Better governance makes South India surge ahead of the North

[janon]

dude...its not that where do we post it..it’s about do we really need to discuss our internal things on global forum like PDF where you would hardly find any sensible response from global user base? they wont even understand what is south and north!

So Indians can discuss it. Which is why it is in the Indian section. In the middle-east section you have arguments between syrians and iranians and arabs that most people outside the middle east would not understand. This is of interest to Indians (if not to others), which is made obvious by the fact that there are 38 people currently viewing it.

 

[Aka123]

Old world mentality - the newer Genarations think differently and as Education and Social standing improves in a decade or two we will see a different BIMARU group.

What is this Bimaru states? Sorry am not aware hence asking.

 

[FaujHistorian]

@Aka123, Are you really from India?

BIMARU is well known term used for the poorest of the poor areas of India.

Hint! Each letter in BIMARU stands for a state.


peace

 

[illusion8]

What is this Bimaru states? Sorry am not aware hence asking.

Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, UP and Rajasthan - these states till recently were lagging behind other states in development mostly because of the lack of industry and growth. - all social indices are lower compared to other states.

 

[janon]

What is this Bimaru states? Sorry am not aware hence asking.

An acronym for Bihar, Madhya pradesh, rajastan, uttar pradesh. These used to be the poorest region in India, the most populated, and the most backward in all social indicators like health, education and so on, and with widespread crime and corruption. These states were also the biggest drag on India's economic and social progress. So the rather unflattering acronym (a word play on bimar - sick) was given to them by some ingenious commentator.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Apparently not, as per the article:

And the overall poverty rate ? Anyway that's surprising. I always thought the South was historically richer.

 

[FaujHistorian]

South being away from government seats, was used to working at their own.

North was always dependent on Sarkari / Baboo jobs and government handouts.

 

[Koovie]

Things are moving at good pace in BIMARU states as well, these days, they are recording highest GDP growth rate.

Because there is close to nothing, thats why.

 

[janon]

And the overall poverty rate ? Anyway that's surprising. I always thought the South was historically richer.

I'm not sure. Anyway most of India was un-urbanised at the time of independence, so the rural poverty rates must have been close to the overall rate.

The south wasn't richer, but for the past 100+ years, it has been socially more forward than the north. Education was given importance (especially in Kerala), very powerful social reform movements happened in the 19th and early 20th century that led to a more equitable society, there was very little difference in power between various castes because of that, radical land reforms (unlike the north, where feudal lords owned all the land), and so on. The foundations for progress was made at least a hundred (if not more) years back.

 

[Contrarian]

South being away from government seats, was used to working at their own.

North was always dependent on Sarkari / Baboo jobs and government handouts.

Wrong this time mate.
South Indians covet Government jobs even more than North Indians. The difference is that they have had better literacy for a far longer period. Better literacy means better demands from politicians coupled with lesser identity issues.

But when using the term North Indians - the reference here is BIMARU states only.

The rest of North India - Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand are doing rather good in every indicator.

The problem is that UP, Bihar alone account for so high a number of people that the rest of North India's stats gets screwed because of these two states alone.

There is a saying in India - 'UP is the only State which if it wants to secede from India, the rest of India will happily let go'.

Bihar is progressing rather well under Nitish though.

 

[Srinivas]

Because there is close to nothing, thats why.

There will be abundance of skilled labour in these BIMARU states, if their govts. can harness the youth their, setting up manufacturing units as planned will give them the advantage and the states can do well in future.

 

[illusion8]

South being away from government seats, was used to working at their own.

North was always dependent on Sarkari / Baboo jobs and government handouts.

There is nothing like a Government job to boost up a South Indian Man's profile, People in the South yearned for Govt jobs a Generation back so it's no different - every state has it's own sets of governance and jobs plus many South Indians numerously took up Jobs in Central institutions based on merit.

 

[manojb]

Here's my take. Southies r more worker kind. Northies r more manager kind. More manager and less worker = not many jobs done!

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I'm not sure. Anyway most of India was un-urbanised at the time of independence, so the rural poverty rates must have been close to the overall rate.

The south wasn't richer, but for the past 100+ years, it has been socially more forward than the north. Education was given importance (especially in Kerala), very powerful social reform movements happened in the 19th and early 20th century that led to a more equitable society, there was very little difference in power between various castes because of that, radical land reforms (unlike the north, where feudal lords owned all the land), and so on. The foundations for progress was made at least a hundred (if not more) years back.

Yes, that does seem to have something to do with it. Anyway, I don't know how much social reforms have to do with economics because I would consider places like Bengal and Orissa more socially forward than Punjab, Haryana and Himachal yet the latter Northern states are economically ahead of the former two Eastern states.

Eastern India just seems to have had something going wrong for them.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, joined with Pakistani Punjab were the "old punjab". That being the richest state based on its agricultural and cottage industry. So they were part of the "well to do" area.

peace