This does not just apply in India. A long time ago, I had a job soliciting donations door to door in the US. We did all we could to avoid the rich neighborhoods and actively sought out the poor minority neighborhoods. People in those neighborhoods with only two dollars would give one to help others. In the rich neighborhoods, they would call the police the moment they saw you. If I ever had to have a heart attack in the street, I would much rather have it in a poor neighborhood, because some kind person would help me.
My theory is that poor people rely on cooperation with others to survive, and this forces them to develop compassion and learn good human relations at a young age. Rich people on the other had don't need others so much, and instead are much likely be in competition with them.
Even in family relations this applies. Siblings in poor families offer much needed support to each other. In rich families siblings seem more likely to be considered as competitors for parental affections at a young age, and competitors for inheritance when older. This mentality of constant competition is poisonous.
Honestly, I think that being rich is a pretty clear path to ultimate unhappiness. Better to be slightly poor in money and rich in the things that actually bring happiness, like family, health, friends, spare time, and a clear conscience.
Nietzsche and The Last Psychiatrist[1] would have a field day with this.
The article tells a story we love to believe: we may be poorer than the people the article talks about, but we are nicer, more empathic, better people. We love to believe it, because it makes us feel good about ourselves and provides a sense of justice: nobody has it all and if someone has more of one thing, he will have less of something else.
We also love to believe it because that way we don't have to consider a far more disturbing possibility: that these people aren't accidentally rich and their moral shortcomings aren't a result of their riches. That they are rich exactly because they are capable of the repugnant behavior described in the article. That our capitalist system is fallacious, can be gamed and is being gamed by these people. The system we are so infatuated with allows people that are undeserving, cheaters, to get the prize.
Yes, people who you believe are undeserving can obtain wealth. No, that doesn't mean that all wealthy people are like that or that it is necessary to behave badly to become wealthy.
The last psychiatrist is an ok writer, and a lot of his stuff is fun to read, but he draws some really erroneous conclusions. I'd be careful about being drawn in by that.
I definitely agree with you that the current socioeconomic system is suboptimal, and rife with perverse incentives and loopholes. It can be fixed though.
Am I the only one who sees this exact same behaviour here in North America, and indeed, here on Hacker News? A sense of entitlement? A feeling that things like anti-discrimination laws are an inconvenience to be brushed off, taxes are a way of stealing the hard-earned wealth on entrepreneurs, and so on?
I see nothing particularly Indian about this story. It seems like part fo the human condition. That being said, we have abolished slavery. Women have the vote and are struggling to control their bodies. Although the rich control the media, the poor still have a vote.
> anti-discrimination laws are an inconvenience to be brushed off, taxes are a way of stealing the hard-earned wealth on entrepreneurs,
I personally also see a massive amount of entitlement in the inverse...
A never-ending creation of new laws and controls over citizens lives from "philosopher kings" [1] who think they know how to run peoples lives better than they do via "social engineering and idealism".
Or attempting to create some highly idealistic society of total safety....via as security theater, strictly enforcing victimless crimes [2] (such as owning a pitbull or drugs)... and the constant erosion of basic civil liberties in the process to achieve the former.
I have seen this kind of behavior going on in India for so many years. There are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on bikes off the road and into ditches with their cars.
I'm convinced that this stems from the religious caste system which has now become the monetary class system in these new times.
I always wondered why don't the poor just revolt, they're treated so badly, almost like slaves and everyday they lose more and more. They have their kids run over and police will do nothing about it because the rich will pay them off to make the case go away. It truly is sad.
The worst part is poor people will do the same to other poor people given the opportunity. We (Indians) have learned nothing from Gandhi on how to treat our fellow men.
> There are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on bikes off the road and into ditches with their cars.
This is just one part of the story that helped your narrative. It is always the fault of the person with the larger vehicle in India, from what I know about the society. If you are involved in an accident and survived, pray to God that you were in the smaller vehicle, otherwise the crowd might beat you death - if they feel like it [1,2,3 and countless others]. From my own anecdote, I was almost hit by a motorbike while being on a cycle, due to my own fault. Not even a scratch, but I had to help the other man not be bullied by the crowd to pay me money.
And pushing people into ditches has nothing to do with being rich, it has to do with being an asshole. Yes there is widespread casteism (religious or economic) but not every unlawful, unfair act has be attributed to the same evil.
There are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on bikes off the road and into ditches with their cars.
That would be a serious crime in the USA. If you did that, and you got caught, you would be in very serious trouble. And, it would not matter how rich you were. That's assault, perhaps with intent to harm or kill and civilized society does not tolerate it.
