I didn't read the article. I get what it might say.

But why fault someone for their honest observations? Isn't it true that Mumbai is polluted, dirty, crowded and with people relieving themselves? The person is missing the positives of Mumbai completely, of course. But the excerpts you've posted are nothing but the bare unvarnished truth. We should learn to face up to it, and fix it, not pillory someone who's using it to feel better about himself.

Have you read "Shantaram"? I've heard it's a very entertaining book, with some honest observations about India and Indians. This post reminded me I must borrow it from my cousin soon.. She loved the book.

As far as poor people are concerned, China has a fair amount of poverty too; but the international opinion on China is far different than that on India. It all depends on the way you market yourself. From the very beginning, our leaders from the Nehruvian era portrayed India's "holy poverty" while China promptly tried to put up a more polished look. Its the same with countries like Malaysia and Singapore which opted for westernization (and subsequently cities with pretty looking skylines) as opposed to India's idea of self-sufficiency (and hence slow progress and poverty).

But then again, India is not evil like China which promptly disposes off all its poor into the countryside to woo Westerners into making an impression on the country by just looking at Beijing and Shanghai. We don't hide our poverty or fail to acknowledge that there is a fait amount of it in our country.

I wonder of this writer was black or hispanic if you would have had the same outrage.

Nania after reading your post on this website, plus what you have on your personal blog, I have noticed that there seems to be double standard when it comes to whites and people of color. It just seems like you hold white people to much higher standard then when you do to some one of color.

If I have misread what you are trying to say in this and other posts, then I apologize in advance.

The person is missing the positives of Mumbai completely, of course. But the excerpts you've posted are nothing but the bare unvarnished truth.

Arjun, I don't think Naina is positing this as a true/false problem (and correct me if I'm wrong, Naina, I don't want to speak on your behalf). Yes, poverty, traffic, people relieving themselves, etc. all exist in Bombay and other parts of India. Yes, it's icky, to put it broadly. But what makes Parson's column dubious is his seemingly simplistic and judgmental world view. He could have written his column in a much more intelligble manner, but hey - the man LOVES binary oppositions. India: traffic, shit and train deaths. America: it takes a little longer to get the laundry done. India: bad. America: grrreat! That's wonderful that he loves America, and especially his little corner of the OC, but his world view just seems...limited! I mean, come on, how the hell are you going to compare LA TRAFFIC against anything else?! I've driven in LA plenty of times, and yes, it's taken me two hours to go 15 miles.

And the thing is, it'd be one thing if those reading his lovely OC column were all englightened, worldly people. I'm assuming they are not. It's from reading columns like his that people start saying, "Well, you know, in India everyone shits on the street and goes to work on the roof of a train." Somehow the "unvarnished truth" becomes...broad generalizations.

And don't get me wrong, it's not like these papers aren't publishing articles that do highlight the more "positive" aspects of life in India, whether it be about IT, BPO, education, or just everyday life. But those authors tend to be much more invested in their work and more knowledgeable about South Asia; this guy is relying on e-mails from a cousin on a business trip.

I don't know, it'd be interesting to see something similar in reverse. "You know, I was just about ready to leave Mumbai for good, but then I got an e-mail from a cousin living in LA. He said that it took him three hours to go 30 miles today, and on his way to work, cars violently zoomed in front of him, several men and women gave him the middle finger - the American symbol for the big F - and a couple of people even called him a 'camel jockey' because he was apparently driving too slow. On top of that, the city is too poor and careless to build a public train system that works. All hail, Indian Railways, jai jai Laloo Prasad Yadav! I love India!"

As for Clueless' anti-white insinuations...I'm not even going to go there...lest some older ladies want to throw the big R at me again :)

Dana's article is about perspectives. I guess that's valid, except that it's a pretty lame perspective about Bombay. Maybe his cousin lived in Singapore or Luxembourg; that might explain why they got so freaked out about stuff in Bombay.

The article itself is hardly original. We've heard it before.

But here's a REAL perspective on Bombay from a true Mumbaikar. It's sort of nostalgic and fantastic at the same time. The best part is where he says it will always be a poor man's city. That's the real message: Bombay is what a Mumbaikar makes of it. Check it out!

Busybee on Bombay
.

Parsons:

At the moment, though, I'm having some second thoughts. I'm feeling a weird wave of something that adults might call "perspective." In other circles, it's described as liberal guilt. I'm so guilty that when I tell people where I live, I quickly add that it's "in the poor part of Newport Beach." Which means the apartment complex was built in the '70s.

I think that says it all. The point of the article isn't to say that America is better than India; didn't you notice that tiny little nod to American poverty with the reference to child bathing in cooking water? The point is that Parsons is a liberal who realizes he consumes at a certain level, and this makes him feel bad. Boohoo. Except instead of delving further into his initial reflection on American poverty and his consumption in relation to it (because this might be something he can actually DO something about), he falls back on his cousin's e-mails about the difficulties of life in India, and his guilt takes on a new, easier-to-deal-with, global form. He compares each of his cousin's e-mails with some aspect of his life, and can easily bask in the guilt because there really isn't anything he can do about it.

But finally he does come around to America with this winner:

Here at home, I've been complaining lately to friends about the direction America is taking and why nothing — from institutions to the social order — seems to function as well as it once did. These complaints come as I'm sitting in my rocker, looking out over a tranquil grassy area in the complex and trying to decide whether to watch TV, listen to a CD or take a walk to the ocean.

He ends up reflecting on his own guilt and the way it manifests, and he feels even more guilty about this... SO WHERE'S THE ACTION?

So no, it's not about how America is better than India, although the liberal mush-mush sure makes it come off that way in parts - mainly due to the omission of the fact the same patterns of consumption exist in India as well.

And yes, one does need to own up to everything that's messed up about Bombay, India, South Asia, whatever.

But this article isn't about any of that. It's all about Parsons' guilt about his consumption, but how he's content to feel guilty about it, feel guilty about the fact that he feels guilty and does nothing, but still do nothing.

Vivek..well said!

I wonder of this writer was black or hispanic if you would have had the same outrage.

I haven't read naian's blog- but I have noted that you (& others) have made this claim before about the different standard that "monolithic hegemonic" group 'the white people' are held to on this blog. Fair enough- I am anti hypocrisy. However it's naive- fallacious even, to pretend that we don't carry conceptions about 'who' can say 'what' based on skin color.

It's all about Parsons' guilt about his consumption, but how he's content to feel guilty about it,

I think you hit the mark, Vivek.

It's not news, it's a think piece. Why does Dana Parsons need to be stopped? Unless you're arguing for a different perception of India (which you can find in almost any magazine these days too), nothing his cousin described is untrue. I think a more interesting question is why these facts of life in India exist at all and what iif anything is India going to do about it?

a certain college basketball team that’s going to rout Florida on Saturday

had to comment on this.. GO UCLA (yes, anything PAC-10).. naina, i'll be at all the final four .. don't you worry... brother bean and i have our gear, spirits, and cheering voices ready!!!

and about the article..
animals, human excrement, and nakedness is true india? right? (sarcastic tone of voice)...

i think parson's is either just extremely bitter that his dhobiwala washed his clothes wrong, or he just doesn't get india (traveling in general) and the overall 'true beauty' of the country and other 3rd world countries who have similar situations in some of their cities/towns...

mr. parsons is likley used to staying at the ritz, having a chauffer, and having a bell at his bedside to notify his butler...

I find nothing wrong with the article.

But I have a simple question for the blogger. What do you think about Deepa Metha or Satyajit Ray's movies (and people of their ilk). Even they make movies that helps the westerners feel better. :-) Afterall they are just writing or showing the true colors of India (or rather part of the truth)

sorry chick pea, UCLA is going to lose on saturday, should be a great game however, i'm a UConn fan, so i really can't say much seeing that they don't deserve their under-the-table range rovers; couldn't even make the tourney this year.

pertaining to the article, Vivek's assessment i feel is accurate.

spam alert in #10. plagiarism for profit - uncited internet articles, lots of google ads. click only if you want to earn dude some money.

haha, very true, altho after looking at his blog, i feel you might be a bit harsh, its blogging! YSS seems pretty cool, i may just have to check it out, thanks vivek

Why does Dana Parsons need to be stopped?

Because it's propaganda, because it's published and circulated, because he's paid to write this kind of stuff -- spin included-- and because he's not giving us the whole picture about his cousin's stay in India. Why doesn't his cousin just walk the short distances to his meetings? What deals is this cousin making, and will those business relationships he is building benefit or damage the people whose adverse living conditions he so nimbly descries?

a certain college basketball team that’s going to rout Florida on Saturday

Thats not going to happen. In fact it better not happen as I just took the lead in my work bracket :)

I am looking forward to the duel between the 7 footers.

My prediction: Florida versus Ohio State in the finals.

Winners: Florida.

The fact is that most, if not all, westerners who travel to India are going to be struck with the poverty thing being in your face. That's understandable --- even I on my first visits to India was upset by it.

But I managed to see beyond it too.

Recently a journalist for The Times, a very right wing, conservative British newspaper, visited India for a business conference and wrote about his week long visit. He didnt write about the emerging economy in his piece -- he wrote about the pity and horror he felt at the poverty he saw, with an undertone of chastisement for Indians for being oblivious to this.

I had a few emotional responses to his piece --- but just to summarise a couple of them. First of all, to live amidst all that kind of thing you have to steel yourself against it to a certain extent, otherwise how could you function if you broke down at every girl in a ragged dress who tugged your trouser for a few annas?

Secondly, I thought, welcome to the real world baby! You sit in London and pontificate on the rest of the world, living in a city that functions smoothly, one of the richest and most priveliged and prosperous classes of people in existence, in a nation that has statues and memorials to colonialists and built its wealth on the exploitation and theft of resources from India and Africa, you don't have to deal with and relieve every day layers of backwardness and cruelty and poverty, you live a cocooned life where poverty (true poverty) is an abstract, and when you finally see all that, your response is to displace your pity onto the easily essentialised 'indifferent' Indian masses, whom you can chastise for their obliviousness to what surrounds them, whilst you get to fly back to Heathrow first class and take a taxi back to Kensington, safe in the knowledge of your ability to judge those who live with it every day, who have to think of strategies to alleviate it every day, who have to deal with hundreds of years of entrenched social mentalities --- all the while as making money and bread to feed their own children and prevent them falling downwards in a society without a fat welfare system whilst you have the luxury of smugness and disassociation and even your pity and sympathy (but certainly not any displaced guilt, right?) is of a higher type. And ultimately, his article was about him, the higher minded Englishman, and his shock and distress.

But it put a thought in my mind. Some right wingers in Britain and I suppose America too, are suffering from a collapse of self esteem, and are a little insecure in their skins, what with multiculturalism and immigration destroying western society and all that. Let's start a poverty safari for them to India where they can have a look around, become revified in their racial and cultural superiority at the sight of even educated Indians 'indifference' of the poverty they are uniquely sensitive and acute to, before sending them back emboldenced in the knowledge of the wily orientals innate fatalism and indifference to the poor and their innate superiority, where they can then shut their eyes and because it's not in their face feel safe and secure again.

Red Snapper,

Tell all of your disaffected friends to read all about it here and here.

Wow vivek! Who needs satire when the truth is already beyond satire.

Could be lucrative to target the right wingers whose self esteem is very low and are feeling insecure though --- special tours especially for them --- a trip to Lagos or somehwere in the 'dark' continent would do crisk trade.

The name of the company? 'Hearts of Darkness'

We'll make a million, I'm telling you.

