Population Control Methods: A very big difference between China and India in the past four to five decades
Here is an interesting article, Chinese Officials Should Stop Trying to Limit Family Size, by New York Times Editoria board, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opinion/sunday/chinese-officials-should-stop-trying-to-limit-family-size.html, dated Oct. 31st 2015
My share-post on the above article which I had shared on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1674373246112579, are given below:
Sure, China has progressed materially far more than India. But this material progress came at a price of the govt. controlling so many aspects of life, including family size. India today is a flourishing democracy. I think India's freedom of speech and thought (as compared to China and some other Asian countries) as well as freedom to practise one's culture & religion (so long as it does not directly offend others), is well worth the price of slower material progress as compared to China and some other Asian countries with similar govts. which do not allow much freedom. At least for bloggers and social media writers like me, India's freedom of speech is PRECIOUS!
====================
My comment responses on above Facebook post:
Ravi S. Iyer wrote in response to corruption being a major problem in India (as compared to China) and some other points:
I think corruption has been a part & parcel of feudal type societies. Even early 20th century USA. E.g. Chicago of Al Capone or even New York City before Mayor La Guardia instituted a clean up had large levels of corruption.
A large part of India is still a feudal type society. Democracy in such societies lends itself quite easily to corruption. But early 21st century India has made GREAT STRIDES in penalizing even union (federal) ministers of corruption by jailing them! India's top judiciary (Supreme Court and to some extent High courts of some states) has acquired a terrific reputation for fearlessly applying the law even to high & mighty of the land.
That does not mean that open corruption has disappeared, especially at lower levels of government machinery. The problem is that evidence is required to prosecute and courage to haul the guilty to court by making police complaints. Many people fear doing that even if they have evidence.
But then I think that sort of fear is there even in the USA. Remember what happened to the New York City maid who complained about sexual abuse against the powerful Dominique Strauss Kahn (DSK). The high powered lawyers of DSK finished her off in court. I wonder what sort of life she leads now.
In China, it is reported (perhaps one could even say documented) now that corruption in high levels is RAMPANT. The current leader is making great efforts to tackle that, and is having serious challenges from entrenched forces on that.
Finally on corruption, my view is that corruption alone does not hold back a country from material progress. From a pure business point of view, it is simply a commission that is paid to get some work done faster. So long as work gets done, people get jobs etc. nobody really minds. However, from a legal point of view and from a fair and ethical business point of view, corruption is a strict NO-NO. But .... :-).
About freedom of religion in China: I don't know enough about it to be sure but I do think that they are open to practise of various religions. Further I think China has great moral & ethical values in its culture based on teachings of Confucius and Lao-Tse (I wish I knew more about them and their teachings). But, as it seems to me, the current more capitalistic than communist type political system in China (very different from what Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) may have dreamed of), seems to have created a lot of discord between the haves and have-nots, the well connected urbanites and poorly connected rural folk. So there seems to be some strain on the practise of traditional value systems of China.
Some of the Chinese family planning policy implementation groups (should I say, enforcers) have been INHUMAN. See http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-china-one-child-policy-20151031-story.html. India faced a small taste of such horrors during its dark days (21 months) of emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi (referred to by Sai Das), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India). There may have been more discipline in govt. machinery then due to more fear of being punished by authorities for not doing one's duty properly. However that came at the cost of HORRIFIC abuse of power by some top people, especially in some forced sterilization of people to control population growth/explosion in India. Eventually there was an underground resistance that triumphed forcing the emergency to be lifted and elections to be called for, at which elections Indira Gandhi received perhaps the biggest electoral drubbing of her life. Somehow, India got saved from going the Chinese govt. forced family planning ways. Today, Indian family planning approaches are more on advise bordering on disincentives for larger than 2 children per family for poor people who are dependent on govt. help for leading their lives. No Indian politician even dares to suggest forcible sterilization as public policy as nobody forgets the lesson that the Indian voting public delivered to Indira Gandhi then. Of course, India still faces HUGE resources issues due to its 1.25 billion and growing population. God knows where that will lead us to eventually. But forced sterilization of the poor is certainly not the solution.
