Why do S.Asians get foreign aid?

[atleast_a_bronze]

Britain had given around GBP 1 billion as aid to India over the past 5 yrs.
And look what the Indian government has been doing:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1079304/Lift-India-launches-moon-mission-joins-Asia-space-race.html

The Indians have carried out a moon mission at a cost of GBP 46 million. There is a lot of debate in the British media regarding the usefulness of aid to a developing country, which is having acute water shortage problems and poverty at home and trying to find out water on another heavenly body. Makes a nice mockery of the term "aid".

India is not alone in this. Pakistan is the second largest recipient of British aid:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7486948.stm

And jus look at the list of the President's assets...jus amazing
pakistan.wikia.com/wiki/Asif_Ali_Zardari
Perhaps the aid has been going into secret bank accounts...

No wonder, South Asia is a hell of poverty, corruption, hatred and under development.

 

[boxer_B]

That's a legitimate question. But first you have to answer that why do Britain pay GBP 10 billion pa to EU instead of focusing on GBP 200 million pa to India. And mind you, members of EU are developed nations having high per capita income (roughly 30 to 40 times) than India and pakistan.

http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/rebut2.html

THE COST of BRITAIN'S EU MEMBERSHIP

Most of the UK's official statistics are compiled by the ONS, the Office for National Statistics, which is an agency of HM Treasury. Each year, the ONS publishes The Pink Book: United Kingdom Balance of Payments.

The 2003 edition, with data for the whole of 2002, was published on the ONS website at www.statistics.gov in mid-October 2003, the paper version came out in mid-November 2003 and can sometimes be found in larger city libraries. The 2003 edition, which can also be downloaded free from the website, contains as usual, at Chapter 9 on page 114 of The Pink Book, a "Geographical Breakdown of Current Account".

This shows British exports ("credits" in the jargon), imports ("debits") and the resulting balances for the eleven years 1992-2002, analysed by country and by type of transaction: goods, services, income and transfers.

Separate lines, for "EU Institutions", show UK payments to (debits) and receipts from (credits) EU Institutions, and the resulting balances. "EU Institutions" comprise not just the "EU Budget" administered by the Commission, but in addition, a mish-mash of institutions, bodies and quangos like the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, the Central Bank, the Army-which-isn't-an-Army, the European Investment Bank and so on.

The latest figures show that over the ten-year period 1993-2002 inclusive, the UK paid over to EU Institutions... gross, cumulatively: £104 billion.

In those same ten years the UK received back, cumulatively: £64 billion.

So the UK's net contribution over that ten-year period was £40 billion, or an average of £4 billion per year.

The 2002 net contribution was £4.3 billion.

Assuming an average UK population over those ten years of 59 million, that works out at £678 as the average net contribution that every man, woman and child in the UK has paid over to "Brussels" in the last decade.

Putting it another way, the UK has paid over to Brussels, net, in every single one of the 3,652 days (including two leap years) of the last ten years, £11 million. Or, £77 million per week.

A brand-new, fully-equipped, state-of-the-art, 800-bed city-centre general hospital in the UK costs around £250 million. If, instead of paying that cumulative net contribution of £40 billion (ie £40,000 million) over to Brussels, the government had spent it on brand-new hospitals, we would now be enjoying the facilities of 160 of them, having in total 128,000 beds.
(Above excerpted from eurofacts, 5 December 2003.
Available for £28 payable to eurofacts, PO Box 119, Totnes, Devon, TQ9 7WA)

THE UK'S GROSS PAYMENTS TO THE EU: PER PERSON, PER HOUR and PER DAY
Sovereignty points out, in addition, that it could well be argued with justification that the gross contribution of £104 billion should be considered the total cost to the UK over this 10-year period.

This is because, although a proportion came back to us, it was not necessarily spent in ways we would approve, if we were outside the EU -- and often it was spent on sustaining EU projects which have damaging effects.

In which case, over this 10-year period, assuming the 59 million population figure above, our gross contributions work out at £28.5million every day, £1.2million every hour and £1,763 for every man, woman and child in Britain!

Does this means nations of EU has more ***** and cult in their society than s.asia? NO

And in no way i am contending for India to keep receiving aid. AFAIK, India never asked for aid in first place, there must be some political reason behind this.

 

[atleast_a_bronze]

It has been often stated that countries such as Spain, Greece and other former Communist states like Latvia, Lithuania encourage and are actively promoting the EU, because of your stated reason. These countries are supposed to be relatively poorer as per European standards. So, UK, Germany, Denmark, France, Sweden have to support the so called relatively poorer economies. This is the reason, many critics in the UK are lobbying against the EU thing.