Krishnamurti: That is really an innocent question, is it not? To see facts without opinion is one thing, but to have opinions about facts is totally another. It is one thing just to see the fact that a whole people are caught in superstition, but quite another to see that fact and condemn it. Opinions are not important, because I will have one opinion, you will have another, and a third person will have still another. To be concerned with opinions is a stupid form of thinking. What is important is to see facts as they are without opinion, without judging, without comparing.
To feel beauty without opinion is the only real perception of beauty. Similarly, if you can see the people of India just as they are, see them very clearly without fixed opinions, without judging, then what you see will be real.
The Indians have certain manners, certain customs of their own, but fundamentally they are like any other people. They get bored, they are cruel, they are afraid, they revolt within the prison of society, just as people do everywhere else. Like the Americans, they also want comfort, only at present they do not have it to the same extent. They have a heavy tradition about renouncing the world and trying to be saintly; but they also have deep-rooted ambitions, hypocrisy, greed, envy, and they are broken up by castes, as human beings are everywhere else, only here it is much more brutal. Here in India you can see more closely the whole phenomenon of what is happening in the world. We want to be loved, but we don't know what love is; we are unhappy, thirsting for something real, and we turn to books, to the Upanishads, the Gita, or the Bible, so we get lost in words, in speculations. Whether it is here, or in Russia, or in America, the human mind is similar, only it expresses itself in different ways under different skies and different governments.
Humans are apes. It happens right here in Silicon Valley too.
Atherton has nice little yellow signs that say 'No Through Traffic'. Why? They don't want the poor people from Redwood City coming through. In fact, one Atherton gentleman went to a RWC City Council meeting complaining about it and asking RWC to put up signs on their side too. The folks at RWC apparently told him to go stuff himself, that those little yellow signs were potentially illegal and if Atherton kept pressing, they would disallow traffic from Atherton through RWC. This was about two years ago.
The rich are different from you and me - they take because they can and because they can then get away with it.
[This is not to say that all rich are evil, nor all poor virtuous. Just that as money accumulates, so does power, and this when left unchecked by self-imposed moral constraints leads down this path.]
"Bill Goldman, the great screenwriter, said to me when I was pathetic enough to ask what Robert Redford was "really like" - ‘what would you be like if you hadn't heard the word “no” for 30 years?" - Stephen Fry
I highly doubt the veracity of the article about the SUV driving young man and the vegetable seller; this story confirms your worst stereotypes about India and gets eyeballs but it is bullshit.
I would like to point out that poor people in India are a very well represented : Communist part and Marxist parties are doing very well in India. Every political party courts the votes of poor people. If you pull shit like that SUV kid , the vegetable sellers would swarm your car and fuck you up good.
I grew up in Delhi. The poor people in Delhi day are very well aware of their rights and exercise them -- sometimes with violent consequences for the brash rich.
The feudal India that you allude you is gone and good riddance to it . One has to be super fucking powerful to get away with shit like that in India.
Btw , Salman Khan (the actor) is facing jail time. So yeah !
>You’d think if people had more than they need, they would be generous about it, and would see, reflecting on themselves, that others might want to have more as well.
This doesn't really make sense to me. People who value relationships or are compassionate generally, in my anecdotal experience, value money less. So of course they'll have less. Th people who rich are the ones who value spending their time getting money over helping others (empathy, essentially). At least, that's how I feel about money, and I assume other people who are rich/desire to be rich feel the same way. More precisely, it's not that people who get rich lose their ability to empathize -- people who never developed the ability to empathize have an easier time getting rich.
Strange. When I have money, I feel generous about it, and want to use that money to help others. I thought most people felt that way. It's one of the reasons that a progressive tax system makes good sense to me.
There are many ways that people get to be rich. Some are born into it, and stay rich because of systemic biases. Others "value spending their time getting money over helping others" and get rich that way. Still others get there by luck - winning the lottery - or by semi-luck - getting paid in pre-IPO shares of a wildly start-up.
Based on the various stories I've heard, those who win by luck tend to be the most generous with their money.
This essay is about those in the first category; those who are rich because of systemic biases, where society "is so deeply hierarchized along both class and caste lines" and "wealth is so completely tied in with political power, and often to crime without punishment." It's not really the one you're possibly thinking of, where someone starts average and ends up rich.
My income does tend to fluctuate. Some years I make really good money as a consultant. Other times I don't. I don't have much control over it. That would fit with the semi-luck category, since I don't get the feel that my income level is a good reflection of how much effort I put into things; income isn't a good measure of my self.
Ooh, no comments, I'll bite. The last time I said something negative about Indian society I had my personal details thrown all over HN. Wonder what's going to happen this time.
So here's the thing. This article is pretty spot on. We, the privileged of India, do indeed feel entitled. There's absolutely no doubt about that.
My theory is that the population pressure in India is so very high that you're always fighting for your piece of the pie and over extending yourself (such as the man with the large house who took over the pavement). Yes, it's greedy, but it's a particular mentality that comes out of being part of this massive rat race with millions.. billions.. of competitors. I have several friends in India who I would call upper class. You know, rich people with 4 bedroom apartments on the 17th floor in and around the capital.
You know what these people call themselves ?
Middle class.
They refuse to acknowledge that they are wealthy. That they are privileged. That they are truly upper class. I have a friend who drives an Audi presented to him by his father who thinks he's middle class.
These people struggle (or think that they do..) for so long in the rat race that they forget that they have risen above it and gone far beyond that. Perhaps that is why they seem to lack compassion and empathy. Maybe they feel that they are still struggling to survive and therefore can't spare a moment for someone else ?
The rich do need to take a moment to feel rich and then feel responsible. Unfortunately, as the article mentions the rich in India - to a great extent - are failing at this. Maybe it's desensitization due to the immensely large number of poor people. Maybe it's something else - further study is required.
Of course, I'm not even going into how hierarchical and class oriented Indian society truly is. Most people who the 'middle class' perceive as lower class are almost sub humans in their eyes. This is another reason in my opinion the Delhi gang rape case was such a big deal. The middle class got to point fingers once more at the lower classes who 'rape us'. They got to ask the government what they are doing to protect them from these 'evil immigrants who come into New Delhi and ruin our fair city'. I've had statements from rich girls in New Delhi who don't like 'these poor people who stare at us', but are completely fine with spoilt rich brats driving circles around them while honking away.
On the flip side though, this article mostly covers behavior in New Delhi. I'll go as far as to say that New Delhi is possibly the most horrible city in India when it comes to these things. Other cities tend to be more relaxed. There are far far better places than New Delhi.
The class system in Delhi is enforced and reinforced by the rich and poor collectively. I had a reservation at the Hilton for one night two years ago and I arrived on a friend's motorbike. The security at the hotel wouldn't let me through because I didn't look 'rich enough'. The security at the hotel by this logic, wouldn't let in people who looked like themselves either.
Situation's complicated.
EDIT:
There are a lot of replies to this post comparing the mentality I've mentioned above to that which exists in the west. I can see where that is coming from, but the main factor that needs to be taken into account is the kind and scale of poverty that exists in India. In India we say that if you have two meals a day, and a roof over your head, you're already rich!
Consider that, some posts here say that SV millionaires do not consider themselves upper class. That would be absolutely ridiculous in India! But, there are people here who go by the same ideals.
It's VERY EASY in India to make a difference in someone's life. Even if you're middle class, you can make a difference because people around you are way poorer than you. The problem is one of large scale apathy and complete indifference.
As an example, being middle class in the west, it's impossible to think that you could change someone's life by just hiring them to work in your house - by giving them reasonable pay and good working conditions. In India this is quite possible, a middle class person could easily hire 3-4 people and therefore start to create change. Maybe not the best example of how you can make a difference but the article is about how the privileged in India should feel more responsible and try harder to make a difference. For example, if you do hire people to work in your house, make sure that you encourage them to educate their children ? (stuff like that helps us move forward with these problems..)
My point is, being privileged in India is not really like being privileged in the west. You may not have government and industry connections but you can still make a massive difference at a personal level and if enough people start doing that, there will be a change. It's probably our only shot at it.
This is not elite entitlement. This is right wing entitlement. The recent death of Maggie reminded me of what she really changed - she made it ok to be selfish and disdainful of "undeserving" poor.
India was a hybridised socialist country for a very long time - coming out of that will look at lot like Britain the in the eighties I suspect - and if you want to put bets on the next two term incumbent - they will look a lot like the drivers if the SUVs and will tell then its good to be hard working, it's what will get us to moonbase alpha
In a recent incident, three poor Dalit boys inadvertently caused a small fire in a local community centre where they worked.
The fact that children are labelled as anything other than children, that Indian society calls them "Dalit" at birth, to me, summarizes why the region will remain retrogressive for a long, long time.
No, Indian society does not label children anything other than children at birth. It is a label gratuitously applied by the author, likely as a short-hand to indicate poorer section of society. People from these self-identified sections have reached the highest post in the country - from writer of the constitution to president, to various positions in the political spectrum. There is a problem of equal access to education, yes. But
a) this problem exists all over the world - consider school districts in the US and
b) is more acute in India due to large, distributed population against a largely agrarian/human labor based economy. Active discrimination is a much smaller factor.
There is an implied causality in this article. Being rich -> Lose empathy.
I'd be curious to know if there indeed is causality in either direction (Less empathetic people get richer) or is it just correlation masquerading as causality.
I have always been a strong believer in the saying "Fortune does not change men, it unmasks them". Studying this area would be difficult though as you either need to know ahead of time who would be successful, or study such a large cross-section that you are statistically likely to snare future successful people in your population.
There is a fundamental moral conflict in desiring to own more than the next person. That requires less guilt or empathy, no doubt about that.
You can find elsewhere an study about how psycopaths are usually found in leading positions, like politicians (specially in 3rd world, where salaries are high) and CEOs, amongst others.
I was waiting to find a comment like this! I tend to agree. I suspect being born with less empathy and concern allows you to acquire more wealth and my real life experiences have supported it. At least in the US (India seems to have deeper structural challenges) Be interesting to dig deeper.
The poor man whose cart was tipped, can't sue the rich guy. Neither would this be covered in the news. The police would simply refuse to register a case of loss against the rich (and probably powerful) guy. There is no insurance of the cart, of course.
When the poor know that every cog in the society is biased against the poor, people are quick to dismiss them and their misery. If it was another car instead of the cart, the SUV guy won't have hit the car, for the person riding the car would certainly be able to sue/ report to police, and might even have insurance.
This is about the lack of entitlement of the poor, rather than the ferocious sense of entitlement of the rich. The rich are just exploiting the absence of any entitlement to poor.
You can find examples anywhere, even in the US; years ago I read articles of affluent seaside communities erecting no trespassing signs fences and such blocking off access to public beaches.. I'm sure there are more examples of it, but here is one interesting site about the US entitled rich problem.
This... doesn't make sense at all, and is also simultaneous a True Scotsman fallacy.
For one thing, the vieux riche inspired entire revolutions with their compassionless, ridiculous, indefensible behavior. The wealthy nobility is a primary reason why so many countries are now democratic.
Clearly "being a complete dick" is not the exclusive purview of the nouveau riche. The notion that people who inherit their wealth are less likely to abuse it over people who earn it quickly also doesn't pass a lot of mental muster.
The distinction between "nouveau riche" and "vieux riche" smells like (and is) a classi No True Scotsman.
This is exactly it. If one is born into money, the sense of entitlement is in-bred and it doesn't need to be asserted explicitly, leave alone aggressively.
There may be a lot of misconceptions on the poor and class divide in India. I would like to answer some of them by posting some numbers and providing context.
Who are the 'poor' in India?
The poor in India, according to the Planning Commission, are people who live on 32 Indian Rupees/59cents per day.
How many people are poor in India?
The Planning Commission of India reports that there are 29.8% of the population who are 'poor' [0,1]. This roughly equates to 360 Million people who live below the poverty line.
Are the numbers for poor accurate?
May be, may be not. Some believe these numbers could be as high as 77% specially considering the inflation rate and other factors.
Is it possible to live on 59 cents per day?
No but that's not even the main problem. Here is a comment from Jean Dréze, an economist and former member of the National Advisory Council India [2],
“What is really shocking is not that the official poverty line is abysmally low, but that even with that abysmal
benchmark, so many people are below it.The belated discovery that it is impossible to have a dignified
life on the official poverty line draws our attention to the appalling living conditions of the Indian poor.” Taking a
position diametrically opposed to Mr. Bhalla and Mr. Panagariya, Mr. Drèze argues, “The message about the terrifying
nature of 'hidden poverty’ in India has been somewhat lost in the din of the recent debate.”
Even with such a low price point the number of poor in India are staggering.
Is there a class divide in India (in particular Delhi) and possess a sense of entitlement?
Yes. I would recommend reading on how the elite tried to stifle Delhi's first Bus Rapid Transit system by filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi HC [3]. Here is the reason from the petitioner's (a car owner in Delhi) on why he decided to file the petition
"Car owners are the creators of wealth. Do you realise that they get exhausted sitting in their cars due to traffic
jams and they reach office completely tired? It affects their efficiency. Do you want them to perform less?" asks the
main petitioner BB Sharan.You cannot keep a commander-in-chief waiting in traffic while his army is waiting for his
orders. How does it matter if a peon reaches office five minute before time?"
This is the attitude of the "rich" in India. The society doesn't matter as long as their work gets done.
Thanks for posting this since a lot of people have been asking for numbers and it was late last night and I couldn't really dig up sources for all the info I posted.
You're absolutely right about the huge gap that exists between people trying to just make it, and even the middle class who have a roof over their heads. Unfortunately, most city dwellers fail to acknowledge this.
I'm not from India but my parents are from Sri Lanka and when I went back there I was surprised to find what seemed to be middle class families having maids and butlers (they call them servants). Maybe some rich people in India must feel like they have the right to do it because they grow up having those people cater to their every need
You may not know this but you are touching a very sensitive issue.
Which is better for the country: asking people to employ domestic workers, or have higher unemployment?
Let's take South Africa, which I know better than any place in Asia. There's high unemployment. The government encourages people to hire domestic workers. Checking now the rates are about US$ 1/hour. These are maids/domestics, gardeners, childminders, caretakers for the sick and elderly, and so on.
I grew up on the US, and from my family learned a strong moral principle that it's best to do everything yourself, rather than have 'people cater to my every need' at home. As an adult, I followed that same moral principle.
Then I bought a house. With a garden. A quite beautiful garden that I wanted to keep. I couldn't do it myself. More importantly, my rates as a software developer were more than 8x that of a gardener. I fought that moral training and realized that it's little different than regularly going to a mechanic to maintain my car.
The position of the South African government is similar. If you have the money, then why not use it to hire people to help around the house? Living in South Africa for a short time, I learned about some of the advantages of having someone who would do laundry, including ironing, sweeping, or mowing the lawn. None are tasks I enjoy.
As you (and the essayist) point out, that's fraught with difficulties. At what point does that turn into a sense of entitlement? How can abuses in the workplace (that is, the home) be monitored and reduced?
You know, it's really interesting how people can become oblivious to the concerns of others. It's not necessarily wealth that does it either. It can be a job promotion, parents that always bend to the will of their child, or a variety of other factors.
The most shocking thing is that I don't think these people realize they are doing it either. Now certainly there are some who realize it and just don't care (psychopaths or sociopaths), but I think it is more common that people lose the ability to think about the consequences of their actions.
Evaluation of my actions is something I try hard to do with myself. It is very, very difficult to objectively evaluate yourself and how you come across to others. Something you may not even think twice about can have a lasting, negative effect on someone else. You don't know what that person is going through; maybe they just got laid off or lost a relative -- who knows what really.
[+] [-] davidroberts|13 years ago|reply
My theory is that poor people rely on cooperation with others to survive, and this forces them to develop compassion and learn good human relations at a young age. Rich people on the other had don't need others so much, and instead are much likely be in competition with them.
Even in family relations this applies. Siblings in poor families offer much needed support to each other. In rich families siblings seem more likely to be considered as competitors for parental affections at a young age, and competitors for inheritance when older. This mentality of constant competition is poisonous.
Honestly, I think that being rich is a pretty clear path to ultimate unhappiness. Better to be slightly poor in money and rich in the things that actually bring happiness, like family, health, friends, spare time, and a clear conscience.
[+] [-] Confusion|13 years ago|reply
The article tells a story we love to believe: we may be poorer than the people the article talks about, but we are nicer, more empathic, better people. We love to believe it, because it makes us feel good about ourselves and provides a sense of justice: nobody has it all and if someone has more of one thing, he will have less of something else.
We also love to believe it because that way we don't have to consider a far more disturbing possibility: that these people aren't accidentally rich and their moral shortcomings aren't a result of their riches. That they are rich exactly because they are capable of the repugnant behavior described in the article. That our capitalist system is fallacious, can be gamed and is being gamed by these people. The system we are so infatuated with allows people that are undeserving, cheaters, to get the prize.
[1] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/
[+] [-] ameister14|13 years ago|reply
The last psychiatrist is an ok writer, and a lot of his stuff is fun to read, but he draws some really erroneous conclusions. I'd be careful about being drawn in by that.
[+] [-] corporalagumbo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|13 years ago|reply
I see nothing particularly Indian about this story. It seems like part fo the human condition. That being said, we have abolished slavery. Women have the vote and are struggling to control their bodies. Although the rich control the media, the poor still have a vote.
We humans can change.
[+] [-] dmix|13 years ago|reply
I personally also see a massive amount of entitlement in the inverse...
A never-ending creation of new laws and controls over citizens lives from "philosopher kings" [1] who think they know how to run peoples lives better than they do via "social engineering and idealism".
Or attempting to create some highly idealistic society of total safety....via as security theater, strictly enforcing victimless crimes [2] (such as owning a pitbull or drugs)... and the constant erosion of basic civil liberties in the process to achieve the former.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king#Criticism
[2] http://www.policymic.com/articles/8558/why-we-need-prison-re...
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] knodi|13 years ago|reply
I'm convinced that this stems from the religious caste system which has now become the monetary class system in these new times.
I always wondered why don't the poor just revolt, they're treated so badly, almost like slaves and everyday they lose more and more. They have their kids run over and police will do nothing about it because the rich will pay them off to make the case go away. It truly is sad.
The worst part is poor people will do the same to other poor people given the opportunity. We (Indians) have learned nothing from Gandhi on how to treat our fellow men.
[+] [-] mayanksinghal|13 years ago|reply
This is just one part of the story that helped your narrative. It is always the fault of the person with the larger vehicle in India, from what I know about the society. If you are involved in an accident and survived, pray to God that you were in the smaller vehicle, otherwise the crowd might beat you death - if they feel like it [1,2,3 and countless others]. From my own anecdote, I was almost hit by a motorbike while being on a cycle, due to my own fault. Not even a scratch, but I had to help the other man not be bullied by the crowd to pay me money.
And pushing people into ditches has nothing to do with being rich, it has to do with being an asshole. Yes there is widespread casteism (religious or economic) but not every unlawful, unfair act has be attributed to the same evil.
[1] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-28/surat...
[2] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-09-06/nagpu...
[3] http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-02-28/rajko...
[+] [-] 16s|13 years ago|reply
That would be a serious crime in the USA. If you did that, and you got caught, you would be in very serious trouble. And, it would not matter how rich you were. That's assault, perhaps with intent to harm or kill and civilized society does not tolerate it.
[+] [-] hypertexthero|13 years ago|reply
Krishnamurti: That is really an innocent question, is it not? To see facts without opinion is one thing, but to have opinions about facts is totally another. It is one thing just to see the fact that a whole people are caught in superstition, but quite another to see that fact and condemn it. Opinions are not important, because I will have one opinion, you will have another, and a third person will have still another. To be concerned with opinions is a stupid form of thinking. What is important is to see facts as they are without opinion, without judging, without comparing.
To feel beauty without opinion is the only real perception of beauty. Similarly, if you can see the people of India just as they are, see them very clearly without fixed opinions, without judging, then what you see will be real.
The Indians have certain manners, certain customs of their own, but fundamentally they are like any other people. They get bored, they are cruel, they are afraid, they revolt within the prison of society, just as people do everywhere else. Like the Americans, they also want comfort, only at present they do not have it to the same extent. They have a heavy tradition about renouncing the world and trying to be saintly; but they also have deep-rooted ambitions, hypocrisy, greed, envy, and they are broken up by castes, as human beings are everywhere else, only here it is much more brutal. Here in India you can see more closely the whole phenomenon of what is happening in the world. We want to be loved, but we don't know what love is; we are unhappy, thirsting for something real, and we turn to books, to the Upanishads, the Gita, or the Bible, so we get lost in words, in speculations. Whether it is here, or in Russia, or in America, the human mind is similar, only it expresses itself in different ways under different skies and different governments.
— From Think on These Things (also published as This Matter of Culture) by Jiddu Krishnamurti, Chapter 11 - Conformity and Revolt. - http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/think-on-these-things/1...
[+] [-] not_that_noob|13 years ago|reply
Atherton has nice little yellow signs that say 'No Through Traffic'. Why? They don't want the poor people from Redwood City coming through. In fact, one Atherton gentleman went to a RWC City Council meeting complaining about it and asking RWC to put up signs on their side too. The folks at RWC apparently told him to go stuff himself, that those little yellow signs were potentially illegal and if Atherton kept pressing, they would disallow traffic from Atherton through RWC. This was about two years ago.
The rich are different from you and me - they take because they can and because they can then get away with it.
[This is not to say that all rich are evil, nor all poor virtuous. Just that as money accumulates, so does power, and this when left unchecked by self-imposed moral constraints leads down this path.]
[+] [-] andybak|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manishsharan|13 years ago|reply
I would like to point out that poor people in India are a very well represented : Communist part and Marxist parties are doing very well in India. Every political party courts the votes of poor people. If you pull shit like that SUV kid , the vegetable sellers would swarm your car and fuck you up good.
I grew up in Delhi. The poor people in Delhi day are very well aware of their rights and exercise them -- sometimes with violent consequences for the brash rich.
The feudal India that you allude you is gone and good riddance to it . One has to be super fucking powerful to get away with shit like that in India.
Btw , Salman Khan (the actor) is facing jail time. So yeah !
[+] [-] consz|13 years ago|reply
This doesn't really make sense to me. People who value relationships or are compassionate generally, in my anecdotal experience, value money less. So of course they'll have less. Th people who rich are the ones who value spending their time getting money over helping others (empathy, essentially). At least, that's how I feel about money, and I assume other people who are rich/desire to be rich feel the same way. More precisely, it's not that people who get rich lose their ability to empathize -- people who never developed the ability to empathize have an easier time getting rich.
[+] [-] dalke|13 years ago|reply
There are many ways that people get to be rich. Some are born into it, and stay rich because of systemic biases. Others "value spending their time getting money over helping others" and get rich that way. Still others get there by luck - winning the lottery - or by semi-luck - getting paid in pre-IPO shares of a wildly start-up.
Based on the various stories I've heard, those who win by luck tend to be the most generous with their money.
This essay is about those in the first category; those who are rich because of systemic biases, where society "is so deeply hierarchized along both class and caste lines" and "wealth is so completely tied in with political power, and often to crime without punishment." It's not really the one you're possibly thinking of, where someone starts average and ends up rich.
My income does tend to fluctuate. Some years I make really good money as a consultant. Other times I don't. I don't have much control over it. That would fit with the semi-luck category, since I don't get the feel that my income level is a good reflection of how much effort I put into things; income isn't a good measure of my self.
[+] [-] ashray|13 years ago|reply
So here's the thing. This article is pretty spot on. We, the privileged of India, do indeed feel entitled. There's absolutely no doubt about that.
My theory is that the population pressure in India is so very high that you're always fighting for your piece of the pie and over extending yourself (such as the man with the large house who took over the pavement). Yes, it's greedy, but it's a particular mentality that comes out of being part of this massive rat race with millions.. billions.. of competitors. I have several friends in India who I would call upper class. You know, rich people with 4 bedroom apartments on the 17th floor in and around the capital.
You know what these people call themselves ?
Middle class.
They refuse to acknowledge that they are wealthy. That they are privileged. That they are truly upper class. I have a friend who drives an Audi presented to him by his father who thinks he's middle class.
These people struggle (or think that they do..) for so long in the rat race that they forget that they have risen above it and gone far beyond that. Perhaps that is why they seem to lack compassion and empathy. Maybe they feel that they are still struggling to survive and therefore can't spare a moment for someone else ?
The rich do need to take a moment to feel rich and then feel responsible. Unfortunately, as the article mentions the rich in India - to a great extent - are failing at this. Maybe it's desensitization due to the immensely large number of poor people. Maybe it's something else - further study is required.
Of course, I'm not even going into how hierarchical and class oriented Indian society truly is. Most people who the 'middle class' perceive as lower class are almost sub humans in their eyes. This is another reason in my opinion the Delhi gang rape case was such a big deal. The middle class got to point fingers once more at the lower classes who 'rape us'. They got to ask the government what they are doing to protect them from these 'evil immigrants who come into New Delhi and ruin our fair city'. I've had statements from rich girls in New Delhi who don't like 'these poor people who stare at us', but are completely fine with spoilt rich brats driving circles around them while honking away.
On the flip side though, this article mostly covers behavior in New Delhi. I'll go as far as to say that New Delhi is possibly the most horrible city in India when it comes to these things. Other cities tend to be more relaxed. There are far far better places than New Delhi.
The class system in Delhi is enforced and reinforced by the rich and poor collectively. I had a reservation at the Hilton for one night two years ago and I arrived on a friend's motorbike. The security at the hotel wouldn't let me through because I didn't look 'rich enough'. The security at the hotel by this logic, wouldn't let in people who looked like themselves either.
Situation's complicated.
EDIT:
There are a lot of replies to this post comparing the mentality I've mentioned above to that which exists in the west. I can see where that is coming from, but the main factor that needs to be taken into account is the kind and scale of poverty that exists in India. In India we say that if you have two meals a day, and a roof over your head, you're already rich!
Consider that, some posts here say that SV millionaires do not consider themselves upper class. That would be absolutely ridiculous in India! But, there are people here who go by the same ideals.
It's VERY EASY in India to make a difference in someone's life. Even if you're middle class, you can make a difference because people around you are way poorer than you. The problem is one of large scale apathy and complete indifference.
As an example, being middle class in the west, it's impossible to think that you could change someone's life by just hiring them to work in your house - by giving them reasonable pay and good working conditions. In India this is quite possible, a middle class person could easily hire 3-4 people and therefore start to create change. Maybe not the best example of how you can make a difference but the article is about how the privileged in India should feel more responsible and try harder to make a difference. For example, if you do hire people to work in your house, make sure that you encourage them to educate their children ? (stuff like that helps us move forward with these problems..)
My point is, being privileged in India is not really like being privileged in the west. You may not have government and industry connections but you can still make a massive difference at a personal level and if enough people start doing that, there will be a change. It's probably our only shot at it.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|13 years ago|reply
India was a hybridised socialist country for a very long time - coming out of that will look at lot like Britain the in the eighties I suspect - and if you want to put bets on the next two term incumbent - they will look a lot like the drivers if the SUVs and will tell then its good to be hard working, it's what will get us to moonbase alpha
Welcome to running the planet. Beware.
[+] [-] aswanson|13 years ago|reply
The fact that children are labelled as anything other than children, that Indian society calls them "Dalit" at birth, to me, summarizes why the region will remain retrogressive for a long, long time.
[+] [-] ruchir|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tusharc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanmolden|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hcarvalhoalves|13 years ago|reply
You can find elsewhere an study about how psycopaths are usually found in leading positions, like politicians (specially in 3rd world, where salaries are high) and CEOs, amongst others.
[+] [-] jusben1369|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acjohnson55|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capex|13 years ago|reply
When the poor know that every cog in the society is biased against the poor, people are quick to dismiss them and their misery. If it was another car instead of the cart, the SUV guy won't have hit the car, for the person riding the car would certainly be able to sue/ report to police, and might even have insurance.
This is about the lack of entitlement of the poor, rather than the ferocious sense of entitlement of the rich. The rich are just exploiting the absence of any entitlement to poor.
[+] [-] LarryMade2|13 years ago|reply
http://www.cityprojectca.org/ourwork/beachaccess.html
[+] [-] scscsc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] potatolicious|13 years ago|reply
For one thing, the vieux riche inspired entire revolutions with their compassionless, ridiculous, indefensible behavior. The wealthy nobility is a primary reason why so many countries are now democratic.
Clearly "being a complete dick" is not the exclusive purview of the nouveau riche. The notion that people who inherit their wealth are less likely to abuse it over people who earn it quickly also doesn't pass a lot of mental muster.
The distinction between "nouveau riche" and "vieux riche" smells like (and is) a classi No True Scotsman.
[+] [-] huhtenberg|13 years ago|reply
This is exactly it. If one is born into money, the sense of entitlement is in-bred and it doesn't need to be asserted explicitly, leave alone aggressively.
[+] [-] denzil_correa|13 years ago|reply
Who are the 'poor' in India?
The poor in India, according to the Planning Commission, are people who live on 32 Indian Rupees/59cents per day.
How many people are poor in India?
The Planning Commission of India reports that there are 29.8% of the population who are 'poor' [0,1]. This roughly equates to 360 Million people who live below the poverty line.
Are the numbers for poor accurate?
May be, may be not. Some believe these numbers could be as high as 77% specially considering the inflation rate and other factors.
Is it possible to live on 59 cents per day?
No but that's not even the main problem. Here is a comment from Jean Dréze, an economist and former member of the National Advisory Council India [2],
Even with such a low price point the number of poor in India are staggering.Is there a class divide in India (in particular Delhi) and possess a sense of entitlement?
Yes. I would recommend reading on how the elite tried to stifle Delhi's first Bus Rapid Transit system by filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi HC [3]. Here is the reason from the petitioner's (a car owner in Delhi) on why he decided to file the petition
This is the attitude of the "rich" in India. The society doesn't matter as long as their work gets done.[0] http://planningcommission.nic.in/news/press_pov1903.pdf
[1] http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_pov.pdf
[2] http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/what-does-indias-p...
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19572583
[+] [-] ashray|13 years ago|reply
You're absolutely right about the huge gap that exists between people trying to just make it, and even the middle class who have a roof over their heads. Unfortunately, most city dwellers fail to acknowledge this.
[+] [-] baali|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sharma|13 years ago|reply
Too many people means: Too much inequality,inability of governing people properly,lack of regulations and so on.....
India is 3 times more populated than USA but 1/3 in land size of USA!
Population does matter. Nothing about riches only in India. Put these conditions in any other country and you will see same behavior.
[+] [-] LAMike|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dalke|13 years ago|reply
Which is better for the country: asking people to employ domestic workers, or have higher unemployment?
Let's take South Africa, which I know better than any place in Asia. There's high unemployment. The government encourages people to hire domestic workers. Checking now the rates are about US$ 1/hour. These are maids/domestics, gardeners, childminders, caretakers for the sick and elderly, and so on.
I grew up on the US, and from my family learned a strong moral principle that it's best to do everything yourself, rather than have 'people cater to my every need' at home. As an adult, I followed that same moral principle.
Then I bought a house. With a garden. A quite beautiful garden that I wanted to keep. I couldn't do it myself. More importantly, my rates as a software developer were more than 8x that of a gardener. I fought that moral training and realized that it's little different than regularly going to a mechanic to maintain my car.
The position of the South African government is similar. If you have the money, then why not use it to hire people to help around the house? Living in South Africa for a short time, I learned about some of the advantages of having someone who would do laundry, including ironing, sweeping, or mowing the lawn. None are tasks I enjoy.
As you (and the essayist) point out, that's fraught with difficulties. At what point does that turn into a sense of entitlement? How can abuses in the workplace (that is, the home) be monitored and reduced?
You can read some of the difficulties and different viewpoints at http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/473.1 .
[+] [-] Xcelerate|13 years ago|reply
The most shocking thing is that I don't think these people realize they are doing it either. Now certainly there are some who realize it and just don't care (psychopaths or sociopaths), but I think it is more common that people lose the ability to think about the consequences of their actions.
Evaluation of my actions is something I try hard to do with myself. It is very, very difficult to objectively evaluate yourself and how you come across to others. Something you may not even think twice about can have a lasting, negative effect on someone else. You don't know what that person is going through; maybe they just got laid off or lost a relative -- who knows what really.