-----------------
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (in response to Indian population growth putting pressure on infrastructure & resources; slightly edited):
I presume you read these sentences in my previous comment:
"Of course, India still faces HUGE resources issues due to its 1.25 billion and growing population. God knows where that will lead us to eventually. But forced sterilization of the poor is certainly not the solution."
To be brutally honest I think population growth over millenniums has got tackled by nature/destiny in its own ways. While man should do everything ETHICALLY possible to ensure SUSTAINABLE growth, the dangers of man trying to do social engineering has always (as far as I know) resulted in HORROR and INHUMANITY of man to man. The Nazis in Germany not only were worse than BESTIAL towards the Jews but what they did to the non-Jewish German population by its promotion of "Aryan superhuman race" was GHASTLY. Some of the excesses of China including its infamous cultural revolution under Mao, and its brutal enforcement of one child policy by forcible abortion are GHASTLY and INHUMAN. The social engineering effort of Europeans and Europeans settled in USA, of slavery of black Africans was perhaps one of the WORST EVER GHASTLY and INHUMAN crimes committed by man against man, in the past few centuries. Of course, in the distant past, slavery was common in most cultures of the world with the militarily victorious forcing the defeated into slavery (and this, of course, includes ancient India).
Given this PATHETIC history of man trying to do social engineering to develop society on lines according to modern human plans, I think one should avoid forcible family planning. Population growth and the attendant squeeze on limited natural resources and manmade products/facilities (including Internet connected computers/phones), has to be handled by other means. Now, these are just my views. You may have a different view, in which case, I suggest we should amicably agree to disagree. .... I should also add that countries with low population growth or negative population growth are facing a quite unusual problem in our ultra-modern early 21st century. They have ageing populations who live much longer than earlier due to improved medical science and medical facilities provided by the country, but there do not seem to be enough young people who are in a position to both earn the money needed to keep the country financially in the black (not indebted), and take care of the elderly! I have read that China too faces this problem of elderly being neglected by the youth as there are too many elderly people for the few youth to look after (after taking care of their other individual family, work and other interests). So this family size thing is really a very, very tough matter, and social engineering to keep family size reduced to 1 child seems to be bad for society in the long term, as the Chinese seem to have realized now.
--------------
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
An extract from Deccan Chronicle article, China’s people crisis, by Mohan Guruswamy, dated Nov. 2nd, 2015, http://www.deccanchronicle.com/151102/commentary-op-ed/article/china%E2%80%99s-people-crisis.
Since the advent of the one-child policy, China has had 336 million abortions and 193 million sterilisations. By all yardsticks, the one-child policy was a spectacular success, but it came at a huge cost, not anticipated back then. Moving at a slow crawl from 1.330 billion in 2010, China’s population is expected to stabilise at 1.391 billion in 2030. In 2050, it is projected to decline to 1.303 billion.
One immediate consequence of this slowdown is that its cohort of people who are 60 years and above, will increase from the current 180 million to 360 million by 2030. The economic consequence of this is that its savings rate will decline precipitously.
As a nation climbs the economic ladder, people inevitably live longer. But old age is more expensive. For instance, in the US, the old actually consume more than the rest due to medical expenses. They either support themselves or their families have to support them. Apart from the first few years of one’s life, consumption remains reasonably constant throughout one’s life cycle. But, income generation and output only occur between ages 20 and 65 — neither before nor after. This ratio of working age to non-working age cohorts is called the dependency ratio. As Indian, African and the US’ dependency ratios turn increasingly favourable in the coming decades, China’s dependency ratio will go downhill, making it one of the world’s most aged societies along with Europe and Japan. The CPC leadership has finally grasped this essential truth.
...
Quite understandably, the greater the number of older people, the lesser the savings. In such as scenario, China’s impressive savings rate of 53 per cent, which drives its economic growth, is bound to falter. The Chinese government is banking hugely on its new “one-couple-two-children policy” to stem the tide of ageing and for high economic growth, which is important for the very survival of the CPC.