Because it's damaging propaganda, because it's published and circulated, because he's paid to write this kind of stuff -- spin included-- and because he's not giving us the whole picture about his cousin's stay in India.

So the article is propaganda? Which cause would Parsons be promoting? And who decides when to stop publishing and circulating whatever we don't like?

Good luck getting the "whole picture" about India in any one article (or novel, or essay, or film, or play, or painting, or song). Thousands have tried for years and never done it -- that's part of the beauty of the place.

Self-criticism is the anti-dote to judgmentalism. It is embarrassing that these countries can't take better care of their poor. Yes, I understand that the west has reaped massive monetary rewards from the east. It's certainly not black and white, but it is reminder that while these orientalist fantasies of western writers are sometimes painful, they are not necessarily inaccurate and ultimately some of the old traditions (a la Water) need to be left in the past, and the current governments of the east must continue to build their economies, not at the expense of, but for the benefit of the poor as well.

It's funny how some Westerners complain about immigrants not adapting/attempting to integrate to Western society, but when they go visit "third world countries" they find it acceptable to judge the countries from a Western perspective, instead of trying to understand that it's just cultural. It should work both ways: every country has its own identity in terms of values and such. Don't judge, but try and understand/accept to a certain degree.

#2, Sourav said:

From the very beginning, our leaders from the Nehruvian era portrayed India's "holy poverty" while China promptly tried to put up a more polished look.

The who with the what now? China in the 1960s was not exactly trying to present a "polished" image to the West, what with the Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, and the rest. India, meanwhile, was trying to build a socialist economy and doing pretty badly at it. India's current progress came when it renounced its Nehruvian economc policies, not because of them.

Speedy

sorry chick pea, UCLA is going to lose on saturday

My prediction: Florida versus Ohio State in the finals.

Winners: Florida.

DAMMIT.. is it just me, or do others want to also cut the ponytail off of noah's head? (maybe it can be like the sampson effect)
;)

it better be ucla.. i'm winning my office pool at the moment...and want to take home the $$$$

the beauty of the final four.. is the unpredictability..
i have hope...

in then end: 3 great games... fun atmosphere..and good times.

Hey man, Mumbai's cleaned up. Some. Enough that condescending articles like this should be outdated. Has anyone walked around the non-political side of the DC area recently? Ask me who HASN'T pissed on the side of a car. Or tried to sell me a VCR. Eff this, I should write a startling political commentary on the "horrible living conditions" in this savage American wasteland.

"There are animals everywhere. Common to see congressmen lying in areas by the road. I don’t know how they survive, but I’m told politicians are sacred and you watch out for them. There are lobbyists wandering through the streets. We saw several naked people. Not always children. Several relieving themselves. Our driver pulled over near 7-11 area that I took to be a crack den. I got the camera out and was ready to shoot when we saw that the driver was holding it up...."

Mwahahahaha. Watch yourself, Parsons, I installed MS Office on this muthafucka and I'm not afraid to use it!

Naina is right. This personal makes-me-feel-so-better drivel doesn't belong in a reputable newspaper. Gross overgeneralization. There's a blog called www.subcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com written by an American woman diplomat living who similarly with a magnifying glass looks for anything bad to say about Mumbai. Borderline racist too - " Indians eat where they shit ", " My pregnant 14 year old Indian secretary ", " India hasn't seen feminism ". Such people are nothing but making themselves feel better. Sometimes I wonder if they are living in and reporting from the same city as Manish. Another thing I have observed is that these people are usually so called progressives or liberal Whites. What an irony? Someone pointed out rightly in India we don't hide our poverty like in America's inner cities, where I bet Dana Parsons and the woman diplomat blogger has never set foot in and which they have to shamefully confront only when something like Katrina flushes it out. Still do read the blog I mention - pure hatred and racism disguised as personal experience.

Some right wingers in Britain and I suppose America too, are suffering from a collapse of self esteem, and are a little insecure in their skins, what with multiculturalism and immigration destroying western society and all that. Let's start a poverty safari for them to India where they can have a look around, become revified in their racial and cultural superiority at the sight of even educated Indians 'indifference' of the poverty they are uniquely sensitive and acute to, before sending them back emboldenced in the knowledge of the wily orientals innate fatalism and indifference to the poor and their innate superiority, where they can then shut their eyes and because it's not in their face feel safe and secure again.

Vivek, I agree and disagree with your assessment. You're right -- there's nothing constructive, no call to action here. But I still think that the article is really about asserting Parsons' racial, cultural, and economic superiority, as red snapper suggested. I think Nagasai also observed it nicely:

He could have written his column in a much more intelligble manner, but hey - the man LOVES binary oppositions. India: traffic, shit and train deaths. America: it takes a little longer to get the laundry done. India: bad. America: grrreat!

And chickpea, I'm jealous! I was actually routing for you and the Trojans last weekend against North Carolina -- they almost had it, but then they had to choke at the end and Tim Floyd drew that technical foul --- grrr.

To the naysayers: Mark my words, Joakim Noah will be crying on Saturday.

And chickpea, I'm jealous! I was actually routing for you and the Trojans last weekend against North Carolina -- they almost had it, but then they had to choke at the end and Tim Floyd drew that technical foul --- grrr.

To the naysayers: Mark my words, Joakim Noah will be crying on Saturday.

i was so sad... but we gave unc a run for their NC arse.. at least the hoyas showed them..
and i was happy to take texas out...

down with the gators..
go BRUINS..

There's something very revealing in this thread: Vivek's point of departure is the wealthy liberal and Red Snapper's point of departure is a right winger and yet, both Vivek and Red Snapper arrive at the same place. The poles, as reflected by the dominant parties in the UK and US, are much closer than the noise suggests. Ascetic hippies and right wingers as bedfellows, what a strange world.

That's considered a newspaper column? It reads like someone's stream of consciousness blog post or whinging email to a friend, without the benefit of either thoughtfulness or substance. I can't believe the LAT printed such execrable writing, period. The parts about Bombay are incidental.

#27 was me, my bad.

Naina, Why don't you write a letter to the editor of LAT(if you haven't already). Not that it would result in anything.

She forgot to mention in India we also hang Hindus from hooks for Holi.

Naina, Why don't you write a letter to the editor of LAT(if you haven't already). Not that it would result in anything.

i beg to differ on the 'not that it would result in anything'

write.. see what happens.. you may be in for a surprise...
naina: you should write... you never know.. (my theory on life in general).

That's considered a newspaper column?

Seriously. I don't read the LA Times but I've heard about the Tribune Co. and Dean Baquet fallout. Is this what readers can expect under the Tribune?

"One other thing," my cousin writes to conclude one e-mail, "When the trains are full, it's OK to sit on the roof. I asked our host if people ever fall off. They said deaths from this are reported daily."

So the article is propaganda? Which cause would Parsons be promoting? And who decides when to stop publishing and circulating whatever we don't like?

Good luck getting the "whole picture" about India in any one article (or novel, or essay, or film, or play, or painting, or song). Thousands have tried for years and never done it -- that's part of the beauty of the place.

Not the whole picture about India, you silly fsowallah, I'm talking about the whole picture about Parsons'eff-ing smug cousin's own condition, treatment and purpose in India. The article Naina linked to is definitely propaganda because it is one-sided, intended to harm, designed to damage and otherwise interfere with the growing public perception in America of India's new position as an emerging economy engaged in a powerful post-colonial recovery. We can certainly voice objections by traditional means, i.e., with letters to the Editor. If this fails, and this sort of thing continues, we should bring this journalistic mischief to the attention of Desi groups that are already suitably positioned to sue, as additional provocations worth suing about for sizeable damages.

The article Naina linked to is definitely propaganda because it is one-sided, intended to harm, designed to damage

That overstates the case. It doesn't have to be "designed to harm." Many people confuse the facts with the truth. And there's a human habit of selecting the facts to suit our prejudices.

The truth might contain those same facts, but you know the difference when you see it. It's not really about showing both sides of the argument or anything so direct (the argument might have a dozen sides). The facts, after all, can also be balanced, but that doesn't make them the truth. And its not about showing the totality, which is impossible.

But you know the difference when you see it. But its useless trying to argue someone into seeing that difference.

There's a blog called www.subcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com written by an American woman diplomat living who similarly with a magnifying glass looks for anything bad to say about Mumbai. Borderline racist too - " Indians eat where they shit ", " My pregnant 14 year old Indian secretary ", " India hasn't seen feminism ". Such people are nothing but making themselves feel better. Sometimes I wonder if they are living in and reporting from the same city as Manish.

Damn straight, chowkutta, she's not living in the same Mumbai (formerly Prince of Wales Museum Bombay)as Manish, who. e.g., knows people. Ms. Esquivalence obviously doesn't. AKAIK, desi people generally invite fancy foreigners to parties etc., excluding many diplomats, so probably leave Ms. Equivalence off their lists as well. I've a feeling she positions herself far above people who don't throw parties.

Naina, Why don't you write a letter to the editor of LAT(if you haven't already). Not that it would result in anything.

Naina, you said this is not a call to action, but why not? Numbers count. Those of us who object could post our objections to the LAT-- just give us the word.

as others have pointed out, there's a way to write about a country's faults/flaws and there's a way not to. two articles can contain the same facts but be received differently - tone, choice of words etc. i'm not surprised this is the la times. their previous india correspondent paul somebody used to write articles that sometimes somehow felt a bit dubious and slanted in their tone. it was hard to pin down at times, but there were definite trends in types of sources he used (who he quoted) within india etc.

and i agree that you run into this attitude of "boy, i'm so grateful i was born where i was" more often from liberals than not. it's a sort of lazy "get out of jail free" explanation for their more privileged lives. "yes. it is terrible that people live like that, but what can I do, i just happened to be born here not there. i care about them, of course, but there's not much i can do about it." this pretence at caring is worse than just not caring at all.

when are these closed-minded people going to realize that it's not a life of lower standards people are living in in different country. it's a totally diffrent culture.

My cousin wrote later that a traveling companion says Mumbai has made tremendous strides in recent years. Like the country as a whole, it is striving to redefine itself.

ugh. what a punk.

amrita, you and anyone else are free to write to the LAT. :) I'm thinking about writing a letter to Dana Parsons myself.

"a country's faults/flaws"

just to clarify, i don't think everything qualifies as negative. i have no problem with people mentioning snake charmers or colour or spices or animals in the road - all true of india - if they are handled adroitly and well written about.

Yeah, it's a silly article.

I don't care for primitivism, whether it's white on brown or brown on white*.

*Oh, look Americans put their parents in nursing homes when they are old. We don't do that. We are a more spiritual and enlightened culture, we watch Cricket, we don't eat McDonalds.... (oh, wait, Siddhartha already went over this in his little Tharoor New York Times critique.

**Right-wingers are averse to some types of immigration because they are culturally insecure? Good grief. Some are, some aren't. Quite a nice broad brush there. Musn't do nuance.

***Can't say SM's not equal opportunity anti-silliness :)

****Newspapers, in general, are very poor these days. Why such poor writing, and complete dullness? Thoughts from Siddhartha and Saheli if they happen to be reading? Like, that Walter Reed story is years old. I mean, every doc has a VA/gov hospital story. It's as old as the hills. Is it all just social advocacy and re-typing press releases and 'here are my poor delicate feelings poured out in a column, read my beautiful prose you stupid proles' these days in journalism?

Yeah.. I took the time to read this article and it really doesn't say much about India.. It is more about the writers guilt for his lifestyle, so it is more about environmentalism than it is about India.. Within the whole article there is only two or three sentences describing India, and it doesn't seem "sensationalist" it seems pretty accurate of what India can be like..

