to have much of a problem with people getting used to their new names.


Beijing has always been Bei Jing. It's just that the way to translate Chinese into "western" characters was changed. 

Why it was "Peking" before (well, it still is in Swedish for example) is a mystery to me.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

leo_sh said:


> India has never been socialist. A few government investments and state-owned enterprises do not make socialism. A lot of countries adopted similar measures on a much larger scale, and even they have not claimed to be socialist.


I was not claiming that it was politically socialist, and did not literally mean what I said (India was a socialist nation). All that was said was that it adopted socialist growth policies and measures. Although my phrasing was poor and could give the illusion, please read statements fully before commenting, and dont take things out of context.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

You can have high densities in a city, but you still need to give people space. 15 people in 300 sq ft is intolerable. I feel packed like a sardine and I have about 700 sq ft to myself. 

Another problem is pride. You can build good housing, but if people aren't proud of their homes, it will turn into a slum. They won't maintain it. Homes need to be places that bring comfort, sanctuary, safety, and functionality to a person. 

Simple design elements like free plots of land within a development where residents can grow their own food create a sense of community and pride. Such places rarely disintegrate into a slum. Flower gardens, water, and plants can create a sense of well being even amongst abject poverty. 

People believe they are as worthwhile as society tells them they are. If you build them crap housing, you're sending them the message that you think they are crap too. I realize that these slums were built by the people living in them, but India needs to build proper places for her citizens to live. It's an investment in your country's future, not an expense.

Of course wealth solves this, but that isn't realistic. Even super rich societies have slums although my country has nothing that could be considered a slum, even by western standards.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

isaidso said:


> Even super rich societies have slums


Where would that be?


----------



## leo_sh (Oct 23, 2006)

isaidso said:


> You can have high densities in a city, but you still need to give people space. 15 people in 300 sq ft is intolerable. I feel packed like a sardine and I have about 700 sq ft to myself.
> 
> Another problem is pride. You can build good housing, but if people aren't proud of their homes, it will turn into a slum. They won't maintain it. Homes need to be places that bring comfort, sanctuary, safety, and functionality to a person.
> 
> ...


Please don't confuse slums with poor neighborhoods and working class districts.


----------



## virgule82 (Apr 9, 2007)

staff said:


> Beijing has always been Bei Jing. It's just that the way to translate Chinese into "western" characters was changed.
> 
> Why it was "Peking" before (well, it still is in Swedish for example) is a mystery to me.


As I understand it, Peking is actually a pretty accurate transliteration of Chinese -but the Cantonese variety not Mandarin.


----------



## Adams3 (Mar 2, 2007)

Maitreya: Do you have any source that says that India has twice the amount of arable land as China? And what about other resources, like water? The size of Australia is added to India's population each year. That's alot of people. Are everybody in India as confident as you that it can be handled and managed?


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

leo_sh said:


> India has never been socialist. A few government investments and state-owned enterprises do not make socialism. A lot of countries adopted similar measures on a much larger scale, and even they have not claimed to be socialist.


I am confused! If India wasn't socialist, what exactly was it? It sure wasn't capitalist so is there a new category for countries like India? As for as I remember, till late 80s, government ran almost everything. Private medicine, private education, private industry, private communication, private banks, private ports, private industry....all these are pretty new for India and still not that ubiquitous. Indian government even today is biggest investor in India let alone in 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s.


----------



## big-dog (Mar 11, 2007)

Adams3 said:


> Maitreya: Do you have any source that says that India has twice the amount of arable land as China? And what about other resources, like water? The size of Australia is added to India's population each year. That's alot of people. Are everybody in India as confident as you that it can be handled and managed?


Yes, it's true. I heard another version that India has three times more of the arable land than China. China is basically a mountainous country. China should have more natual resources than India, i.e. water, oil, etc. China is still less dependent on Oil import (around 45% vs India's 80%).


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

Adams3 said:


> Maitreya: Do you have any source that says that India has twice the amount of arable land as China? And what about other resources, like water? The size of Australia is added to India's population each year. That's alot of people.* Are everybody in India as confident as you that it can be handled and managed*?


India does have decent size of arable land compared to almost any country in world
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land


Water is okay too (20-30 or more rivers, monsoon lasting 2 months or more, Himalayas....). Still you can never say for sure that we can manage so many people.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Adams3 said:


> Maitreya: Do you have any source that says that India has twice the amount of arable land as China? And what about other resources, like water? The size of Australia is added to India's population each year. That's alot of people. Are everybody in India as confident as you that it can be handled and managed?


People have already posted sources now. Too late, I guess.
Due to Himalayas, monsoons, and numerous rivers water is fine as well (according to the Economist, 95-odd percent of Indians have access to water, but only 84 percent have access to passably clean water, because I assume the others (living in rural areas) would drink from rivers or streams, which are polluted.

And as that article showed, India has plenty of arable land. Now its simply matter of mechanization in order to get more out of that land (and more people off of agriculture). Yeah, so India is not going to implode any time soon. The population problem is there, and as India modernizes its population growth will slow down (as has already been showed by developed nations, and by China, and by India so far). no guarantees, but we can get a good idea. 

Btw, Im not in India  Is everybody where you are so confident India is going to implode?


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

leo_sh said:


> Please don't confuse slums with poor neighborhoods and working class districts.


Poor neighbourhoods in developed nations are equivalent to slums in developing ones. However, one thing I do see a lot more in Canada than India is people sleeping out on the streets - there they have their jhopadpattis...here apparently they dont?


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

Mr_Denmark said:


> Where would that be?


Iqaluit, Canada... or Yellowknife, NWT.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

Gherkin said:


> Iqaluit, Canada... or Yellowknife, NWT.


There are more poor cities than that over here

Of course it isnt as outright as it would be in a developing nation, but in proportion to the country's wealth


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

I don't think slum or poverty problems around the world are ever going to be eliminated.


----------



## leo_sh (Oct 23, 2006)

tytler said:


> I am confused! If India wasn't socialist, what exactly was it? It sure wasn't capitalist so is there a new category for countries like India? As for as I remember, till late 80s, government ran almost everything. Private medicine, private education, private industry, private communication, private banks, private ports, private industry....all these are pretty new for India and still not that ubiquitous. Indian government even today is biggest investor in India let alone in 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s.


India has at most just experimented some kind of state capitalism.

India has always had a very strong private sector. The famous Tata Group has not emerged overnight. 

A disproportional wealth of the nation has always been in the grip of a few rich families. The state had little to none leverage on them. The social polarization has never been reduced.

A lot of infrastructure like ports, communication, schools, clinics, railways, roads, have been completely public in the most capitalist countries. To privatize them is a new trend. And India has not lagged behind. Anyway, the children of the Indian elite class have always been educated in Britain and Switzerland. And when they were sick, they just flied abroad for medical treatment. 

Yes, the national government enjoys a leading place in the industrial investment. But so did the governments of Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and a lot of countries on other continents in their early development. All these countries have for one period or another imposed restriction on import, free trade, and free flow of capitals, in order to protect the domestic industries. The market in these countries was only opened after they have raised a robust and healthy domestic industry.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

leo_sh said:


> India has at most just experimented some kind of state capitalism.


If there is such a thing!



> India has always had a very strong private sector. The famous Tata Group has not emerged overnight.


The famous Tata group is one group! Add few more old dogs. Does that make India a capitalist country!! If anything, India still doesn't have a very "strong" private sector let alone in 80s or before. It's like saying that US has strong private sector just because GE is there even if there are no other private companies, not one! 



> A disproportional wealth of the nation has always been in the grip of a few rich families. The state had little to none leverage on them. The social polarization has never been reduced.


Isn't that true for ANY country. US would be the prime example along with new player CHINA. Just check the gini index of most countries. To say that state had no leverage on these few private industries is ridiculous. State has passed countless laws to make sure private industry doesn't grow beyond certain limits and India doesn't become a playing field for these companies. TATA, Birla...have seen real growth only after market liberalizations. Indian government has always preferred social security over growth. If anything, social inequity is very low in India compared to other rich/developing nations.




> A lot of infrastructure like ports, communication, schools, clinics, railways, roads, have been completely public in the most capitalist countries. To privatize them is a new trend. And India has not lagged behind. Anyway, the children of the Indian elite class have always been educated in Britain and Switzerland. And when they were sick, they just flied abroad for medical treatment.


You must be kidding, right! How old is Bell labs? Ofcourse India has lagged behind. Before 1991, it took you 4 years to get a telephone line and that only through a government company. How many countries had same problem in 90s? Again, what elite class has to do with anything here? Elite of the world do exactly the same! They study wherever they want, live wherever they want, fly wherever they want to get best medical treatment. You do realize that ports,railways ...are still under government control in India though now 
it has allowed the entry of private players. SO if you are saying the MOST countries in world have railways, clinics,ports...run by government even today, I don't see your point.



> Yes, the national government enjoys a leading place in the industrial investment.



More like only source of investment! When exactly did you hear Tata making an investment pre-market liberalizations. If there was non-governmental investment, it was very small.



> But so did the governments of *Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Singapore*, and a lot of countries on other continents in their early development.



Ah..the early development! India government enjoyed this status for 43 years! How long did it last for Japan or Taiwan? Again, Indian government didn't invest to increase growth but to provide more jobs. So unless you are saying that Japanese goverment invested in telecoms or airlines to fuel growth, I don't see your point. 




> All these countries have for one period or another imposed restriction on import, free trade, and free flow of capitals, in order to protect the domestic industries. The market in these countries was only opened after they have raised a robust and healthy domestic industry.


So did India but not to protect Tatas! Again, you are assuming that India government was "helping" the private sector so that once it opens it's market, it will have a sizable local players. In case you forgot, that never happened. Only reason India opened up because it was almost broke. There was no "healthy" domestic industry, no world class infrastructure...nothing to support even the TATAs. India wasn't exporting goods worth few 100 billions of dollars.Even today they suffer for red tape, labor laws, poor infrastructure, a government which is more concerned about vote than growth. Seriously, I have no idea as to what made you compare India with Japan or Taiwan! If anything, Indian government is now doing what exactly what you assumed it was doing from 40s till 80s.


P.S. So which country exactly is a "socialist" nation?


----------



## aliendroid (Jul 8, 2007)

MaitreyaSequeira said:


> Mumbai sounds nicer. We don't need no 'bom bahia!' (it is a damn good bay though...) Also, I'm pretty sure EVERYONE knows Mumbai exists...except for possibly you?
> 
> The population IS out of control in India, but India is better suited to deal with it than any other country. It has twice the arable land than China (only here because of similar populations), so as long as infrastructure and water sanitation and power develop along with the economy, the population will be under control
> 
> ...


The land area listed excludes water area, I'm listing arable land area for some large countries for comparison.

China, land: 9,326,410 sq km
14.9% arable land, 9,326,410 * 0.149 = 1,389,635 sq km arable land

India, land: 2,973,190 sq km
54% arable land, 2,973,190 * .54 = 1,605,522 sq km arable land

USA, mainland area: 9,161,923 sq km 
18.01% arable land = 1,649,146 sq km arable land
(This does not include alaska, Hawii or puerto rico)

Canada, 9,093,507 sq km
arable land: 4.57%
9,093,507 * 0.0457 = 415,573 sq km arable land

russia land area: 16,995,800 sq km (largest country on earth)
arable land: 7.17%
16,995,800 * 0.0717 = 1,218,598 sq km of arable land

Brazil: 8,456,510 sq km
arable land: 6.93%
8,456,510 * 0.0693 = 586,036 sq km


I didn't know that india had such a large amount of arable land, but as you can see the USA has the most on earth any questions as to why we are fat?

India doesn't have twice the arable land as china, although china is losing arable land at a rapid rate due to expansion of cities.


----------



## leo_sh (Oct 23, 2006)

tytler said:


> If there is such a thing!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now there are two types of socialism that are widely recognized - Marxist-Leninist. India is clearly not one of them. Another is Scandinavian model. Nobody will associate India with Sweden or Finland. 

In addition to this, there are some kind of social democratic policies throughout the world, like those in Germany, France, Britain, Argentina. Do you think India looks like anyone of them?

Please don't confuse overweight beaureucracy, unprofitable state enterprises, and overregulation with socialism. Both the former Soviet Union and China have never had that enormous and inefficient government departments like India's in their history.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

leo_sh said:


> Now there are two types of socialism that are widely recognized - Marxist-Leninist. India is clearly not one of them. Another is Scandinavian model. Nobody will associate India with Sweden or Finland.


Marxist-Leninisism is communism and not socialism. Ofcourse India is not "one of them". 
So what exactly is Scandinavian model? How different is Scandinavian model from any "government" model or for that matter India? India subsidizes education/health...just like Denmark. So if you know better, do tell us.



> In addition to this, there are some kind of social democratic policies throughout the world, like those in Germany, France, Britain, Argentina. Do you think India looks like anyone of them?


Again, how exactly government fuctions in India? Even Indian constitution defines India as socialist republic. I did a google search and internet is filled with "socialist India". 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_India
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_India#Independence_to_1991

I know that wiki is not the best source but it's the easiest to find. 




> Please don't confuse overweight beaureucracy, unprofitable state enterprises, and overregulation with socialism. Both the former Soviet Union and China have never had that enormous and inefficient government departments like India's in their history.


Ever heard of license Raj?! Try this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj


Also you are saying that Chinese/Russian enterprise weren't inefficient/enormous before reforms! Even today, most of the Chinese "state enterprises" are pretty inefficient.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

aliendroid said:


> The land area listed excludes water area, I'm listing arable land area for some large countries for comparison.
> 
> China, land: 9,326,410 sq km
> 14.9% arable land, 9,326,410 * 0.149 = 1,389,635 sq km arable land
> ...


China has 13% arable land. India has 33% more arable land than China. Twice/thrice figure is ofcourse incorrect.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

leo_sh said:


> Now there are two types of socialism that are widely recognized - Marxist-Leninist. India is clearly not one of them. Another is Scandinavian model. Nobody will associate India with Sweden or Finland.
> 
> In addition to this, there are some kind of social democratic policies throughout the world, like those in Germany, France, Britain, Argentina. Do you think India looks like anyone of them?
> 
> Please don't confuse overweight beaureucracy, unprofitable state enterprises, and overregulation with socialism. Both the former Soviet Union and China have never had that enormous and inefficient government departments like India's in their history.


India has followed a socialist-styled economic model for years. A byproduct of that was of course 'overweight beaureucracy, unprofitable state enterprises, and overregulation'. 

Nobody is saying India was a Marxist nation, but that it followed socialist policies, especially on growth. Hell, China, a communist nation (quasi-communist now) is more capitalist than us!


----------



## leo_sh (Oct 23, 2006)

tytler said:


> Marxist-Leninisism is communism and not socialism. Ofcourse India is not "one of them".
> So what exactly is Scandinavian model? How different is Scandinavian model from any "government" model or for that matter India? India subsidizes education/health...just like Denmark. So if you know better, do tell us.
> 
> 
> ...


If you want to exclude communism from socialism, that's fine. I don't want to argue with you.

Let's compare India with Sweden.
Does the country have a very big public sector? Sweden, yes. India, yes.
Is the pubic sector efficient? Sweden yes. India no.
Does the country have a high tax? Sweden yes. India yes.
Does the people benefit from the tax? Sweden yes. India no.
Is the working class highly unionized? Sweden yes. India yes.
Is the working class's right well protected? Sweden yes. India no.

Result: Sweden has what matches its label; India has every label to flaunt, but nothing substantial.

You say that Russia and China's public sectors were not efficient? Read the context! When the economists say they are not efficient, they are taking North America and West Europe as comparison! If the former Soviet Union's economy was not efficient to some extent, how could they provide a living standard tens of times higher than that of India? In 1949 when the communist China was founded, the economy of India was twice of that of China, but in 1978 when the reform has not started, China has caught up. If China's economy was not efficient, it was at least twice efficient as India's.


----------



## leo_sh (Oct 23, 2006)

Continuing the last post:

If one country lables itself as socialist, one must ask where is free health care, where is pension, where is workers' rights, where is employment guarantee or unemployment aid? 

If socialism is bad, can your socialism at least be as bad as Sweden or the former Soviet Union? Or Czechoslovakia? Or East Germany? If the most countries that have labeled themselves socialist were able to archieve the bad socialism of even Romania or Mongolia, the world would have been a paradise.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

I think you are having trouble distinguishing 'socialist country' from 'socialist economic policy'. They arent the same thing, you know.


----------



## leo_sh (Oct 23, 2006)

MaitreyaSequeira said:


> I think you are having trouble distinguishing 'socialist country' from 'socialist economic policy'. They arent the same thing, you know.


My argument in the first place is that India is not socialist. I have never talked about socialist policy. Even the United States has some policies that can be compared with the socialist countries.


----------



## Mahratta (Feb 18, 2007)

leo_sh said:


> My argument in the first place is that India is not socialist. I have never talked about socialist policy. Even the United States has some policies that can be compared with the socialist countries.


Two different arguments here. Ours is that India incorporated socialist growth policies which slowed it down. Yours is that India is not a socialist country. Apples and oranges.


----------



## JD (Apr 15, 2006)

leo_sh said:


> If one country lables itself as socialist, one must ask where is free health care, where is pension, where is workers' rights, where is employment guarantee or unemployment aid?


India provided all this...to an extent. No country can guarantee employment...
Anyways, as MaitreyaSequeira said, we are talking economics since we are talking about growth.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

If I had to deal with the slum problem in Mumbai, I'd clear that hell slum known as Dharavi and turn it into a central business district and cleaning up Mahim Creek while I'm at it. I could also clear out all the other large slums in Mumbai for townhouse developments and highrises up to 20 floors.


----------



## spongeg (May 1, 2006)

PeterGabriel said:


> control the birth rate. The country has too much population and that is a sword pointed to it. It is maybe growing now, but in the near future, it will tumble again.
> 
> I don't get it why they change the name Bombay (famous) to Mumbai (no one knows that even exists). Anyway, I wish better luck for Bombay in the future and become India's New York.