That does not answer my concern. These relatively poorer countries are far better off compared to S.Asia as you yourself had stated. Their is infact noticeable economic development in these countries and they have indeed benefited by EU developmental finances. The same cannot be said for India/Pakistan into their 60 years of independence, receiving mammoth aid amounts and showing little development.

 

[Absar]

Britain had given around GBP 1 billion as aid to India over the past 5 yrs.
And look what the Indian government has been doing:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1079304/Lift-India-launches-moon-mission-joins-Asia-space-race.html

The Indians have carried out a moon mission at a cost of GBP 46 million. There is a lot of debate in the British media regarding the usefulness of aid to a developing country, which is having acute water shortage problems and poverty at home and trying to find out water on another heavenly body. Makes a nice mockery of the term "aid".

India is not alone in this. Pakistan is the second largest recipient of British aid:
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7486948.stm

And jus look at the list of the President's assets...jus amazing
pakistan.wikia.com/wiki/Asif_Ali_Zardari
Perhaps the aid has been going into secret bank accounts...

No wonder, South Asia is a hell of poverty, corruption, hatred and under development.

I agree somehow. Talking particularly about India here, its poverty level is more than Pakistan if I'm not wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. But that I know that its poverty level is phenomenal. The same goes to literacy rate.

No wonder Pakistan is very much similar to this. We spend a lot on such things, even on Defence too while people are dying of indigence. Bad thing, by and large.

 

[Screaming Skull]

Britain had given around GBP 1 billion as aid to India over the past 5 yrs.
And look what the Indian government has been doing:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1079304/Lift-India-launches-moon-mission-joins-Asia-space-race.html

The Indians have carried out a moon mission at a cost of GBP 46 million. There is a lot of debate in the British media regarding the usefulness of aid to a developing country, which is having acute water shortage problems and poverty at home and trying to find out water on another heavenly body. Makes a nice mockery of the term "aid".

The government of India as a matter of policy does not seek monetary assistance/aid in any form from foreign countries. This was evident when the GoI refused to accept any kind of financial or material assistance after large parts of south India were ravaged by the Tsunami, even when many developed nations willingly came forward to assist. However, we do take loans from multilateral agencies like IMF and ADB (though India today is a net donor to the IMF) simply because credit based financing makes more business sense to us.
This specific case in point was brought into focus by the racist BNP party of the UK after we launched the Chandrayaan-I moon mission.
The so called ‘aid’ of £825 million was announced by UK’s PM Gordon Brown when he visited India in Jan 2008. This was a step ‘voluntarily’ undertaken by the UK to fulfill its commitments towards the ‘Millennium Development Goals’ of the United Nations. India never asked for any aid from the UK. The amount is being disbursed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) at the behest of ‘Save the Children’ - a non-profit children’s advocacy group. In Gordon Brown’s own words- “the money would be used to train 300,000 new teachers and build 300,000 new classrooms”. The money will not go into government coffers nor will the govt. have any control over its dispensation as it is meant to serve a certain purpose which has been spelt out by the donor himself.

Hence, you are being naïve in accusing India of misusing the aid money. The aid was a voluntary donation by the UK and is meant to serve a specific purpose over a given period of time (over 3 years). One can point fingers at us only if at the end of 3 yrs it is found that we haven’t ‘trained 300,000 new teachers or built 300,000 new classrooms’.

 

[atleast_a_bronze]

The Human Development Index Report 2009 compiled by United Nations Development Programme(UNDP) has India at 134th position and Pakistan at 141st position (not much difference bet. the two), both below countries like Botswana and Bhutan. Worst is worst...We cannot have best of the worst.
hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Do we still need to believe that over sixty long years into development, we are still facing road less, electricity-less, water scarce, food scarce societies.
If this is what is called development, we must change the economic meaning of the term "development" then.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Israel and Egypt get's US aid so what's wrong in getting Aid from west?

