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.

Flower of Scotland

1916: In the middle of World War One, Ireland stages a bid for independence in Dublin, threatening the British chances of success at a crucial moment in the war effort.

2012: In the middle of the worst recession since the Wall Street Crash, Scotland stages a democratic bid for independence “in Edinburgh, in London, or anywhere the Prime Minister pleases”, with many deeming the act detrimental to British growth at a crucial moment of European downgrading.

Certainly, the debate waging around the possibility of independence versus unity has seen battle lines drawn, but these may be premature concerns.

Previous breakups of the United Kingdom in Ireland provide a primary cause for concern. However, the eventual independence granted to Ireland was more an appeasement following a costly war, with transition handled distastefully by both parties. Looking back over the course and administration of the change of power, there are easily identifiable mistakes that could (and should) be avoided in the case of Scottish independence.

Continued violence and hostility is the true legacy of Irish independence and that was a threat suffered particularly till the turn of the century, but a decade ago. Scottish independence, on the other hand, would be entered into through democratic debate rather than the forceful mode of conduct that kickstarted and marked the Irish movement. England, not as prominent on a world scene, would be more amenable to these discussions than its own rash nature almost 100 years ago, when maintaining status was a priority.

Besides, a peaceful resolution would be encouraged while resources are stretched so thin across the United Kingdom due to cuts.

However, Scotland would surely earn the lion’s share of these resources from a split. Economically vibrant at the moment, Scotland has, as expected, the second largest GVA per capita in the United Kingdom, after England. Yet, many do not appreciate, or are completely unaware of, the fact that revenue from the North Sea oil rigs are not included in these figures, as the profit is currently ‘distributed’ around the UK instantly. With independence, 91% of the oil area lies within the Scottish borders. The sudden wealth that would be available to the northern territory as a whole would transform many areas of public spending and investment: leaving Scotland with little deficit.

In fact, it is already recognised that Scotland is the largest producer of petroleum within the EU, and that there is potential for other offshore oil-sites.

Additionally, Scotland is the central zeitgeist for whiskey lovers worldwide. Exports in specialisms such as whiskey, shortbreads, fudges and fishing produce earn the Scottish country a reputation for delicacies renowned the world over. Add the prominence in manufacturing and construction (Glasgow for example houses the largest shipping construction area within the UK), and one can see the advantages to a booming Scottish economy.

Already a relatively rich nation, the boost proffered from continued exports would ensure gained capital and circulation of the pound. In 2007 alone, Scotland’s top 10 export destinations alone earned the country in excess of £18,825 million. Imagine the growth in this figure with Scottish independence, backed peacefully by England.

In turn, this could help Scotland to tackle its slums and poverty problems. Despite the economic benefits of the oil, there is still marked difference between lifestyles of many Scots and their counterparts south of the border. An average male in Glasgow for example only has a life expectancy of 69. Scottish public services see themselves as inhabiting a different social area than England and Wales, with different key issues of poverty, drugs, and unemployment to tackle.

However, even with the separation, use of the GBP will insure continued intrinsic links with the remaining UK factions. Extra trade on the pound from Scotland will ensure continued circulation that benefits England and Wales itself in the long run.

A poll by YouGov last May showed marginal support for the move, but an overwhelming rejection from Scotland itself.

Perhaps the break-away of Scotland would also encourage a deeper look at the British image: a modern twenty-first century conglomerate of cultures hinged on London. The investment seen across Scotland should be mimicked across larger areas of the UK. HS2 makes some steps in that direction, but relatively few and relatively slowly. England is not capitalising upon its current market opportunities. Expanse of infrastructure would allow greater migration of peoples across the country for jobs. Focussing our main sources of income on development would allow a certain independence in a time of Eurozone uncertainty, creating a more stable market area.  A galvanised population to the North could teach English people a thing or two about national pride for sure.

Scuppering Salmond’s hopes for Scotland however are the Welsh and Irish members of Parliament, claiming that Scottish dominion in its own right would leave the two areas outvoiced within Westminster.

Nonetheless, considering moves towards Welsh parliaments, it would appear rather foolhardy to prevent progress for the sake of tradition. Not only does the move allow England a greater democratic voice, but it is not in the apocalyptic fashion that the Welsh and Irish describe: rather radicalisation on both sides of the border due to the split would see new ideas emerge as to how the country should be run and here lies the prospect of wide social and cultural change (the thing the Welsh and Irish appear to advocate amidst a Tory government).

With no date currently set for the vote (despite furious debate over timing this past week), we shall have to watch the development and resolution of lingering issues, such as currency, military, and Nuclear warheads over the coming months.

Shaking of the shackles of union is never an easy transition, but for the cultural, economic and social benefits that Scotland could wager, perhaps the UK should be more amenable to the shouts of “FREEDOM”.

12 Unresolved Questions of Scottish Independence. 

The Decline of University?: Applicants down 10%

Emerging statistics suggest that university applications for the forthcoming 2012-2013 academic calendar are down 10% on the number made for the previous year group.

Without hesitation, one is able to point blame at the impending introduction of the 9k fees, whose first term coincides with the prospective intake. The controversial decision to triple the amount universities are allowed to charge has seen an overwhelming number of institutions charges of the top level, despite promises that this would only be permitted in rare circumstances.

Of course, there was no method by which to implement an effective graded scale of pay across universities: as more money raised at any one institution elevates it significantly above its competitors in dispensable income and no faculty would want to suffer as a consequence.

Indeed, chair of the UCU lecturers’ union, Sally Hunt, advocated that “The government's fees policy has been a disaster from the start and it is clearly having a serious impact on the choices young people make.”

Levying the fees in such an unprecedented fashion makes a great many potential applicants look twice at 

their future prospects.

Consequently, the current trend of a 10% decrease in uptake can come as no real surprise, but an affirmation that the domain of academia could ocne again slowly become the reserve of the rich and priviledged.

Whilst deadlines for the vast majority of applications is not until January 2012, these early figures fo provide a forecasted outlook. UCAS admissions services monitors the activity and is set to give updates should there be any significant changes as have so far been seen.

Overall, there has been a 9% reduction in comparison to this time last year; but this figure adds a third when considering just UK students, with a 12% decrease at present.

Universities UK however has warned these are not necessarily the figures that will be seen come the New Year, since Oxbridge has witnessed only a 0.8% fall in hopeful students.

However, this could in fact be testament to the social demographic which chooses the elite pair amongst their five choices. Whilst the two oldest institutions have claimed to be making headway in ensuring equal accessibility opportunities over the past years, there is no doubt that this has caused a great deal of unrest with a number of staff, who have publically stated their grievances.

Could the small drop actually be reflective of the number of wealthier families that still plague the hallways of the revered grounds? Moreover, there is suggestion that since these numbers are not broken down for comparison of social area, there could indeed have been a reduction in state school hopefuls and a surge in private interest with the prospect of fewer places awarded to their mainstream counterparts.

A recent Guardian article review a similar issue and looked both at social economic and social ethnicity factors at Oxbridge.

As such, the discrepancy between Oxbridge figures and those on a nationwide level leave a great deal to ponder on.

Despite being against the rise in fees, this downturn in possible students gives rise to a number of unforeseen potential circumstances that may help in the long-run.

For example, in the midst of a global economic crisis, the streamlining of university functions is essential. In changing the number of students applying year on year, the colleges would be able to ensure lower costs and lower state dependencies, whilst producing graduates and continued research.

Furthermore, the job market is currently saturated with graduates who all boast a degree at a top ranking university in their field. Already, the worth and merit of study is deteriorating and ensuring that an undergraduate diploma is essentially of little consequence. To limit the number of persons who continually apply with such qualifications will allow a greater percentage of university leavers to find employ in their chosen area (should the financial troubles subside and growth resume).

In addition, many who would have gone to university simply because their friends, relatives or pets were applying will now reconsider. Perhaps this will give a boost to apprenticeships and skilled trades who often lost out to the luring prospects of University. Perhaps this will see a unique boom in industry that, if sustained correctly, would produce economic benefits.

This is not to campaign for or provide a late exoneration of the government policy however. Restricting the paths of a number of citizens is quite potentially the equivalent of a 21^st century disenfranchisement. Abusing students as a scapegoat for market difficulties only emphasises the moral bankruptcy of the government in addition to their financial bankruptcy.

Come January, a clearer picture of numbers and their heritages will emerge: but until then, the dream of graduation appears slimmer for a large number, who will have to consider alternative outlets, while oppressed by high inflation, stagnant job opportunities and now elitist education academies.