Recent replies to "When do we call a nation 'developed'?"

Reply from Krushna Mavani

Krushna Mavani — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:39:48 -0000

Well Amit, I agree that we are still developing (on many fronts) and so this topic here, but this topic is diverting now or not going in the direction I thought. So Himachal is just an example to give an idea of a different, yet happy life.

So, again repeating a few things here, I have personally ‘seen’ those old people about whom I am talking (age of 90 to above 100) and not just heard. Also, those who work in farms were educated people (not just farmers, but they also work in different government sectors and do part-time farming). Further, Himachal has the highest literacy rate after Kerala in India (please check wikipedia for details). Such weather without any pollution, like himachal, has really a very good health and mental state to offer, if you believe it. Some old people can work even up to an age of 80 years in farms. And health care facilities with good hospitals are available, in spite of hilly area, within about 30 to 40 km of maximum distance because many tourists come there regularly.

Well I agree, there is a lot of scope for improvement at education- and healthcare-fronts in indian villages. Yes, because still India is developing. But coming back to the point, when we are developing, why follow the western pattern of development? Why not a development where many other aspects (which are ignored in many developed nations) are also taken care in order to achieve a better state of life? The complexity of life and stress of people in many cities of developed nations are due to materialistic mind-set- where money, success, materials, status, power etc. are given more preference than needed, whereas creativity, curiosity, social structure, simplicity, co-operative environment and peace are compromised.

For a simple example, during development of a city, if we avoid trees in city and make the buildings all around, then we avoid birds in the city, no flowers to see, beautiful scenery is lost, polluted air remains in higher percentage. But, if a city is developed with many green patches within, then the city has a different but a better life to offer. The consequences of two different patterns differ. There are many such aspects which can be included aiming at more meaningful lives of people.

Reply from Amit Kumar Singh

Amit Kumar Singh — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:16:34 -0000

Dear Krushna,
Sorry, but this is common misconception that many people used to live long till 90 and 100..

Epidemic of infectious disease that spreads through out the populations across a country.. we are still fighting since independence.. n still way behind..

how many people in Himachal have access to Emergency Health Care facilities??? People still run to Delhi.. for treatments..

Second.. How many schools and universities we have in rural Himachal?? Primary education is still a issue..

We still don’t have proper sanitation facilities in villages.. how can we happy and developed..

And its not only Himachal.. its all over the country..

So its not all money.. and seeing happy people in villages..

Its Healthcare.. and Education.. (which is not a political agenda in India.. lol)

Reply from Krushna Mavani

Krushna Mavani — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:40:42 -0000

Well, Amit and Kuldeep, I had this question in my mind because of the following experience. I would like to share.

Once I went to a corner of himachal in India. I heard of people leaving above 90 and 100 years (in general) there because there is no pollution and they do hard-work in their farms and they are also educated. Their immunity is very high. Also, they seem very happy because of their simple life and have enough money to live with happiness (I have been among those who work in farms). On the other hand, I see stressed faces of people regularly in cities (so-called developed cities). Their need of money is never satisfied although they work much harder. They do not find enough time for their children or their parents. You migh have heard of divorce rate in Bangalore which has increased rapidly due to such reasons.

Should not this definition of ‘Development’ include something more and not just ‘materials and money’? I think that we are heading somewhere wrong and need to do a bit different OR perhaps we miss something in our understanding of Development.

I really would like to hear views from others ‘How would you like to define DEVELOPMENT and why?’

Reply from Amit Kumar Singh

Amit Kumar Singh — Wed, 28 May 2008 01:04:58 -0000

”Health Care, Education and Defense”

Example: Health Care

Developed nations generally have small families and large life expectancies.. and developing nations are also moving fast in the same directions..

Life expectancy in India at mid-century was about 32 years and by year 2000 it had risen to 64 years(ref )

this shows that average life span has clearly increased which is directly based upon the development in quality of life and better health care facilities.

Reply from kuldeep dalal

kuldeep dalal — Fri, 23 May 2008 12:29:30 -0000

well! both developed and developing countries are relative terms. Taking materialistic possession and money as a measuring parameter, it is a particular level where majority of its population live happily, and healthy, feeling secure from other countries,and above poverty line.

Reply from Krushna Mavani

Krushna Mavani — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:18:30 -0000

May be true, but I have seen/heard of beggers (although rare) in so-called developed countries too. Well, they may be not officially on record?!! No idea.

Yea, money is basic requirement for a good life. But these days, there is mostly rat-race for money in many developed countries.
Actually, I could not see any real contentment amongst many people of even developed countries. So, I got an obvious question to ask,
Why do not ‘happiness’ and ‘health’ included to define ‘DEVELOPMENT’?

Reply from Riya Senk

Riya Senk — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:21:37 -0000

Well I think a country can be called Developed when there is no population under the poverty line decided by the government.

myspace comments

Reply from anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:27:10 -0000

Check this news (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=518656&in_page_id=1770)

The news is about a research result which shows that modernization and gazets may already be causing damage to the society. The question is why not take such things seriously? Is it just because modernization and competition help economy in a way?

Another such example is MOBILE phones, although very useful, this can cause harm in various ways in any age from children to adults.