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this article at all. I think the article really sheds light on perspective that we often lose in this country. How many times have we complained about a 30 minute commute...think of those in Bombay who have an hour and a half commute.

Every time I go to India I'm left with a newfound appreciation of the way of life here in America. I'm not saying that life in India is horrible--but the comforts we take for granted are brought to light when compared with life there..

How about this - http://www.slate.com/id/2107063/entry/2107071/ ? stole this from Sepia.

Right-wingers are averse to some types of immigration because they are culturally insecure? Good grief. Some are, some aren't. Quite a nice broad brush there. Musn't do nuance.

Yes some of them are suffering from insecurity and project 'multiculturalism' and immigration as a cause of the coming downfall of western civilisation --- SOME of them being the operative word. That's the nuance if you can't see it.

73-57. Sound familiar? That is a rout. Whatever the outcome of Saturday's game, I assure you it will not involve UCLA "routing" Florida. I might also venture to point out that while you lost one of your key players last year (who, by the way was rendered completely ineffective versus Florida), we are returning our entire starting line up. The same starting line up that spanked ucla in the final. So GO GATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In way of other comments, while I disliked the "nose stuck up" tone of the article, I can't help but say that some of those observations are the same ones playing over and over in my mind every time I visit India. Only rather than a non-desi disdain for it, I feel overwhelming sadness. On my last visit in November, on the 15 minute car ride from my Uncle's home to the New Delhi airport, I witnessed 4 different people relieving themselves in public. I want to be clear that I am not picking on homeless people that may not have any other options. The thing that really bothered me was that these individuals were well dressed young college students and/or business people. They were clearly not "slum dwellers" or "street people". The saddest sight of all was the last person I saw: an elementary school aged boy all dressed in his private school uniform. I thought to myself that if all this kid sees everyday is reinforcement that such behavior is acceptable, then the cycle continues. I get tired of seeing people with not enough pride in their country or environment or themselves, to take such business to an appropriate venue. On another trip, I was at a university campus in Jodhpur and witnessed this behavior from a college kid with books in one hand, backpack slung over his shoulders --- in the middle of a freaking tennis court. Please don't tell me that the nearest restroom was too far....ugh.

on the whole though, even if the article is a little clunky and awkward and forcefitting in structure, i think the author is well-meaning in that he's saying there's a lot more to really complain about in this world and many people have it much rougher. ( i don't always buy into this argument because human nature is human nature). but i sometimes wish they would write articles from the other way around - people who have it much tougher in countries like india sometimes react much better (some because they just have to and some because they just do) to situations than people who are have it easier (as in Katrina). that could have been another lesson learned from his cousin's observations.

Naina (or others upset with Parsons):

Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the India Shining articles, like say this Time piece?

dipti wrote:

It's funny how some Westerners complain about immigrants not adapting/attempting to integrate to Western society, but when they go visit "third world countries" they find it acceptable to judge the countries from a Western perspective, instead of trying to understand that it's just cultural. It should work both ways: every country has its own identity in terms of values and such. Don't judge, but try and understand/accept to a certain degree.

So it's a 'cultural' thing to have animals walking the street, naked poor people, and civilians urinating on the side of the road? I don't understand your argument at all. They weren't judging it from a western perspective...if anything, it was from a valid public health perspective.

The notion that this reporter should have to accommodate hurt feelings in the Indian diaspora by modifying or ignoring the truth is at once scary and funny.

I like how one commentator contrasted western expectations of assimilation to cultural norms to westerner's revulsion at the lack of basic hygiene in third world countries. Yes all cultures may have equal value in the sense of their moral teachings, but no they are not all equal in the level of practical development i.e. lifespan, quality of life etc.

If the part of Indian society which is living at near first world levels is given a free pass by the rest of the world, they will have one less incentive to help their less fortunately compatriots rise out of poverty.

Gazsi

Well, to be fair to the author and the LA Times, this piece really isn't offered as journalism but as column subtitled "One man's reality check." The Mumbai descriptions barely occupy three short paragraphs and aren't really the point of the whole piece. Yes, the take on Mumbai is silly and unsophisticated, but this column is just a little column. Who cares? And the description of Mumbai cannot be said to be inaccurate . . .

Mr. K. how can you know for sure that it's useless if nobody says anything? This is not about seeking truth, it's about deliberate imbalance.

Within the whole article there is only two or three sentences describing India, and it doesn't seem "sensationalist" it seems pretty accurate of what India can be like.

People dying everyday sitting on top of trains is accurate? This was the image from Gandhi. And he hasn't seen anything else about India after that. The image of India is from the 40s. He needs to wake up.

Re: #47. i've seen well-dressed young men in the. u.s. relieving themselves in public, (not drunk), even though there must have been a public bathroom somewhere nearby and the subway had a urine smell (and i don't think it was all homeless people). i'm also surprised by how much people spit while walking here. in india of course, there's paan spittle and other spittle, but i was really surprised by how many well-dressed people, usually men, i see spitting openly in public here.

If the part of Indian society which is living at near first world levels is given a free pass by the rest of the world, they will have one less incentive to help their less fortunately compatriots rise out of poverty.

The Indian bourgeoisie can be motivated into alleviating poverty because they will be shamed by foreign journalists writing about mangy dogs and beggar children --- good idea!

Hey Chowkutta #24,
That blog IS pretty bad. I wonder why must she endure such horrors! Biting on every level.

Alas her effort to 'share' her world will likely be irrelevant - Mumbai will be what it wishes to be - great and crap at the same time. Easy to trash it, and India, and easy to forget that a subcontinent (not just India, but Pak, Bangladesh), strip-mined of its wealth, confidence, and assurance over long 250 yrs will take time to recover.

Preston, he could do his reality check right in LA. Otherwise, the inconveniences he puts up with in his middle class life in LA might properly be compared to inconveniences that middle class Mumbaikers cope with. This is just an update of "eat you vegetables for the starving poor children in India," which was a colonial fairy tale. Somewhere in all of this there is an inherent denial of other underlying truths alrwady cited above-- that people are that grindingly poor in India because the British worked long and hard to suck the place dry and that recovery is hard too, plus the United States we are all living on land and resources seized from indigenous peoples, etc., etc....

Yeah also what is up with this being Indian culture thing ? Like someone said before, animals walking on the streets, long commutes, nudity and poverty are now considered Indian culture ? Being poor and dirty is Indian culture ?

The Indian bourgeoisie can be motivated into alleviating poverty because they will be shamed by foreign journalists writing about mangy dogs and beggar children --- good idea!

Sadaiyappan if it takes 'shame' in front of foreigners to do something about poverty then nothing will ever be done about poverty -- it's naive to think that that could be an incentive, (and kind of funny in an old school way like how the family patriarch warns disobedient children that if they don't listen to him he'll tell everyone about their misbehaviour and bring 'shame' to the family!)

Amrita, I can't agree that people are grindingly poor in India because the British worked long and hard to suck the place dry, that's too reductionist. There are so many factors that contribute to poverty. And the British colonizing India doesn't excuse or explain people urinating on walls. From what I see in Kolkata every day, some of it is lack of available facilities, much of it is plain laziness, and yes, it's culturally acceptable. Does that mean I don't notice it or excuse it as acceptable behavior? Of course not. I think it's deplorable. The government has set up public toilets in the city, but near where I live there's basically a piss wall that most men from all walks of life in the area know about and use(it's also where a garbage truck dumps trash to be picked over by 4-5 ragpickers every day.) I see that you think Parsons is intentionally damaging, but like Mr. Kobayashi, I think that's going too far.

Focusing on one aspect of a country doesn't automatically mean deliberate imbalance. The truth has many faces.

I would be interested to see what Parsons says if you write him asking for a more balanced (and positive?) piece on India.

I am an immigrant in America. I really love this country and its people and I can be very critical of India and Indians. I don't shy away from faultfinding among my own but please be objective. Preston, reducing Bombay to what this writer has, is in fact inaccurate, more pointedly it's a lie. It's like saying New York City is all about in-your-face homeless people, muggings and people's pets' urine steaking all of its sidewalks. I am an Indian trying to get ahead in an industry where there are hardly any other Indians or people of color. Lately I have begun to do quite well but anytime an article like this appears, I get defensive and also a false sense of inferiority complex overcomes me. I start thinking what the people around me are thinking about me, once they have read such an article - " he comes from India where people live like animals." I don't even come from a wealthy family in India but I haven't ever felt a sense of " material culture shock " in America. When I read such crap I want to give everything up and go back to India to be with friends and family I left behind and maybe live in a city that I always wanted to - Bombay - a city that pulses with life like no other city in the US except for maybe New York. That will be a slap in the face of people who think like this writer. But I am caught in a vicious circle of my own making - going back without having made it big here will have such a sense of self-failure, specially when I am so close. I am not here because I coudn't bear India's stench.

I always though the british helped India to modernize.. Look at what they did to Honk Kong.. Maybe if we had not declared Independance India would be a much nicer place right now..

Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the India Shining articles, like say this Time piece?

Manju ol' pal!!!! How the hell are ya!??

I'm skeptical of the India Shining series of articles that came out last year. I feel like both strains of contemporary journalism on India - both of the poverty voyeur / horrified white person genre as well as the India Is On The Rise variety - are fundamentally dishonest, exaggerating and sensationalizing one or another aspect of what's happening in a tremendously complex part of the world. Two sides of the same coin, in a lot of ways.

I may not agree with all that the article says but in most part I find it an accurate representation of the facts. Mumbai is a filthy, stinking, hell-hole.

To all the high-brow intellectuals on this board who are spewing pages defending Mumbai's unique charm, I ask you to take a trip to Andheri east. There, nestled among back-office sweat shops are entire fields of human excrement. From my hotel room window at 6 am I had a ringside view of humans lined up 100 deep shitting straight into the mouths of pigs who were eating the shit as it came out. Needless to say I lost my appetite for the entire week.

London was a slum until the 19th century. Have they forgotten that England was largely wretched when they were busy colonizing the rest of the world? Charles Dickens? William Blake? Economic growth is occuring in Asia alongside poverty. Poverty will persist, and that wont make the very real growth a failure as some are alleging now.

I have no problem with journalists writing about the poverty in India. But I do have a problem with Parsons' relying on a cousin's email to paint the picture. How accurate is it to say "There are animals everywhere"? What impression does that create? Why not say "Stray dogs and cows are a common sight." And what about this:

We saw several naked people. Not always children. Several relieving themselves.

Why not just tell us that a large percentage of India's population does not have access to toilets?

And this:

When the trains are full, it's OK to sit on the roof. I asked our host if people ever fall off. They said deaths from this are reported daily

Is it really OK? It sounds like the people on the roof are sold tickets too. And are deaths reported daily?

I went to India in 2005, mostly Tamil Nadu, and I didn't see a single naked adult, nor anyone sitting atop any of the trains.

This is shoddy journalism. And yes, Preston, this piece is supposed to be journalism, even with that subtitle. It would be different, perhaps, if it was a letter to the editor or a blog post. But it's been written by a three-times-a-week columnist, who has to be held to high standards.

Hi Naina,
when was the last time you went to India? I grew up there, and unfortunately I don't share your sense of outrage as I have seen all the above mentioned stuff...so please save your sense of outrage till you have actually spent some time there and gotten down from your ivory tower in new jersey or wherever!