 

[atleast_a_bronze]

The government of India as a matter of policy does not seek monetary assistance/aid in any form from foreign countries. This was evident when the GoI refused to accept any kind of financial or material assistance after large parts of south India were ravaged by the Tsunami, even when many developed nations willingly came forward to assist. However, we do take loans from multilateral agencies like IMF and ADB (though India today is a net donor to the IMF) simply because credit based financing makes more business sense to us.
This specific case in point was brought into focus by the racist BNP party of the UK after we launched the Chandrayaan-I moon mission.
The so called ‘aid’ of £825 million was announced by UK’s PM Gordon Brown when he visited India in Jan 2008. This was a step ‘voluntarily’ undertaken by the UK to fulfill its commitments towards the ‘Millennium Development Goals’ of the United Nations. India never asked for any aid from the UK. The amount is being disbursed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) at the behest of ‘Save the Children’ - a non-profit children’s advocacy group. In Gordon Brown’s own words- “the money would be used to train 300,000 new teachers and build 300,000 new classrooms”. The money will not go into government coffers nor will the govt. have any control over its dispensation as it is meant to serve a certain purpose which has been spelt out by the donor himself.

Hence, you are being naïve in accusing India of misusing the aid money. The aid was a voluntary donation by the UK and is meant to serve a specific purpose over a given period of time (over 3 years). One can point fingers at us only if at the end of 3 yrs it is found that we haven’t ‘trained 300,000 new teachers or built 300,000 new classrooms’.

The fact is S.Asia has been one of the largest aid recipient. I disagree that India has stopped being a recipient nation
indiadaily.com/editorial/09-27b-04.asp
The point is where is the development after so much of aid amounts being disbursed.

 

[atleast_a_bronze]

Israel and Egypt get's US aid so what's wrong in getting Aid from west?

Nothing wrong in getting aid from west, if it is used for the purpose for which it was disbursed.
Israel is an obvious choice for US aid. There isnt much to elaborate on that.
As far as Egypt, the foll. link summarizes the situation.
$50 billion later, taking stock of US aid to Egypt | csmonitor.com

But I'm more concerned about S.Asia than elsewhere.

 

[pak-marine]

Why do S.Asians get foreign aid?

because we act like bhikari ...its plain greed .. No ego !

 

[atleast_a_bronze]

Why do S.Asians get foreign aid?

because we act like bhikari ...its plain greed .. No ego !

We S.Asians are a bunch of egoists always flaunting our ancient civilizational achievements, talking of pasts, dreaming of the future and forgetting the present. We are not Japanese or Germans. We are plain S.Asians and we prove this everyday in television, internet and other possible domains. We simply have to live with this. No choice.

 

[Absar]

We S.Asians are a bunch of egoists always flaunting our ancient civilizational achievements, talking of pasts, dreaming of the future and forgetting the present. We are not Japanese or Germans. We are plain S.Asians and we prove this everyday in television, internet and other possible domains. We simply have to live with this. No choice.

I again agree. Our past may have been good, but our present isn't much successful, near to zilch if we compare it from the past -- talking about South Asia. We're just lost generations.

Nations loosing generations is a natural phenomena, Japs, Germans, Chinese are example from recent history. But then, they collect themselves, and start all over again. And we? We're just lost

 

[pak-marine]

I again agree. Our past may have been good, but our present isn't much successful, near to zilch if we compare it from the past -- talking about South Asia. We're just lost generations.

Nations loosing generations is a natural phenomena, Japs, Germans, Chinese are example from recent history. But then, they collect themselves, and start all over again. And we? We're just lost

europeans , americans or japs they had their issues they went on each others for an all out war took em few years and millions dead finally thy in their mind hv settld scores now they are progresive and in peace, where as we south asians if we go back and look 1000 years or may b more back in history have this habit of calling in foreignors in the form of aid or military and asking their help to settle our own disputes ,we either lack each"bals or brains" or both to settle disputes ourselves or i dont know what ? we f*ckn pay the security guard or chowkidar more than we bring in the family !i dont see how exactly wil we ever prosper in times to come? wht wil leave the generations to come .? .i hope not but the fact is the same or might b double the same **** we have now.

 

[agni - kalam]

I dont think we should worry about this.
dint they take lots of our money(gold,raw cotton,etc) during the colonial period, even though they were rich.
our cotton textiles were subjected to high excise duty, and they flooded our market with their textiles
Lord Macaulay toured India and followed his tour with an address to
the British Parliament on Feb 2, 1835. The following is a piece from
that address. It will give you an idea of the strength and purity of
India prior to the British. The British government determined that they would like to take over large parts of India for monetary benefit. Lord Macaulay and others gave them the key:

“I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not
seen one person who is a beggar,(or) who is a thief. Such wealth I
have seen in this country. Such high moral values. People of such
caliber that I do not think we could ever conquer this country, unless
we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and
cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old
and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think
that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their
own they will lose their self esteem, their native culture, and they
will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”