--- end extracts from Deccan Chronicle article ---
[I thank Deccan Chronicle and Mohan Guruswamy, and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website/article on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
My share-post on the above article which I had shared on Facebook here: https://www.facebook.com/ravi.s.iyer.7/posts/1674373246112579, are given below:
Sure, China has progressed materially far more than India. But this material progress came at a price of the govt. controlling so many aspects of life, including family size. India today is a flourishing democracy. I think India's freedom of speech and thought (as compared to China and some other Asian countries) as well as freedom to practise one's culture & religion (so long as it does not directly offend others), is well worth the price of slower material progress as compared to China and some other Asian countries with similar govts. which do not allow much freedom. At least for bloggers and social media writers like me, India's freedom of speech is PRECIOUS!
====================
My comment responses on above Facebook post:
Ravi S. Iyer wrote in response to corruption being a major problem in India (as compared to China) and some other points:
I think corruption has been a part & parcel of feudal type societies. Even early 20th century USA. E.g. Chicago of Al Capone or even New York City before Mayor La Guardia instituted a clean up had large levels of corruption.
A large part of India is still a feudal type society. Democracy in such societies lends itself quite easily to corruption. But early 21st century India has made GREAT STRIDES in penalizing even union (federal) ministers of corruption by jailing them! India's top judiciary (Supreme Court and to some extent High courts of some states) has acquired a terrific reputation for fearlessly applying the law even to high & mighty of the land.
That does not mean that open corruption has disappeared, especially at lower levels of government machinery. The problem is that evidence is required to prosecute and courage to haul the guilty to court by making police complaints. Many people fear doing that even if they have evidence.
But then I think that sort of fear is there even in the USA. Remember what happened to the New York City maid who complained about sexual abuse against the powerful Dominique Strauss Kahn (DSK). The high powered lawyers of DSK finished her off in court. I wonder what sort of life she leads now.
In China, it is reported (perhaps one could even say documented) now that corruption in high levels is RAMPANT. The current leader is making great efforts to tackle that, and is having serious challenges from entrenched forces on that.
Finally on corruption, my view is that corruption alone does not hold back a country from material progress. From a pure business point of view, it is simply a commission that is paid to get some work done faster. So long as work gets done, people get jobs etc. nobody really minds. However, from a legal point of view and from a fair and ethical business point of view, corruption is a strict NO-NO. But .... :-).
About freedom of religion in China: I don't know enough about it to be sure but I do think that they are open to practise of various religions. Further I think China has great moral & ethical values in its culture based on teachings of Confucius and Lao-Tse (I wish I knew more about them and their teachings). But, as it seems to me, the current more capitalistic than communist type political system in China (very different from what Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) may have dreamed of), seems to have created a lot of discord between the haves and have-nots, the well connected urbanites and poorly connected rural folk. So there seems to be some strain on the practise of traditional value systems of China.
Some of the Chinese family planning policy implementation groups (should I say, enforcers) have been INHUMAN. See http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-china-one-child-policy-20151031-story.html. India faced a small taste of such horrors during its dark days (21 months) of emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi (referred to by Sai Das), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emergency_(India). There may have been more discipline in govt. machinery then due to more fear of being punished by authorities for not doing one's duty properly. However that came at the cost of HORRIFIC abuse of power by some top people, especially in some forced sterilization of people to control population growth/explosion in India. Eventually there was an underground resistance that triumphed forcing the emergency to be lifted and elections to be called for, at which elections Indira Gandhi received perhaps the biggest electoral drubbing of her life. Somehow, India got saved from going the Chinese govt. forced family planning ways. Today, Indian family planning approaches are more on advise bordering on disincentives for larger than 2 children per family for poor people who are dependent on govt. help for leading their lives. No Indian politician even dares to suggest forcible sterilization as public policy as nobody forgets the lesson that the Indian voting public delivered to Indira Gandhi then. Of course, India still faces HUGE resources issues due to its 1.25 billion and growing population. God knows where that will lead us to eventually. But forced sterilization of the poor is certainly not the solution.
