Mother Teresa - An Image of Poverty

Another reason why Indians often exhibit a negative idea of themselves, may be because India is always associated in the world with poverty : Mother Teresa, Unicef, or Calcutta. This image has been reinforced by books such as the City of Joy, an international best-seller, which takes a little part of India - the Calcutta slums - and gives the impression to the naive and ignorant western readers, that it constitutes the whole of India. Another factor which reinforces the image of poverty is the tremendous fame which Mother Theresa enjoyed in her lifetime - and even after her death, as she is in the process of being made a saint. While it is true that Mother Theresa did a tremendous job in Calcutta, she never tried to counterbalance the very negative image of India that her name was carrying, with some praise for the country which had adopted her for fifty years. She could have spoken for instance about the great hospitality of Indians, or the open-mindedness of Hindu religion, which had allowed her to practise Christianity near one of the most sacred temples of the country, or even about the near worship which most Hindus showed for her.

It is true that there is a tremendous amount of poverty in India, and that many people can only afford one meal a day. But four things should be known. Firstly, that until the 18th century, in spite of the repeated Muslim invasions, India was known as one of the richest countries of the world, the land "of milk and honey". You only have to read the numerous accounts of travellers from different countries, who all marvelled at India's prosperity. The second thing, is that all the great famines of India happened during the British time. Many historians, such as Frenchman Guy Deleury, have documented the economic rape of India by the British : "Industrially the British suffocated India , gradually strangling Indian industries whose finished products, textiles in particular, were of a quality unique in the world which has made them famous over the centuries. Instead they oriented Indian industries towards jute, cotton, tea, oil seeds, which they needed as raw materials for their home industries. They employed cheap labour for the enterprises while traditional artisans were perishing. India, which used to be a land of plenty, where milk and honey flowed started drying" (Modele Indou)... According to British records, one million Indians died of famine between 1800 and 1825, 4 million between 1825-1850, 5 million between 1850-1875 and 15 million between 1875-1900. Thus 25 million Indians died in 100 years ! The British must be proud of their bloody record. It is probably more honourable and straightforward to kill in the name of Allah, than in the guise of petty commercial interests and total disregard for the ways of a 5000 year civilisation. Thus, by the beginning of the 20th century, India was bled dry and there were no resources left.

The third fact, is that after Independence, whatever poverty there still was in this country, there were no more famines, as India managed to become self-sufficient in food through the Green Revolution (whatever negative side effects it had on India's ecology - but that is another story). This is a great achievement, a tremendous task of which India can be proud off. For if you look at China, India's largest neighbour, which always invites natural comparison with India as they share many of the same problems and characteristics, it went through tremendous traumas after independence. Millions died of hunger, for instance, when Mao diverted peasants from cultivating the land, in his misguided and megalomaniac effort to increase steel production. It should also be said that later it did look as if China fared better than India in its effort to feed adequately its people. But that is because they employed coercion to control their own population, whereas India, a democracy, never tried to force its citizens to have less children - except for a short while under Indira Gandhi (who lost the elections shortly after).

The fourth thing is that there is a tremendous amount of black money in India - as much as 40 to 50% of the total economy. If that money could be tapped and channelled to the White economy, it would give a tremendous boost to the nation. But you need a government wise enough to enact laws which make people cheat less. People have been cheating since 1947, because Nehru had decided that Socialism, partly modelled after the Soviet Union, was the best tool to bridge the yawning gap between the very rich and the very poor of India. At that time, it seemed a good idea, but as years passed, it proved a disaster, spawning a huge bureaucratic system, breeding corruption, stifling free enterprise and overall making people cheat, because it had introduced one of the heaviest taxing system in the world. And the sad thing is that Indians - from the middle class to even the poorer people - are some of the greatest savers in the world. Not for them the credit card system, which is ruining the West, by artificially enhancing the economy - no, they save in land, gold, jewellery, or in cash, often stashed at home. And that is a tremendous asset for India, if it could be brought in the open. There is nowadays an economic crisis in the so-called Tiger countries of Asia - even Hong-Kong is affected by it. But so far, India's economy has remained sound. Of course there are drawbacks: the Rupee is not yet fully convertible, subsidies drain the Exchequer, import duties are still levied on many goods... However this partially insulated economy has helped India to protect her own industries, while switching gradually to a fully liberalised financial system. Thus, if that tremendous amount of black money could be tapped, it would also contribute towards changing this "poor" image sticking to India, which is harming her in her quest for foreign investments and international recognition.

China too had a very negative image until the late sixties : the Red menace, the communist Dragon, the great Backward leap... But after Nixon's visit in 1971, everything changed - that is the Western Press, which was responsible in the first place for China's negative image, started projecting a more positive picture of China. It also helped, that contrary to Indians, the Chinese are proud of themselves and possess a strong nationalistic bend - maybe because they have never been colonised, except for short periods. And today, there is not only a fascination for China in the West, but the Industrialised World has also placed many of its economic chips there. France, for instance, invests 10 times more in China than in India. Yet, India is a much more interesting country from the investment point of view : it is democratic, which China is not; people there speak more English than in China; it has laws to protect contracts, which is not the case in China; it is a stable country, in spite of the political problems and all kinds of separatist movements... But still, the world hardly takes notice of India - although things are beginning to change. And that is because of India's negative image, of course ! And nobody is more responsible about this negative image than Indians themselves. India has to stop going around with a begging bowl in her hands. For India does not have to beg : it has the material and intellectual wealth - it has even the monetary resources