Bombay was a name bestowed upon them by the english i think
and mumbai is an indian name - i think translated its soemthing after a goddess for water and something

I just read about it in a magazine article about the name change... will have to look at it again when i can


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

staff said:


> Beijing has always been Bei Jing. It's just that the way to translate Chinese into "western" characters was changed.
> 
> Why it was "Peking" before (well, it still is in Swedish for example) is a mystery to me.


Chinese place names in English were standardized using the Hanyu Pinyin method, and the name Beijing arose from that standardization. Peking was based on the old translation method.

Back to the topic, I suggest providing microcredit to alleviate poverty, and the concept has been quite successful in South Asia already.


----------



## kurklk (Dec 22, 2004)

PedroGabriel said:


> control the birth rate. The country has too much population and that is a sword pointed to it. It is maybe growing now, but in the near future, it will tumble again.
> 
> I don't get it why they change the name Bombay (famous) to Mumbai (no one knows that even exists). Anyway, I wish better luck for Bombay in the future and become India's New York.


How exactly do you control the birthrate in a free country??
This aint china you know. People are free to have as many kids as they want.


----------



## kurklk (Dec 22, 2004)

WANCH said:


> As for Mumbai, can the government or autorities afford to construct public housing projects for these people?


Yes they can But people have to want to move out. Dharavi despite being a slum has a GDP of over a billion dollars and has thousands of small shops and places that make/recycle/repair stuff. So these people not only need space to live but also to conduct business which is impractical in a high rise. In addition there is the politics. The slum dwellers are one of the most politically active people in Mumbai. Just cause they are poor dosent mean they don't know their rights  They are very strongly represented in the state and Local legislature. 
Its very hard to simply "Move them out". A promise for a better future isnt always enough to move people out.


----------



## kurklk (Dec 22, 2004)

JD said:


> I am confused! If India wasn't socialist, what exactly was it? It sure wasn't capitalist so is there a new category for countries like India? As for as I remember, till late 80s, government ran almost everything. Private medicine, private education, private industry, private communication, private banks, private ports, private industry....all these are pretty new for India and still not that ubiquitous. Indian government even today is biggest investor in India let alone in 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s.



Are you kidding. Yea communication, Ports, and banks were Government but Education, Healthcare, and most of the industry was always private. The government had 50 sectors that caps and a Regulation system but rest of the system was largely regulated but not capped.India has has industrial giants for like 150 years. Our government had socialists goals yes. 

And about investment Indian government barely invests in India They invest on Roads and infrastructure but thats cause thats their Job. 

Where are you getting your facts from??

Besids even many "free" countries put heavy heavy heavy regulation in important sectors. Atleast you in Santa Clara should realize that untill like 2001 we only had one provider for land line connections (Pac Bell) and there is still only one Cable company per district(Up here in the east bay we only have Comcast) 
Simillarly I can get electricity only from PG&E and water from East bay MUD. 
Man you must be smoking some cheap stuff.


----------



## drunkenmunkey888 (Aug 13, 2005)

A good way to take care of slums is commieblocks. I have opened/participated many threads where I just trash commieblocks but advocates say that they are just an alternative to slums. If you look at Chinese cities, many of them are entirely composed of commieblocks. I ask why do this and many forumers said that China is still pretty underdeveloped so there needs to be massive cheap housing developments. Otherwise all these Chinese cities will be slums instead. It is true if you think about it. For a country with a GDP per capita of only 2,400 USD, there is a very surprisingly lack of slums. That is because commieblocks, though hideously ugly, are slightly more appealing than cardboard slums. The problem is once the country/city becomes developed the commieblocks will be an eyesore whereas slums will become very picturesque, traditional, touristy neighborhoods.


----------



## Red flag's egg (May 6, 2007)

> How exactly do you control the birthrate in a free country??
> This aint china you know. People are free to have as many kids as they want.



kurklk,
i think you are hypocrisy to say so.
China has its self-knowledge!!! Han-chinese have self-restrainted(sacrifice) themseves so much to contribute to world harmony(as you can see ,"chinese threat" is popular). if there is no family planning policy(only applied to han-chinesene child only in city,no more than two in countryside),the population of china may would have reached to 1.7billion! there would be 400m more chinese to take away your jobs,waste your resources, emite more co2.....
on the opposite, india should do sth to handle its pop expansion. india's pop grows 3.4 times faster than that of china. if indians just want to be pop-number1 , isn't that a little selfish......


----------