-----------------
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (in response to Indian population growth putting pressure on infrastructure & resources; slightly edited):
I presume you read these sentences in my previous comment:
"Of course, India still faces HUGE resources issues due to its 1.25 billion and growing population. God knows where that will lead us to eventually. But forced sterilization of the poor is certainly not the solution."
To be brutally honest I think population growth over millenniums has got tackled by nature/destiny in its own ways. While man should do everything ETHICALLY possible to ensure SUSTAINABLE growth, the dangers of man trying to do social engineering has always (as far as I know) resulted in HORROR and INHUMANITY of man to man. The Nazis in Germany not only were worse than BESTIAL towards the Jews but what they did to the non-Jewish German population by its promotion of "Aryan superhuman race" was GHASTLY. Some of the excesses of China including its infamous cultural revolution under Mao, and its brutal enforcement of one child policy by forcible abortion are GHASTLY and INHUMAN. The social engineering effort of Europeans and Europeans settled in USA, of slavery of black Africans was perhaps one of the WORST EVER GHASTLY and INHUMAN crimes committed by man against man, in the past few centuries. Of course, in the distant past, slavery was common in most cultures of the world with the militarily victorious forcing the defeated into slavery (and this, of course, includes ancient India).
Given this PATHETIC history of man trying to do social engineering to develop society on lines according to modern human plans, I think one should avoid forcible family planning. Population growth and the attendant squeeze on limited natural resources and manmade products/facilities (including Internet connected computers/phones), has to be handled by other means. Now, these are just my views. You may have a different view, in which case, I suggest we should amicably agree to disagree. .... I should also add that countries with low population growth or negative population growth are facing a quite unusual problem in our ultra-modern early 21st century. They have ageing populations who live much longer than earlier due to improved medical science and medical facilities provided by the country, but there do not seem to be enough young people who are in a position to both earn the money needed to keep the country financially in the black (not indebted), and take care of the elderly! I have read that China too faces this problem of elderly being neglected by the youth as there are too many elderly people for the few youth to look after (after taking care of their other individual family, work and other interests). So this family size thing is really a very, very tough matter, and social engineering to keep family size reduced to 1 child seems to be bad for society in the long term, as the Chinese seem to have realized now.
--------------
Ravi S. Iyer wrote (slightly edited):
An extract from Deccan Chronicle article, China’s people crisis, by Mohan Guruswamy, dated Nov. 2nd, 2015, http://www.deccanchronicle.com/151102/commentary-op-ed/article/china%E2%80%99s-people-crisis.
Since the advent of the one-child policy, China has had 336 million abortions and 193 million sterilisations. By all yardsticks, the one-child policy was a spectacular success, but it came at a huge cost, not anticipated back then. Moving at a slow crawl from 1.330 billion in 2010, China’s population is expected to stabilise at 1.391 billion in 2030. In 2050, it is projected to decline to 1.303 billion.
One immediate consequence of this slowdown is that its cohort of people who are 60 years and above, will increase from the current 180 million to 360 million by 2030. The economic consequence of this is that its savings rate will decline precipitously.
As a nation climbs the economic ladder, people inevitably live longer. But old age is more expensive. For instance, in the US, the old actually consume more than the rest due to medical expenses. They either support themselves or their families have to support them. Apart from the first few years of one’s life, consumption remains reasonably constant throughout one’s life cycle. But, income generation and output only occur between ages 20 and 65 — neither before nor after. This ratio of working age to non-working age cohorts is called the dependency ratio. As Indian, African and the US’ dependency ratios turn increasingly favourable in the coming decades, China’s dependency ratio will go downhill, making it one of the world’s most aged societies along with Europe and Japan. The CPC leadership has finally grasped this essential truth.
...
Quite understandably, the greater the number of older people, the lesser the savings. In such as scenario, China’s impressive savings rate of 53 per cent, which drives its economic growth, is bound to falter. The Chinese government is banking hugely on its new “one-couple-two-children policy” to stem the tide of ageing and for high economic growth, which is important for the very survival of the CPC.
--- end extracts from Deccan Chronicle article ---
[I thank Deccan Chronicle and Mohan Guruswamy, and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts from their website/article on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment