to expect the Indian government to provide decent housing for it's citizens.

[myfunnynametaken]

I mean, it's a democracy, it's fast growing, it's not a third world country anymore and it's economy is doing OK.

All this coverage of the film Slumdog millionaire is depressing me. I can't believe the government of india is allowing people to live in these conditions in 2009. I know they are not as wealthy as us but FFS their hardly in the same league as Mozambique.

I hated Slumdog. (I am the only one it appears). Those poor poor children and their families. Dh has worked out there and seen it first hand and was very upset when he saw children about my dd's age digging at the side of roads etc.

No families should have to live like that. The 2 youngsters in Slumdog are being moved into proper homes but what about the rest left behind?

Hopefully money will now be raised through Danny Boyle/Who Wants To Be A Millionaire etc.

but that's my point, Fimbo, they shouldn't have to be reliant on charity, surely it's the governments responsibility.

Yes, sorry.

No, don't be sorry, maybe it's me that's wrong. