Citizens of the World

Here is a nice article by Rajdeep Sardesai (those who see NDTV need no introduction to Rajdeep; he is one of NDTV's most prolific journalists) on what factors might have led to the enormous generosity shown by the world towards the tsunami relief efforts. Actually, I meant to link this article by Fareed Zakaria earlier where he talks about the phenomenal response the tsunami has seen from Indians, both from those within the country & those outside. Rajdeep comments on Zakaria's article & writes more.

In the two weeks after the tidal wave hit, the Prime Minister's Relief Fund, the main agency to which people make donations, has collected about $80 million. After the Gujarat earthquake of April 2001, it took almost one year to collect the same amount of money. And remember that the 2001 earthquake was massive (7.9 on the Richter scale), killed more Indians (30,000) than the tsunami appears to have, and also got intense media attention (Bill Clinton headed the fund-raising efforts). What has changed in these four years is the most important new reality about India: the growing wealth, strength and confidence of Indian society.

Of course, all the legendary problems of Indian government remain: subsidies, regulation, red tape, bureaucracy and inefficiency are all still large obstacles to growth. More important, however, there is a growing constituency for growth and good government. Businessmen in cities like Mumbai, Bangalore and Chennai are joining together to demand that government shape up. Some are solving problems themselves. In Chennai, one sees the rise of private street-cleaning that last year had 17,000 chapters, covers 40 percent of the city and 75 percent of the suburbs and serves 1.7 million homes.

Rajdeep agrees in part with Fareed Zakaria, and adds a different point of view - that of the increasingly effective media penetration the last few years have seen in India.

Over the past 15 years, India has been the second fastest growing economy in the world, with an average growth rate of six per cent. Per capita income has almost doubled, and more than 100 million Indians have moved out of poverty. Zakaria’s view may be true, but only up to a point. Yes, at one level, the large amounts of money collected for tsunami relief does reflect a wealthier society, where individual salaried employees do not think twice before donating a day’s salary and where corporates can afford to dip into their profits with greater alacrity than ever before. But to look at the collective response of the Indian nation only in the context of the increased wealth in our society would be to ignore the wider social processes that are transforming India.

To some extent, satellite television has had a very important role to play in this transformation. Now, you have over two-dozen national, regional and foreign channels that have opened India to a universe of opportunities. The relentless transmission of the images of tragedy from across the tsunami-affected areas brought the country, and indeed, the globe closer together.

Several myths have been shattered. For much too long, India’s affluent middle-classes have been chastised as selfish and self-absorbed. Equally, it has been suggested that this large pool of people are living in a consumerist idyll, with their minds in Manhattan and their bodies being transported from one shopping mall to another. The stereotype was of an unconcerned mass that simply did not care about society. The fact is that Indian society is far too varied and mobile to be typecast. And it’s these very Indians who have been among the first to respond to the tsunami tragedy.

The dynamism of the NGO movement, which has once again been highlighted in the relief operations, stems from a growing awakening among Indians about the potential of collective action, and a desire to be involved in public life without having to be part of a political party or the Indian state.

There are more features of interest in Rajdeep's article. Would surely recommend a reading.