"Focusing on one aspect of a country doesn't automatically mean deliberate imbalance. The truth has many faces."

true, but most people dont' take kindly to it. what about americans going on about the french and not bathing (based on truth i guess). not sure the french appreciate that. what about americans who go on about the awful state of british teeth (i've seen it). not sure the brits like that. there are fewer excuses in the first world for smelly, dirty, unhygienic people with poor teeth, in my opinion.

appearances can be deceptive. i read an article by a british journalist complaining about the cramped, sweaty smell of a mumbai train and he insinuated that some of them hadn't bathed. well, maybe that's because the water supply is dicey and many of the people riding with him live in slums and the train is overcrowded. what excuse is there, then, for the well-dressed but smelly people i've had to endure on the not so crowded subways in the u.s. and the tube in london, especially during cold weather when a lot of them seem to bathe only every other day or every two days. what about all those outwardly nice looking homes on tree-lined streets that are absolutely filthy inside (just watch that tv show with those two cleaning women) inside? not even a slum person in india would have their house looking like that. dirt huts in india and africa may look poor from the outside but inside, the floors are swept clean. i've yet to see a dirty homeless person in the u.s. bathing in the river or trying to clean themselves. but in india poor people or rural people will try to clean themselves in rivers, ponds, lakes. so would it be ok for me to write a column based on my observations of people on subways in first world countries and of them on tv programs on cleaning houses and come to the conclusion that a lot of the "poorer hygiene" in first world countries is actually hidden behind fancy clothes and houses and perfumes? it wouldn't be a deliberate imbalance on my part, just one face of truth after all. (and this isn't so much to do with parson's article but just a general response)

Hey Gabe, have you read Naina's earlier piece on this columnists other article? She raises some great points.

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004276.html

when was the last time you went to India? I grew up there, and unfortunately I don't share your sense of outrage as I have seen all the above mentioned stuff...so please save your sense of outrage till you have actually spent some time there and gotten down from your ivory tower in new jersey or wherever!

I grew up in India for 21 years. And I definitely share naina's outrage. I have not seen people dying everyday on top of trains or naked people on streets. And no I did not grow up in an ivory tower in India.

Is it really OK? It sounds like the people on the roof are sold tickets too. And are deaths reported daily?

Well, it is certainly not OK, it is dangerous and stupid. There are plenty of warnings and sign boards put up by the authorities asking people not to do stupid things. But the trains are always overcrowded and carry 5-6 times their capacity (I think) during rush hours and you cant just leave the train if it is crowded and take the next one, because then you will have to wait for 3 hours. On an average about 15 people die daily in the Bombay suburban tracks. Many people die while crossing tracks as they are not fenced and not out of bounds and many people die because they simply fall off trains. People climb on windows and hang on with their fingers between the narrow ridge used to collect rainwater and let it flow from the front, between two compartments and sometimes almost on top . image. People hanging from doors sometimes with just one hand and a few toes on whatever tiny space is available at the doors can fall off if they lose their grip. Some times they are struck by the electric poles which are too close to the train and people are hanging too far out.
Having said all this, the local trains are very punctual, very frequent, very cheap and run almost 24 hrs ... from around 3:30 AM to 1:30 AM or so. It takes a huge disaster, natural or man made for the trains to come to grinding halt.

Also I think that this situation is totally unique to Bombay local trains and people from outside Bombay are usually in total 'shock and awe' when they witness this magnitude of humanity cramped in such a small place.

Amrita, I can't agree that people are grindingly poor in India because the British worked long and hard to suck the place dry, that's too reductionist. There are so many factors that contribute to poverty. And the British colonizing India doesn't excuse or explain people urinating on walls. From what I see in Kolkata every day, some of it is lack of available facilities, much of it is plain laziness, and yes, it's culturally acceptable.

fsowalla, what have you been reading? Here's something for you, and do try Macaulay's Minute on (Indian) Education of February 1835. BTW, lack of "available failities" is lack of funds for plumbing-- would you very sweetly spring for public toilets all over india? Then we can all start programs for teaching everybody to use them!

Re. 55, oh I totally agree - the problem is by no means an India-only situation. But from my experience, it is a much more frequent occurrence there (in broad daylight), with passersby not even registering disgust/anger. And let's forget about police issuing citations for indecent exposure ...

What Parsons wrote in his article is just the same things I hear from EVERYONE that I've known who has ever visited India. I work at a company where people travel around the world looking for products. They go to other 'third' world countries like Nigeria, Thailand, Vietnam, etc and yet the least favored country to visit is always India. They site the overcrowded streets, the lack of hygiene and shabby public facilities. It's gotten to the point where people are taking turns having to visit India while they will gladly go to any of the other countries on their itinerary, despite the inconveniences. It's extremely embarrassing. Could it be that we just tend to tolerate these things because we're Indian? I think we just rush to make excuses for it instead of dealing with it.

So writing that in Mumbai there are naked poor people forced to defecate out in the open among wandering livestock is beyond the pale? Last week in New York, I saw a middle-aged, obviously middle class white man peeing between two parked cars, not twenty yards from Park Avenue. He had pulled back his blue blazer to let it fly. I assumed that he had some medical condition that prevented him from waiting until he could find a proper toilet.

I also assume that if the citizens of Mumbai had the means, they would clothe themselves, and if the city's infrastructure were better, they would have a proper place to pee. This doesn't seem to be a holdover from the Raj but more obviously the fault of corrupt and useless government at all levels.

Preston, why doesn't it seem to you to be a holdover from what you call the Raj?

What Parsons wrote in his article is just the same things I hear from EVERYONE that I've known who has ever visited India. I work at a company where people travel around the world looking for products. They go to other 'third' world countries like Nigeria, Thailand, Vietnam, etc and yet the least favored country to visit is always India. They site the overcrowded streets, the lack of hygiene and shabby public facilities. It's gotten to the point where people are taking turns having to visit India while they will gladly go to any of the other countries on their itinerary, despite the inconveniences. It's extremely embarrassing. Could it be that we just tend to tolerate these things because we're Indian? I think we just rush to make excuses for it instead of dealing with it.

They go there with prejudices induced by Lonely planet guides which every westerner think is the bible for travelers. After reading it they try to find evidence to match what was written in the guidebook, not the other way around. People see what they are looking for. And this thing about least favored is wrong, because people talk bad about India even before visiting it, even before getting know. Surely, India has its problems, but then why go to India and stay in a 50 cent/night hotel and then complain about shabby rooms? Why don't they spend the same amount that they would spend in US ($35/night). For the same $35/night they get the same quality in India too, but no they won't do that. If they do that then they can't spin stories as to how disgusting it was.

Thanks for the links. I'm not debating Macaulay and his ilk's role here. My point is that poverty in India today is not only explained by British colonial policy. People were (and are) grindingly poor long before the British arrived.

As for pissing, what can I say? The government of West Bengal has installed over 328 sanitary marts in rural areas of 2004 (their data). They have also built public latrines in Kolkata. The money is there, don't let people tell you it's not. Various social sector departments in the government are in fact always looking for ways to spend their portions of the budget. In the slums, I've seen that people actually do a remarkable job of separating the latrine areas from where they live and eat (probably because they also live there)-- it's in the better off areas that one sees more public urination onto walls along sidewalks. Again, that's one of the realities on the streets here.

Hello - I just found this Website while I was doing some research for a business travel to Bombay next month. I have to admit that had a different impression of the city, because my associates tell me it is the most modern and most wealthy city in India. But I am wondering if it is not true? Do many people really use the restroom on the street? - should I have any vaccinations before I travel?

Surely, India has its problems, but then why go to India and stay in a 50 cent/night hotel and then complain about shabby rooms? Why don't they spend the same amount that they would spend in US ($35/night). For the same $35/night they get the same quality in India too, but no they won't do that. If they do that then they can't spin stories as to how disgusting it was.

Exactly. I stayed in a hotel in Hyderabad which was around ~$40/ day, it was far better than what you find anything in US for the same cost. In fact, the ~$110-150/ day hotels in Delhi, Hyderabad are absolutely fantastic. On several occasions, I have been with other Americans, they themselves wanted to move to cheaper ones because they thought that $35-40/ day were just fine.

Sure, India has huge problems. Foswalla and Preston, please read Kennedey (from Yale) and others, and compare the GDP of India before British colonization, during, and after. A country that had series of famines (Bengal and others) mostly by man made causes, is heavily populated, had all most all its natural resources diverted to distant lands to build war machine for His/ Her Majesty cannot be expected to be "sparkling clean and chic" like Singapore.

Also keep in context, the size of America and India (three times smaller), and population difference. If you crowd America to the same level, you will see shit all over, no kidding........just like Mardi Gras. Also, remember, Katrina showed that even the most powerful countries can be very vulnerable and indifferent to poor.

How could it be a holdover from the British colonial project? India has had over a half-century of self-rule. At some point, India's problems are just India's problems. This is not to say that there are not pervasive structural problems, an overburdened and decrepit infrastructure, environmental degradation, the failed policies of external agents like the World Bank and the IMF, extreme government corruption and sleaze--all of which create a vicious trap for the poor, making it difficult to escape. But not all of India's cities face the scale of Mumbai's horrors. Plus, there are other major cities in the world with problems similar to Mumbai's, and which did not suffer under a colonial yoke, or just not in the same fairly recent way. The woes of the world's megacities are well known, well documented, and well studied (read anything by Mike Davis, for example).

I grant that India was placed at a severe disadvantage by colonialism, but the reality of life in Mumbai in 2007 results from more recent factors, not least of which is that the city has never really had a functioning government. Someone above mentioned Tamil Nadi as a counter-example. TN is one of India's best governed states. It provided for the victims of the tsunami better than the American state and federal governments did for the Katrina victims in New Orleans.

Some parts of India are doing well enough, all things considered. TN was the Madras Presidency for a good long time.

Preston, I generally agree with things you post here, but its kinda naive to think that the economic effects of two hundred years of colonialism can be overcome in about sixty. I don't have the time to go over it here, but the institutional legacies of colonialism still linger and actually have a very long lives in terms of affecting the incentives of political and economic actors. Such congealed/ossified institutions and their effects are very difficult to get rid of as institutional economists (Douglas North, Pranab Bardhan and actually Thorstein Veblen before all of them) have demonstrated.

As far as poor people are concerned, China has a fair amount of poverty too; but the international opinion on China is far different than that on India. It all depends on the way you market yourself.

It may have something to do with elevated skin melanin levels too.

They go there with prejudices induced by Lonely planet guides which every westerner think is the bible for travelers. After reading it they try to find evidence to match what was written in the guidebook, not the other way around. People see what they are looking for. And this thing about least favored is wrong, because people talk bad about India even before visiting it, even before getting know. Surely, India has its problems, but then why go to India and stay in a 50 cent/night hotel and then complain about shabby rooms? Why don't they spend the same amount that they would spend in US ($35/night). For the same $35/night they get the same quality in India too, but no they won't do that. If they do that then they can't spin stories as to how disgusting it was.

Why do you assume that they aren't staying at the finest hotels? The company does put them in the better hotels. However, they do have to visit factories and vendors to look for goods and it's everything they see outside that they talk about. Men urinating or defecating on the streets is not a complaint that they make about Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh City.

My co-workers are also people who come from all walks of life. Some of them from poor backgrounds and all races/ethnicities. They're hardly ignorant and I doubt they all simply read the Lonely Planet books to get a view of how the world is supposed to be.

Oh and by the way, there's a reason most of Chicago's alleys smell like urine. I mean, granted, we're "flyover country", and so therefore might as well be in Mumbai to readers of the LA Times, but I still think that's relevant. Anyone shocked, SHOCKED by public urination clearly hasn't spent much time in any big, non-automobile dependent city anywhere in the world.

Well here it is, Preston. The British did not build a plethora of public loos in India before 1947. They did however build public loos in Britain during the same period. In addition they left the country in a shambles, with a ruined economy and out of date industrial facilities (they stopped capital investment into manufacturing and other sectors as soon as they realized they would have to leave-- years before Independence), so public toilets, which had gone wanting for centuries weren't top of the list of necessary remedies. You must be aware that the infrastructure after Broitish withdrawal did not allow plumbing in any part of any Indian city to work 24/7, let alone share water supplies to support a network of public facilities. The infrastructure had to be rebuilt on tax rupees, and prioritized under multiple demands and stressors . As you note, the complexities of restructuring megacities are collosal, and sixty years is not very long, considering the damage the British Occupation did. Repairs to plumbing and the fabric of civilization will no doubt accelerate, just not in time for writers like Dana Parsons to have nothing to report. Bags no newspaper here will want to publish your story about the guy p[eeing between cars on Park.

fsowalla, enjoy Macaulay! He's so totally outrageous. You know the rich people won't share their facilities, and nobody installs public loos in Alipore, as everyone's supposed to go in the houses' servants' quarters or such, or not be there at all, as if the streets were private or people were to just hold it in. But you are saying that loos have been built and are being properly used. The money is thwre now, boosted with IT generated tax revenues, but it wasn't before. Re British, Victorian London had pretty poor people and lousy public facilities too, only their lot improved as Indian people's got worse. The societal and mental scramble the British left behind was another impediment-- World Bank and WTO policies carrying that tradition forward I grant you -- but it's impossible that
people were as grindingly poor before the British occupation, if only because almost all Indians became poorer under the British, and those who were poorest to start with obviously had the least effective defenses against seizures, extortions, and other aggressive means of deprivation. don't forget, traditions of indigenous craftsmanship were systematically undermined-- and what else was there in a pre-industrail society, other than subsistence farming?

Paulina, one should always get vaccinated, even in Texas.

Sadly, I must do other stuff but wait for tech support on the phone the rest of this afternoon...

Kush, rather than compare India and the US, let's compare cities with equivalent populations in both countries (not perfect, but better than using Mardi Gras -- would be slightly more accurate to compare that to, perhaps, Ganesh Chaturthy or Durga Puja). Can these differences be explained solely by the British legacy? The yoke of colonialism can't across the board explain the individual decisions taken by politicians, or for that matter, the average citizen in matters as large as public spending or as small as urinating on the street.

"Re. 55, oh I totally agree - the problem is by no means an India-only situation. But from my experience, it is a much more frequent occurrence there (in broad daylight), with passersby not even registering disgust/anger. And let's forget about police issuing citations for indecent exposure ..."

go gator, i'm not making excuses for those in india who have access to amenities and who indulge in this sort of behavior or making excuses for poor governance in india. whether in the u.s. or india, there are poor people who are much cleaner and wealthier people who are not. i just think there are fewer excuses for a reasonably well off first world person to be urinating in the street or have a filthy house or not bathe for two days and then ride the subway or for there to be really filthy homeless people when there are so many amenities and social services available to them that are not available even to some middle class neighborhoods in india.

people write that westerners are shocked when they go to a poor country like india and see the dirt, filth, poverty outside of five-star hotels etc. i am more shocked that 95 percent of the people at my fancy five-star college gym in the u.s. have zero personal hygiene, no respect for others, sweat all over the equipment and do not wipe it as required to, allowing the sweat/gunk to dry and the next unsuspecting person uses it or doesn't even care enough to wipe it before using it (when all these amenities are available and signs are there telling them to do so). i am shocked by a female friend's stories of the fancy bathroom in her corporate building, where well-paid, well-dressed women have zero hygiene and leave the toilet in a disgraceful state for the next person. all this may be out in the open and shocking in india, but it's hidden and just as shocking here in its own way, especially in more seemingly upscale surroundings. as katrina shows, it doesn't take much for filth to accumulate and people to fight over bathrooms when order and law and things and amenities break down. the veneer of "civilization" and "civility" is very thin.

Why do you assume that they aren't staying at the finest hotels? The company does put them in the better hotels. However, they do have to visit factories and vendors to look for goods and it's everything they see outside that they talk about. Men urinating or defecating on the streets is not a complaint that they make about Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh City.

My co-workers are also people who come from all walks of life. Some of them from poor backgrounds and all races/ethnicities. They're hardly ignorant and I doubt they all simply read the Lonely Planet books to get a view of how the world is supposed to be.

I am not assuming, you are. You are assuming everyone who visits India are sent by the company. Go to www.travelblog.org and go to lonelyplanet(and similar guidebooks), read blogs about Bangkok or Ho chi Minh City(and India and the other "third world"). India is not the only country they talk bad about or good about.

And as far as Lonelyplanet, it is the highest selling travel guidebook in the world. So don't tell me people don't read it before they travel to the "third world". It is the bible for backpackers and travelers.

And importantly, I never said "all" or "any" westerners are ignorant, as a matter fact i never said anything about ignorance. And I also said India has its problems. I said people go with prejudices and they see what they look for. And they look for what travel guidebooks tells them. Till there is a travel guidebook fair and balanced you will be having these type of articles.

Can these differences be explained solely by the British legacy?

No, not at all.

Sure, India has a significant share of failed policies, and corrupt politicians are in legions post 1947. But they do not come out of vacuum. A country that is cash-strapped, and is handed over broken infrastructure is a perfect breeding ground. It makes itself a prime place for misuse of limited funds, and rampant corruption.

A country that had series of famines (pre-47), could (not) barely grow enough food to feed its people, was simmering with religious strife, mess due to partition, empty coffers the time British left in 1947 - remember, all this with British muck-ups - should be not be expected to be avant garde, and with designer toilets every 10 steps in few decades later. The immediate problem in India was to even grow even grains to feed not making toilets in 1940s-50s-60s-70s, periodic wars with Pakistan and China.

It did not have Marshall (or Marshall like) Plan that guided the recovery of Germany, and Japan. Keep the size in mind, and populations, when talking about India or China.

As late as 1991, India was on the brink of loan default because they hardly had foreign reserves. India was on a brink of bankruptcy.

Regarding toilets, and public urinations, for most part, they are hardly clean public toilets in India - the key word is clean, and therefore, people prefer open spaces. This all requires resources, and casholla, which is only starting to trickle by in last 5 years or so. It has long ways to go.

My point is: discounting hundred of years of total rampage of India by British, and expecting India and similar countries to jump start as becoming Soho of East (or whatever) is either a sign of dishonesty or limited intellect or both by anyone who claims that.

Can't resist (still on hold for techies)-- public spending is directly related to going on the street. No issue bigger or smaller here. If you won't read Paul Kennedy first hand, fsowalla. here's a one sentence synopsis from an article in the Herald Tribune: "According to the Yale historian Paul Kennedy, India accounted for about 24.5 percent of world manufacturing output in 1750, a share that fell to 1.7 percent by 1900 as the per capita level of industrialization declined sevenfold."

Kush: Katrina showed that bad governance is bad governance. Maybe instead of engaging in India vs America tit for tat, which is silly, conterproductive, and the product of a kind of insecurity (if you are confident in who you are and what you are doing, you simply address the problem at hand, not others perceptions of it. I'm talking to both sides here, since you can't do comment on one without the other), we should be aiming our comment 'sallies' at the inept in government.

but i dont' this discussion is about addressing the actual problem, which is really impossible for people on a blog to do and if we're to address it all to those in government, why comment on a blog at all then? i think this discussion is about people's perceptions of the problems they encounter in other countries and the conclusions, right or wrong, they draw from them.

Red Snapper: I didn't see the some, obviously. Sorry.

I dunno, it was the right-winger that threw me off. Why not just say the right, why be derogatory? And the last time I checked, it's the left that goes in for safari chic, not the right. It's the left that goes in for all this, look how bad I feel about the world, I must be a good person. Why drag the right into it?

We are talking about the poor citizens of Mumbai not having suitable toilets and so having to squat on the street. Surely, even given the degrading legacy of colonialism, lack of investment in infrastructure, sectarian strife, currency devaluation, terrorist attacks, famines, wars with Pakistan, and every other woe--that the Mumbai city fathers could summon the political will to install some plumbing. This is not rocket science, nor is it the Israeli-Palestinian question. We're talking about PVC pipe.

Uh, my last comment deleted, huh? Okay. I'm done.

Preston, this has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine! Are you not grasping what Kush and others are saying? Before you go any further about toilets in Mumbai, first tell us why you think all the Katrina damage has not been repaired yet.

Amrita, I get what people are saying. My argument is that in 2007 Mumbai suffers more from bad government than from colonialism. The same is true of New Orleans (which was at times a Spanish and French colony).

Amrita#98,

I think your pleas are falling on deaf ears. People see what they want see, I think it is as simple as that.

well, isn't that the point of a blog? naina can be offended by something, and others can either agree or disagree with her. i personally have no problem with india shining or india not shining or whatever, because there's truth to both. it all boils down to taking individual articles on a case by case basis. you react viscerally badly to some and have no problem with another article that essentially says the same thing but in a different way. this guy's column wasn't the most insightful but it wasn't the most offensive either. however, someone posted a link to article where a Canadian woman on Fox said Pakistanis should be more worried abou their hygiene (in relation to the cricket murder). In reading the several letters in response to this article (at least at the time that i did) i didn't see a single letter taking her to task for that particular statement. They were more worried about some past false rape charge she had made and her comments on the Duke rape case and taking digs at Fox or comparing her to Ann Coulter etc. Perhaps there are letters now addressing that particular statement, haven't checked back. But that comment seemed to raise nary an eyebrow from letter writers.

Now, if I went on my own personal experience here, and extrapolated that and said that Americans with a similar socioeconomic/educational background to mine should worry about their poor hygiene instead of some other newsworthy issue, and then proceeded to talk about some other topic as well, I wonder what the letter writers would respond to?

*sigh* brown, you're right.

Here's the letter I sent to the author of the article:

Mr. Parsons:

I understand your point about perspective and it is a valid one. Every time I go back to India, I too gain a sense of gratitude for the luxuries I take for granted in America. However, as an Indian, I found the way you made this point -- by describing India as a land of shocking filth and squalor -- to be patently offensive. The same point could be made by noting how India's rural dwellers, comprising 70% of the population, lead lives of happy contentment without any of the benefits we take for granted like electricity or plumbing.

Preston, if New Orleans was a French and then a Spanish colony, is it now an American colony?

Amrita, I'm really not sure what we are disagreeing about or even if we are disagreeing at all. The citizens of both Mumbai and New Orleans deserve better treatment from their governments. I get all the historical stuff about India. I just don't think it's the primary force in consigning a poor resident of Mumbai to poverty.

Okay, let me explain... if New Orleans were returned to the Apache-Choctaw et al in its pozt-Katrina condition, would it be all fixed up in sixty years?

Sorry Naina: just finished chatting with another SM'er and didn't realize what has been happening in comments for the past several months while I stopped commenting. I am genuinely sorry about my last remark. It must have come out very mean spirited to you or the SM intern, and I soooo didn't mean it that way. Where are animated emoticons when you need them?

Cheers.

MD, no worries. Thanks for clarifying. I'm over it. :)

Parsons or not. India is close to putting man in space. Yet Mumbai has more fashion designers than public toilets.

