Why Should We Continue to Send Aid to India?

Indian Government Spending and Aid contribution figures have been blown sky high.

The launch of an Indian Mars Mission is a giant leap for mankind. It marks another step in a global space age, once the reserve of the US and Soviet Russia.

Not only does it stand as a statement of India intent, but it demonstrates that here is a country slowly building its way out of great economic deprivation.

However, it is slowly. Public perception of India’s Mars Mission has been largely confused, with many claiming it to be a demonstration of wealth from the country. The evidence shows that the country is taking off quite literally and so aid contributions are no longer needed, many have suggested.

In reality this is a gross miscalculation that confuses the difference between growth and wealth in the Indian subcontinent.

Since the 1990s, the area has experienced its greatest period of growth in the country’s history, with many companies tapping into the wealth of resources that India can offer. Whilst it has helped to bring many millions out of poverty, there has not been a significant reduction in the percentage of people who live below the line. Around 40% of children are malnourished, and adults fare little better. The country is still renowned for its slums, with more than 500 million Indians living without electricity.

Here is a tale of two cities, twoIndias.

The growth of skilled labourers, scientists, doctors and other professionals is redefining the landscape of India. The space missions are far from a new project: they date back to the 70s. In fact, China’s space missions are more recent than India’s. Therefore, the willingness to invest in these enterprises shows a keen dedication from the Indian government not to be backfooted once again. Here is a nation that was forced into submission by British and French forces, which made the lands part of their empire and irrevocably damaged development there.

Never again says the space mission.

This is not a declaration that India does not need aid. India still remains home to the world’s largest poor. After all, aid is about poor people and not poor countries.

In Uganda, for example, aid packages from the UK are now not being sent to the government, but instead to agencies that will ensure the people will benefit from the money sent to the country. A similar review of expenditure in India should be brought forward, especially since there have been previous examples of India declaring that they do not need British aid.

Whilst this is a gross underestimation on the part of a country still in need of sufficient sanitation measures for a vast percentage of its population, the space missions do mark a step in the right direction.

Withdrawing from India at this stage would not be right; it would be a fiscal rerun of independence. The support from Britain ensures that India can now be seen not as an economically undeveloped country, but somewhere for companies to invest. Indeed, Pepsi Cola have recently announced a larger investment into the country’s infrastructure.

Aid merely needs readjustment: instead of packages, India now needs business legitimacy amidst its Asian rivals. The space mission is merely a manifestation of this Indian capacity. Providing these economic opportunities will ensure a strengthened British-Indian relationship, profits for both countries, and slowly reduce Indian dependence on aid.

India’s space revolution ushers in a new era of economic strength that needs commercial and corporate support if it is to transform and reform India as the international player that the country craves to be, surrounded by Arabian prominence and China’s technical drive. Acknowledging the injustice of colonial expansion, and supporting the Commonwealth evolution from a business table will launch the country to the stratosphere without much more help.

Liberation in Libya?

After a climatic six months, the final usurping of Colonel Gaddafi is hailed as the liberation of Libya. 

However, such a statement need be reserved for a time when the country has resumed a state of normality and stability. Whilst the shift of control is something to most certainly be celebrated, the country remains terribly fragile, with continued reports of fighting, gunfire and protests.

With a stint in charge that now spans six decades, Col Gaddafi has seen his leadership through a great many tumultuous situations. Resurgent and dwindling support extremities often characterised his period as head of state. Continued change in political support has ensured that there has never been adequate reflection of public sentiment over this period.

Now, with the rebel forces taking over administration of the African territory that has dominated news in 2011, there is a fear that this pent up frustration will out.

Key concerns include supply chains for medicines and foodstocks, power facilities, communications and, inevitably, law and order.

For example, with hotspots of violence being persistent across the country, there are more walking wounded than is normally anticipated for Libya. Add to this that the fighting targets and damages public places like hospitals and consequently there is little support. Moreover, with increasing power problems, hospitals would be unable to sustain proper standards of support.

A damaged hospital in Zawiyah.

This is but one example of how this conglomerate of issues corresponds to a growing concern for the area.

As Geoff Loane, the head of mission for the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) pointed out: "The absolute priority is that security is provided, as required for a big urban sprawl. As we saw in England, it's very easy to destabilise urban environments."

When looking over Gaddafi’s legacy, it need be remembered that for many of the population, he has been their only leader. Now there is free reign for fresh ideas and control.

Scenes of celebration - Too early?

Almost instantly, Libyan interim leaders have rejected UN military aid to keep control. At first glance, this appears the founding steps toward a new era of forced control. Where there is army control, it is often synonymous that there is no free government. That this should be a considered option is to cause great fear for many who have strived for freedom.

Yet, the force would be independently led. Elsewhere in the African domain, recent coups have seen armed forces successful manage to maintain peace in Egypt as it continues through its own revolution.

Moreover, when in desperate need for stability, a military force is indeed a ‘strong’ option. There has been no clear cut succession regime, particularly considering the fact that Gaddafi has not publically surrendered. In fact at time of writing, representatives for the dictator have rejected the proposed ultimatum to surrender, saying: “No dignified honourable nation would accept an ultimatum from armed gangs.” 

However, since this was never declared a war, civil or otherwise, there is a great desire to avoid such a position; and perhaps being seen to accept such a form of aid would be understood as many living within Libya as an admission of combat. Yet with restricted supplies and a resilient (if not absent) leadership, it is predicted that the problems could yet escalate further. 

Therefore, with no new figurehead or group claiming control, there is a vacuum that could potentially be filled by extremists or those inadequate to lead. With power remaining vulnerable across the state, there is chance for history to repeat itself.

Checkpoints are controlled by rebels, without a central law enforcement.

It is hoped that the release of 1.86 billion dinars in aid will ease the transition and form bridges between Europe and the African nation. But with port authorities and oil firms still blocked and various European countries remaining dubious until there is proof of development, it could be some time before Libya’s problems are resolved.

Hopefully, they will not span another 42 years. But who knows where absolution will come from?...