On Wednesday 26 Sep 2007 3:50 pm, Venky wrote: > What irritates me about the tone of articles like these is the > re-hashing of the same old "the world is going to the dogs"
I second that sentiment. My first instinct was to give the article a score of 5 out of 10 because what it does is to spew all the cliches that Indians learn about the "poor" - especially with regard to appearances. And the article dwells on appearances. The article fails miserably in explaining anything about poverty in the Indian context. It fails to recognize that because all the characteristics that are mentioned as those of "poor" people, a lot of wealthy Indians actually use those characteristics to appear poor and get all the concessions that are offered to those who are "poor" based on these cliches. These include "Rations", concessional tickets or treatment, licence to crap outside your house and argue poverty when you object and set up shops on the pavement (and once again - you guessed it - claim poverty and exploitation) On the other hand, the article equally fails to point out the fact that a lot of people who do not have the appearance of being poor are actually very poor and maintain a semblance of wealth out of dignity. Many nurses and hospital assistants whom I know fall into this category. Just like those cellphone toting Germans. All in all a very superficial take - that in the Indian context must not be disputed because it serves as one of India's typical Catch22 articles about "the poor". If you dispute it you are "anti-poor" - and an exploiter, You are supposed to wring your hands, shake your head, tear your hair and weep. shiv