Anyone, anyone, how are the McD facilities in Bombay?

Okay, let me explain... if New Orleans were returned to the Apache-Choctaw et al in its pozt-Katrina condition, would it be all fixed up in sixty years?

Let me add another way.

Katrina happened for few hours in a densely populated center in USA in August 2005. It is far from recovery 2 years later - with local (New Orleans), state (Louisiana), and Federal Government (yes, Federal too besides FEMA) all failing, and still continue to fail. This is in the most powerful nation, and one of the wealthiest, and with most robust infrastructure, and planning (Please MD note, I am complimenting Amrika).

A million Katrinas happened in India for nearly 24/ 7, 365 days for 200 years - slow neglect and starvation - one expects them to bounce back just like that.

A few days ago, in Palestine, some people died to sewer PVC burst, and that caused flooding. Do you think, sewer and PVC is top priority in Gaza and West Bank right now, Preston when they are bigger demons to fight. It is question of priority, and limited resources. Till now, India too had (still has) bigger demons to fight than clean public toilets. In fact, China was known for horrible public toilets, and are only now doing major, major overhaul, since they have the cash now.

No bucks, No working flush. It really comes to that.

Sure, I am not giving corrupt politicians a free pass in India.

You are complimenting Amrika and also complementing Amrita.
Alas, fashion designers and spaceships cost less than a big city's worth of clean, working public toilets, even with PVC piping.

Yes red snapper, a sense of shame might motivate the "bourgeois" (what are you, a communist?) to help their countrymen.

One article might not make a difference, but if they feel the general opinion of conditions in their country is negative, they may realize there will be 1) fewer tourists 2) fewer business travelers 3) less investment.

Gazsi

Has anyone walked around the non-political side of the DC area recently? Ask me who HASN'T pissed on the side of a car.

I gotta admit I've pissed on a few dumpsters in DC alleys in my time. One time in particular I was relieving myself when I saw a giant rat scamper by, then witnessed a hooker getting into a gleaming white SUV at the end of the alley. Then some guy walked up behind me, saw what I was doing, then told me he "just wanted to watch." Ah, the pleasures of the first world.

(what are you, a communist?)

No, not a commie. What are you?

Yes red snapper, a sense of shame might motivate the "bourgeois" to help their countrymen.

Do you think so? I tend to think that using the concept of shame as a negative impulse to motivate anybody to do anything is retrogressive and doesnt really address the root reasons for inaction or the speed at which efforts at alleviating poverty and the causes of it, which are manifold, deep rooted, and complex in origin can be changed.

Why not just say the right, why be derogatory?

Sorry for being derogatory about right wing people or thinking.

And the last time I checked, it's the left that goes in for safari chic, not the right.

OK

It's the left that goes in for all this, look how bad I feel about the world, I must be a good person. Why drag the right into it?

I'm sorry for persecuting the Right into it.

Kush Tandon, I understand all that, but it's hard to get my mind around this:

Till now, India too had (still has) bigger demons to fight than clean public toilets.

This goes directly to the heart of Mumbai's demons. It's a public health concern, it's a quality of life concern, it's a human dignity concern. If Mumbai can have swanky designer boutiques, western fast food franchises, luxury car dealerships, and the costliest commercial real estate in the world, then surely the city's economic base is firm enough to warrant some spending on public works, or on some hybrid public/private initiative, or some other solution.

But the problem is never the money. New York city was bankrupt and crumbling in the 1970 and 80s, and it had all the luxury you would expect. But it had rife government corruption, inefficiency, and the lack of political will to solve even the most basic of public problems.

I just don't think contemporary Mumbai has any excuse for the squalor that a huge percentage of its citizens is forced to accept as normal. The colonial legacy is still there (I never said it wasn't)--but what demons are bigger than the health of the children of workers who are driving the city's economy? If the government can't deliver even the most basic of services after 60 years of self-rule, what's the point?

There's really no way to be from the First World and not be assaulted viscerally by India's cities.

Nothing Parson's cousin wrote couldn't be found in Mehta'a Maximum City. Except Mehta got beyond that because he had some human stories to tell. Parson's observations were hardly the Orientalist nightmare some people are making it out to be. Little less than half of Bombayites live on the footpath. Good management alone won't cure Mumbai's problem. Poor villagers come from UP, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnatakka by the thousands daily, to stake their claim and overburden an overburdened city. Just like my people did Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta are magnets not just for investment you read about in The Economist but also for the country's poor. My family's been in Mumbai for generations. On visits I always think how much better living condiitons are in my family 's ancestral villages for the middle and lower classes than the city by the Arabian Sea.

Miles of flyovers were built in Bombay in the 90s. Don't tell me the priority couldn't have been more basic public facilities.

"It's a public health concern, it's a quality of life concern, it's a human dignity concern. If Mumbai can have swanky designer boutiques, western fast food franchises, luxury car dealerships, and the costliest commercial real estate in the world, then surely the city's economic base is firm enough to warrant some spending on public works, or on some hybrid public/private initiative, or some other solution.

I just don't think contemporary Mumbai has any excuse for the squalor that a huge percentage of its citizens is forced to accept as normal. The colonial legacy is still there (I never said it wasn't)--but what demons are bigger than the health of the children of workers who are driving the city's economy? If the government can't deliver even the most basic of services after 60 years of self-rule, what's the point?"

Well said Preston. Your's are the clearest and most rational posts here. Too many others, Kush, Amrita et al, are playing the blame game or the finger-pointing game that indians have become masters at. Enough excuses already.

Other nations were colonized as well. Yet people coming from places like Vietnam, Phillipines etc are also shocked by the squalor and wretchedness of India.

Large cities are prisms that concentrate and refract the multiple realities of the regions or countries in which they are situated. The broad, immaculately scrubbed, tree-lined thoroughfares of Munich or Hamburg speak volumes about Germany and the Germans, as do the rambling but equally pristine back-streets and alleyways. The lush exuberance of baroque architectural masterpieces loudly proclaim the Latin love of art and beauty in places like Rome, Mexico City, and Madrid. But the vast expanses of grey, cinderblock housing-projects on the peripheries of these cities also describe societies sharply divided by class.

Indian cities are intransigently sui generis, a case apart. They speak of a country and a people precariously balanced atop the quadruple pillars of crass ambition and abject despair, haughty pride and grotesque decrepitude.

Red Snapper,

The entire system of checks and balances in enlightenment descended countries depend on a properly functioning independent media to verify claims and unearth wrongdoing and transmit any findings to the mass public. In human social networks reputation is perhaps the most important resource to be had. It is the collective opinion of the masses that cause things to get done. It may be true that the inhabitants of India don't feel a sense of shame when exposed to the daily stimuli of poverty filth and deprivation because they have become acclimated, and a foreign perspective on their situation might be what they need.

Addressing root causes. Well who is going to address these causes? Government? NGOs? Again it's the mass action of the people that gets things done. Germany and Japan were both bombed to the point of not having any functioning cities or infrastructure. Within a generation they were back up and running. Contrast west and east Germany. The cultural, scientific and moral capital of the masses are more important than any steel, gems, or oil.

Gazsi

For the nth time (since no-one is remotely getting what Kush and Amrita are pointing out): They are pointing to a universal tendency, viz., that poorer people generally get the short end of the stick, be it in India or the U.S; the difference is in magnitudes. Governments are far more responsive to the bourgeoisie (and its silly to question and impute motives and ideologies to those who use the term,since it is merely descriptive). Until recently, bourgeois participation in local Mumbai politics was minimal, hence nothing much got done in terms of improvements in the living conditions of those living in the slums (Suketu Mehta makes a similar point in Max. City). When the local bourgeoisie start getting interested, you will see a change; in fact it is already beginning to happen: there are plans afoot to "transform" dharavi (stay turned for an old fashioned 'class war').

Other nations were colonized as well. Yet people coming from places like Vietnam, Phillipines etc are also shocked by the squalor and wretchedness of India.

Gazsi: Not having the experience to rule oneself, or having forgotten the feeling of being in control, is part of the reason here. Colonialism, by the Mughals and then the British for 300 years, means not just a loss in material wealth, it affects the mentality of the colonised in far-reaching ways that take time to heal. The concept of responsibility for one's own society and country is lost. I will say that it's gradually building up, because democracy has that effect. So I'd keep my fingers crossed.

Germany and Japan have always been in control of their own countries and destinies, except for the World War aftermath years, so comparing them with what India has achieved post-Independence or the state of India today is not valid.

I agree that its Indians' responsibility to clean up our own country, and there's no two things about it. But Rome wasn't built in a day. A society recovering from hundreds of years of colonialism, a society that is highly class-based (you won't see upper classes urinating in public), but still a society that is deeply democratic (for the most part anyway) and committed to democracy will take time recovering and learning to govern itself. Till then, its in poor taste for Westerners to taunt Indians about their failings. They may do it if they like, but it shows them in very poor light. I was the first commenter to this post, btw, and as you can see, I don't completely disagree with you. But I'm saying it's a matter of time. The United States was also a fairly filthy place to live in in the 1800s, I believe.

Regarding toilets, and public urinations, for most part, they are hardly clean public toilets in India - the key word is clean, and therefore, people prefer open spaces.

Shall we blame the british for this inability to even keep the few toilets clean?

Or for this:

On an average about 15 people die daily in the Bombay suburban tracks.

After all the railway system is a british legacy. The brits have been gone for a long time. Its ridiculous to continue to blame them for India's inability to provide even the basic services like sanitation, water, food to its citizens. Like Preston wrote:

This doesn't seem to be a holdover from the Raj but more obviously the fault of corrupt and useless government at all levels.........India has had over a half-century of self-rule. At some point, India's problems are just India's problems

and a foreign perspective on their situation might be what they need.

I doubt a foreign journalistic perspective will throw greater light on atavistic social inequality, oppressive structures, and the exploitation that contributes to the poverty endemic in India any more than the insights and fruit of the free press, activists, politicians, writers of India themselves. As a source of 'shaming' society to change --- well, 'shame' is probably one of the manifold issues that prevent transparency and honesty in many Indian social constructs in the first place.

Things like improving infrastructure and the environment to make the atmospherics and quality of life of Indian cities (and the poor) more attractive to foreign investors is motored by the prospect of money -- the great eye opener and truth teller in the global market place. The gears grind slowly.

Well who is going to address these causes? Government? NGOs? Again it's the mass action of the people that gets things done.

Well yeah, that's obvious.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IC31Df01.html

"A combination of incompetence and corruption produces staggeringly poor governance across South Asia, resulting all too often in political upheaval that produces cosmetic rather than comprehensive reforms. While the morass is almost entirely political, it does extend into other areas, including sports and even the performing arts, giving rise to the notion of a broader cultural malaise."

"Clues of what really ails the body politic across South Asia can be found away from the arena, namely in the areas of sports and popular culture. South Asian films are notoriously awful to watch, at once unoriginal, insipid and predictable."

"The region has recorded no progress in the world of sport since the mid-1980s, mainly because of bureaucratic lethargy and a culture of indifference."

"Much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the people of South Asia, whose tolerance of mediocrity knows no bounds. The cultural reverence for seniority all too often extends to the world of sports and films, and has been well captured by politicians for their own benefit. In other words, someone is appointed a minister or captain because of his age rather than any particular performance credentials.

This is why politicians indicted for corruption claw their way back to the mainstream in record time, feats that are impossible in any other part of the world. They have the company of poorly performing sportsmen and actors, who are backed by millions of the faithful even if results are virtually absent for years at a stretch. Any attempts to reform this status quo are met with resistance from vested interests, who use the threat of external factors to keep their jobs. In any event, respect for seniority makes meaningful reforms a difficult task."

"A lack of choice is a wonderful thing, be it in politics, films, music or sports, for it helps to maintain the status quo admirably for otherwise hopeless individuals. South Asia cannot hope to crack through the barrier of growth dividing it from China unless this comfortable equilibrium is shattered. An indicator of how soon this will happen can be found by tracking the progress of these countries in the sports arena, whether one counts soccer, field hockey, athletics or even the more elitist disciplines of cricket, golf and tennis. Using that metric, China has nothing to worry about for a while."

I think Mumbai will probably always be the way it is now. In all likelihood, things will only get worse. By 2050, India's population will be approaching 2 billion according to the Census Bureau.

The who with the what now? China in the 1960s was not exactly trying to present a "polished" image to the West, what with the Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, and the rest. India, meanwhile, was trying to build a socialist economy and doing pretty badly at it. India's current progress came when it renounced its Nehruvian economc policies, not because of them.

Speedy

My only point is that from the very beginning our approach was such that we perpetually pinned the label of "poor, third-world country" on ourselves, even though other countries in Asia aren't much different.

Amrita, Kush, sigh! -- I do get your points. Really. I just don't believe that the inquiry should stop there. Of course the colonial legacy will last (and that legacy itself doesn't exist in a vacuum -- there are various types of colonialism, with different methods of excluding or including local populations. Amrita, your attempted comparison to giving back New Orleans to the Apache-Choctaw is not really analogous, maybe if they were included in certain governance roles, incorporated into an Apache-Choctaw civil service, etc. It would be interesting to see the results.) There's no magic number in terms of how long it takes to triumph over the legacy of colonialism, but Preston and others have a point: it shouldn't be an excuse for governance failure of the kind you see in too many Indian cities, particularly given the level of opulence and "progress" you find there simultaneously. Fine, I can accept the premise that when the bourgeoisie get interested you'll see change, but why is it that as I mentioned earlier, it's the bourgeoisie that's often urinating on the walls? These questions aren't taunts, I think they need to be asked directly and honestly, and answered without resorting to apology.

it's the bourgeoisie that's often urinating on the walls? These questions aren't taunts, I think they need to be asked directly and honestly, and answered without resorting to apology.

oh and one final thing. The point of naina's entry/posting was to point out that the writer of the aforementioned column was not really seeking to gain any understanding of the issues we have been discussing here; he couldn't be buggered. His motivation comes through loud and clear as many posters have observed. Now there are serious journalists who actually try to understand; we just don't see a lot of them since they do not generally conform to the prejudices of many targeted/intended readers, and as such do not make great copy.

Hungry Wolf,Preston and Sathya. that was some vigorous prose up there! You have hit upon a realization I couldn't have hoped for, i.e., colonizers are less than mindful of the dignity of the indigenous people whose lands they colonize. Sobering up now, say 6 million people, out of more than that number now living on the streets of Mumbai, use the loo no more than four times a day-- that's 24 million flushes -- and not enough water to drink! Yet housing and toilets for all Mumbaikers may well be accomplished, maybe even in our lifetimes, unless global warming washes Mumbai right away first!

Food ! Water! Shelter! These are the some of the priorities that come before public toilets. Lest we forget, Harappa had water-borne sewage removal systems for the entire cityvery long before those proud cities cited above, Munich and Hamburg, had even arisen, let alone developed their slop bucket system. Can you imagine what six million people look like? Consider, if you will, that eight million people live in all five boroughs of New York City! So --sea water for Mumbai's public toilets? steel toilets? sewage in sea? If you know how, don't be shy- make a plan and send it to the city fathers! But remember you;re up against the wise guys at McKinsey and what they have to say about how Mumbai should be developed. Not your ideas at all!

Then, please take a look at the facilities Benjamin Franklin arranged at his own house.

Briunna, try getting everyone of European descent back in Europe for one weekend and see what happens to the sewage systems.

Well, I have to hand it to the author of the article (Dana Parsons). He got back to me very promptly (see my letter to him, comment #103). This is what Mr. Parsons had to say:

That's an interesting point, because in an earlier column I did on a California professor who went to Nepal to help with child slavery, he made the same point. I guess, for my local readership, the point was to contrast from our perspective how different life is... regards dana parsons

Newspapers, in general, are very poor these days. Why such poor writing, and complete dullness? Thoughts from Siddhartha and Saheli if they happen to be reading?

I wasn't, but I'm catching up. And I'm avoiding this thread as well as several others where the conversation isn't very productive. HOWEVER your question, MD, stands on its own merits. Assuming we are talking about print dailies in the United States market, basically, as far as I can see one problem is that they aren't investing. That's because they're not making enough money. No one has figured out yet how to make money sustainably in mainstream print media under the current commercial and technological conditions. Clearly more and more of the people who would pay for quality news are getting their news online, which moves the question to how do you make money in online media. That one hasn't been solved either.

I think the basic problem is dispersal: I get my news from a ton of different sources and I find it to be perfectly good quality: there are writers I trust, critics who interest me, etc. But they are scattered across many papers in many parts of the country or for that matter the world. Online tools and habits make it easy -- indeed by this point second nature -- to collate all this stuff every morning as I read various sites over my cup of coffee. But if any one of these sources became inaccessible to me due to a fee barrier, I really wouldn't miss it. There are too many alternatives. That's why the NYT's TimesSelect thing won't work. No one really needs that content all that badly given the alternatives available.

What's unfortunate about this is that unless you have a major brand you can still trade on to soem degree (NYT, Washington Post), and/or unless you get some kind of unexpected windfall like the McDonalds widow gave to NPR, you can't invest because advertising revenue is declining and you haven't figured out a new way to make money. Reporters and editors work under tough conditions at your average paper. Editors in particular are swamped and under-resourced in equipment, writers, etc. Pay for staff writers and freelancers is low. The whole supply chain is under stress. Quality is bound to decline.

Alternatives? One way is to go niche -- specialized content for a specific market that "needs-to-know" what you deliver and therefore will pay for it. Otherwise, the usual: more automation, more consolidation, outsourcing of as many services as possible, cross-platform integration with other media, and integration into larger multi-industry conglomerates where the paper can operate at a lower revenue target, etc. None of this is particularly satisfying nor breeds much confidence about the industry's future. Ultimately the whole news, information and knowledge industry is undergoing a massive structural transformation and no one knows what will result.

India should host the olympics..Then all the sanitary problems will be fixed like in China- more toilets, no spitting in public, and an education campaign. Olympics are the answer to everything.

I think Mumbai will probably always be the way it is now. In all likelihood, things will only get worse. By 2050, India's population will be approaching 2 billion according to the Census Bureau.

Briunna, I don't know where you got the 2 billion number from, but population is just one factor. The major factor is money. Japan, for instance, is one of the most densely populated countries (some 300 million people in a state the size of California, is it?), but no one would in general complain of filth and public urination when visiting.

Japan population is 127 million as of July 2006 not 300 million.

The responses to any mention of India's failures run the gamut:

1. Denial and Delusion: "They only see what they want to see. Mumbai is awesome. India is shining"

2. Fragile egoism: "Why do they have to print negative articles about India? It gives me an inferiority complex. What will my friends and co-workers think about me now? We should sue anyone who writes bad stuff about India."

3. Finger pointing: "So what? Every country has the same problems. I saw a guy peeing in LA just the other day. And what about Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans? Huh?"

4. Blame colonialism: "Them lousy brits robbed us blind for centuries. It will take centuries to recover."

Come on guys, lets get real. Other nations have endured worse trauma and recovered rapidly. Vietnam was not only colonized, it also suffered massive devastation in wars against the French colonials and America. It is still poor but visitors aren't shocked and shaken by its poverty. Heck even visits to India's equally poor neighbours Sri Lanka, Nepal and Pakistan do not elicit the horror that a visit to India does. There is absolutely no excuse for the degrading conditions 100s of millions of Indians are forced to live in.

OK I have to really wonder whether an experience of colonization is necessarily a recipe for poverty and third world status.

Hong Kong is a good counterexample. So is Singapore.

Whether or not India benefited from colonization is debatable but it can't be used as the sole reason for the current situation. The inertia of the entire history of the subcontinent must be taken into account.

While condemning sensationalism and primitivizing, I would say that the situation in Mumbai and in India in general due to LACK OF POLITICAL WILL. Indian democracy discourages leaders to be visionaries and promotes short term populist thinking. Democractically elected leaders have no obligation to be visionaries and take a tough stance on anything, instead it is in their interest not to do so.

Malaysia isn't doing too badly either. Or look at Sri Lanka. Despite the decades long civil war it is still way ahead of India as measured by the Human Development Indices:

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-by-human-development-index

There are numerous former colonies ahead of India in that index. Including Gabon, Guinea, Indonesia, Phillipines...

I think its the tone of how this is noticed and said. If its said with a sad kind of resignated tone of inevitability and ineffability (of said national character) that is one thing. I am struck by how much of what turns out in the end to be totally transient is thought at one time to be absolutely essential to a given national character. Maybe 150 years ago, the Irish national character might have been presumed to be unalterablyy negative, for instance in the English mind. And now, we have the Celtic Tiger fast and rightfully changing that image. And also genetic data suggesting there are few if any differences at all in Ireland versus England, apart from social-structural-economic-historic. And similiarlt for China.

What is bothersome of this article is not the observation, but what is done with the observation. Anyone can observe what is right in front of one's face in many Indian cities. But what it means about "them" and "us" is the key indication. I would agree that this article is quite problematic

On the Raj and the responsibility it played in the current condition in India and the Commonwealth as a whole, I think this question is a serious one and requires serious investigation. For one thing, the kind of uber-corruption in many of the Commonwealth countries itself may be in part of result of the raj. In part. No one with agency, as India today has agency, should harken back to a time when there was no agency for all the appropriation of blame. Clearly, the problems in India are now in the hands of Indians, and have been for long enough time. This does not discount that the raj itself was a large distortion in the indian national trajectory. Distoration does not imply neccessarily in what way, just that the "curve" of where "India" was going was in changed by that time period

Also, as has been pointed out, its probably useful to keep in mind the cholera epidemics that racked London until it was discovered the source was contiminated drinking water from the more poor areas of London, where people lived a communal life more similiar to what pertains in parts of Mumbai today than pertains to the upper crust areas of modern London (from memory not for sure). And, I think its safe to say large American cities in the 1800's including New York were pretty dirty places. There are reasons for that, and reasons it changed. And I don't think any of those reasons have to do with the supposed national character of any nation

Colonialism per se cannot be blamed for India and most other Commonwealth nations backwardness, because of the fact that South Korea and Taiwan were once japanese colonies and are now prosperous industrialized powerhouses; and because world class Singapore and Hong Kong were british colonies for a long time. What's different about these places is an east asian citizenry. Malaysia, another former british colony, with its 30% chinese minority is also doing quite well, though not as much so as the others mentioned. It seems that east asians have a leg up on south asians when it comes to modernizing. Whether its cultural (confucian values etc) or racial is debatable.

In the singularly perverse context of Indian politics today, those who are most clear-sighted and intelligent, and in this sense are the most capable of making a definitive break with the past, are consigned to the status of perennial outsiders. They are allowed to tinker on the edges of the vast morass which is Indian society, through organizing innovative NGOs and by participating in civil society in various ways. But they cannot effectively re-fashion and rejuvenate the polity from the ground up. Nothing less than this will be able to avert the inevitable social, political, and environmental cataclysm which awaits India unless a definitive break is made with the failed policies of the bast. The public sanitation scandal is only one aspect of this. Sadly, the intelligentsia, both indigenous and non-resident, will be forced to watch the catastrophe unfold, impotent in the face of a shockingly myopic and indolent political establishment.

The responses to any mention of India's failures run the gamut:

1. Denial and Delusion: "They only see what they want to see. Mumbai is awesome. India is shining"

2. Fragile egoism: "Why do they have to print negative articles about India? It gives me an inferiority complex. What will my friends and co-workers think about me now? We should sue anyone who writes bad stuff about India."

3. Finger pointing: "So what? Every country has the same problems. I saw a guy peeing in LA just the other day. And what about Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans? Huh?"

4. Blame colonialism: "Them lousy brits robbed us blind for centuries. It will take centuries to recover."

Hey Sathya, nothing personal, but your tone is kind of condescending. From what I've read, the majority of people on here are not denying India's failures and hence don't need to "wake up." All your above "summary" did was reduce comments to their simplest, most rudimentary form.

-Most people on here are not saying that Mumbai is a flawless, shining example of modern urbanity.

-The point of this very post was not to whine about "negative portrayals" that hurt our supposedly fragile egos - it was an analysis of how the America media creates broad generalizations about India which are then regurgitated by the masses. It's not about us feeling ashamed at work about India. Heck, the Christian Science Monitor, Harper's, etc. have done great pieces on deleterious aspects of Indian society (female infanticide, etc.) that were well-written and not sensationalistic. My ego was not hurt; litigation was not commenced.

-What you call "finger pointing" is what I call gaining perspective. By pointing out the shit in our backyard, it makes people less apt to think that all the miseries of the world are happening on the other side of the globe. It's not denying either. It's about being cognizant of both. Embracing the global shit.

-Wouldn't our arguments be misplaced if we didn't acknowledge colonialism's effects? But yeah, you're right to some extent - I don't know where this whole discussion is really going. I mean, really, colonialism v. corruption - could the terms of discussion be any more delimited? I mean, hey, who am I to steer a conversation on SM one way or another, as I've gone off on tangents myself. But it's not an either/or, and we have to acknowledge the effects of both "big Cs" in order to truly have an informed discussion about India's development.

But yeah. My point was that, hey, Sathya, I think we're all somewhat on the same page here re: India's problems. There may be some ad hominem deniers here and there, but I don't think anyone else is in fantasy land.

We need to take a look at the article with an average American "perspective" which in general tends to be condescending and rides on partial truths propagated by such lop-sided views of the world. While it took Mr Parson to get such a view from a cousin's email, he would have done equally well to look at New Orleans post Katrina and he would have got the exact same picture.... lot of animals, people without homes, lots if nudity, people relieving in public, and a bit more, fornicating in stadiums, people dying without any services. While one may argue that this was post Hurricane calamity, it also would not take much to view India in terms of 300 years of "Katrina" like events. But that may be too much to ask from people whose daily bread is dependant to propagating pseudo-truths. While poverty and lack of basic ameneties is a huge issue, these need to be solved rather than to be merely commented upon. I wonder what Mr Parson did on that front apart from painting this beautiful picture of a desi koondi dumping in public.
I wonder what Mr Parson woould have to say if America is depicted around the world as racially divided, pornographically oriented, child molesting, ultra right leaning nation. This offcourse is as far from the truth as Britney's past claims to virginity.

#136, Arjun said,

Briunna, I don't know where you got the 2 billion number from, but population is just one factor. The major factor is money. Japan, for instance, is one of the most densely populated countries (some 300 million people in a state the size of California, is it?), but no one would in general complain of filth and public urination when visiting.

Also, for people who point at Southeast Asian countries and compare it with India, I'd say look at their populations. Singapore is a country with a size and a population that is less than Delhi. Same goes with Hong Kong and Taiwan. The set of problems that India faces is of a much more enormous scale than any of these countries. I do not mean to say that we have been doing a great job so far. But to compare India with Sri Lanka, or Phillipines does not make sense. Ratings do not make sense just by themselves. Its like judging musicians based on MTV rankings.

I's also like to bring to everyone's attention the fact that India is quite possibly the most free country as compared to most of the other countries that Sathya and others point out. In China, for example, it is easy for a dictator to order a new highway built, or have all the poor people thrown into the countryside. Think of how free a country Singapore is. India, on the other hand, has maintained a democratic system despite all the problems that accompany it - the biggest of which is getting things done instantly.

I don't know if anyone will go back this far and read or if I'll get in trouble for sharing this link but hey:

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/index1/C88/

This woman is hysterical or at least I found it to be.

The excuses/reactions to india's sorry performance since independence continue:

5. "We have a huge population. Thats holding us back"

6. "We are too crowded. That's the problem"

7. "We are a democracy. It's much harder to get things done"

Sorry guys, these excuses dont fly either. Democracy hasn't held back the development of numerous nations. Neither has population density (think of Japan and the Netherlands which are far more crowded than India). And there is no correlation between size and success. The sole superpower is a large democracy. China is 30% larger than India and far ahead in the Human Development Index.

If you think democracy is to blame, why cling to a failed system? If India is too big to govern, why spend blood and money to keep it big and backward? At least for the sake of the millions of starving children and the millions of little ones in bonded labor, shouldn't India look for alternatives? I think it was Einstein (not sure though) who said: insanity is doing something that doesn't work over and over again.

Sorry guys, these excuses dont fly either. Democracy hasn't held back the development of numerous nations. Neither has population density (think of Japan and the Netherlands which are far more crowded than India). And there is no correlation between size and success. The sole superpower is a large democracy. China is 30% larger than India and far ahead in the Human Development Index.

If you think democracy is to blame, why cling to a failed system? If India is too big to govern, why spend blood and money to keep it big and backward? At least for the sake of the millions of starving children and the millions of little ones in bonded labor, shouldn't India look for alternatives? I think it was Einstein (not sure though) who said: insanity is doing something that doesn't work over and over again.

India's performance has been quite neat in the past 10 years - and far far better than most Southeast Asian countries. Not only that, India's economy is far stronger and stabler than most in Asia. There has been a significant improvement in living standards, and this is a first hand observation/experience. China has a horrible human rights record - take the One Child Policy for instance. Things like these can only happen in a country where freedom is curtailed. Try searching for India, on the other hand, is taking a constructive path towards progress.

What do you mean by "spending blood and money to keep it big and backward"? What alternatives are you saying India should opt for? When you analyze India's "sorry performance since independence", let me remind you that India is hardly a failed system. If you know anything about economics, you'd have known that there hasn't been a single famine in India since independence. India's huge population is simply because of the fact that average life expectancy shot up because of great improvement in health care standards after independence. If you call India a failed system, you are totally wrong. Neither do you account for the economic liberalization of the 1990's.

You talk about starving children. On what basis do you claim starvation is a problem in India? What if I say hunger is not a problem in India? India is one of the biggest food exporters in the world - thanks to the Green Revolution that made India self-sufficient in terms of food.

I don't see any coherency in such views. Please educate yourself before your go out on such a rant in the future. Also, I think its a good idea to make constructive arguments.

Sathya, what you term "excuses" are posts to understand why there's a difference. No one has ever denied that there's a problem.

Your explanation, I take it, is that Indians are genetically or culturally predisposed to filth, is that it?

India's performance has been quite neat in the past 10 years - and far far better than most Southeast Asian countries. Not only that, India's economy is far stronger and stabler than most in Asia........When you analyze India's "sorry performance since independence", let me remind you that India is hardly a failed system.......You talk about starving children. On what basis do you claim starvation is a problem in India? What if I say hunger is not a problem in India? India is one of the biggest food exporters in the world - thanks to the Green Revolution that made India self-sufficient in terms of food.

I don't see any coherency in such views. Please educate yourself before your go out on such a rant in the future.

I am afraid the one needing education here is you. Perhaps you can learn from Nobel Laureate in Economics, Amartya Sen:

http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/jan/ajo-hunger.htm

"About 320 million
Indians go to bed without food every night, and recent data suggests this already alarming situation is getting worse. Despite the magnitude and intensity of this problem, it remains on the margins of policy planning, public action, intellectual discourse, and media coverage"

"The recent reported increase in the number of Indians suffering from hunger and undernourishment is alarming, especially since the first National Family Health Survey (1992-93) had revealed that India was already one of the most undernourished countries in the world. About half of all Indian children are classified as undernourished, a large percentage of them born with protein deficiency (which affects brain development and learning capacity, among other things). And the 50th round of the National Sample Survey (NSS 1993-94) had established that there was no food security system worth the name in this our land.

Catchy slogans like India Shining, India Rising and, now, India Everywhere ring somewhat hollow when eminent economists like Patnaik and Amartya Sen affirm that India's record on the hunger front is not very different from and, in some ways, even worse than that of the popular global icon of extreme deprivation, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). As Patnaik put it, "A large segment of the rural masses in India ... have been already reduced to the nutritional status of Sub-Saharan Africa." On the basis of data from the NSS (1999-2000) on calorie intake, she estimated that about 40 per cent of the rural population was at the low absorption level of the SSA average. According to Sen, "Estimates of general undernourishment - what is sometimes called protein-energy malnutrition - are nearly twice as high in India as in Sub-Saharan Africa."

There seems no denying the fact that chronic hunger persists on a massive scale in the country even while the government spends millions of rupees in vain efforts to maintain "surplus" stocks in overflowing granaries and exports "excess" grain at highly subsidised prices.

Despite the magnitude and intensity of the problem of endemic hunger, it remains at best on the margins of policy planning, public action and intellectual discourse, not to mention media coverage. According to economist Jean Dreze, "The most startling aspect of the nutrition situation in India is that it is not much of an issue in public debates and electoral politics."

Well, so what exactly have you been trying to prove so far? I do not intend to say that India does not have any of these problems. I am simply analyzing why it could be so, and population and India's commitment to democracy and personal freedoms is definitely one of the reasons why we do not match up statistically with other countries in India.

In any case regardless of what you might have to say, as an Indian citizen hailing from a middle-class family myself, all I have to say is that there has been a marked improvement in the past few years. Whether it is the housing boom, or the surge in the sale of cars, or even the IT industry. All of my friends who are graduating from colleges in India have jobs lined up. True, you could point at Bihar and claim otherwise, but things happen one at a time. For a country that was systematically impoverished over 200 years, things don't happen overnight. But they are headed in the right direction.

Your argument, that could basically be summarized as "India sucks, and Indians are a people incapable of achieving anything", still doesn't make sense or serve any purpose. May be it doesn't matter to you, which is understandable.

statistically with other countries in India.

Well, so what exactly have you been trying to prove so far? I do not intend to say that India does not have any of these problems.

Denial, delusion, dishonesty. What was your intention when you wrote:

You talk about starving children. On what basis do you claim starvation is a problem in India? What if I say hunger is not a problem in India? India is one of the biggest food exporters in the world

Similarly first you claimed India was doing far, far better than most asian countries:

India's performance has been quite neat in the past 10 years - and far far better than most Southeast Asian countries. Not only that, India's economy is far stronger and stabler than most in Asia

Now you are making (the usual discredited) excuses for India being a laggard compared to other countries:

population and India's commitment to democracy and personal freedoms is definitely one of the reasons why we do not match up statistically with other countries

First get your story straight. Then explain why numerous other nations who have made a "commitment to democracy and personal freedoms" do not have any problem matching up "statistically with other countries"?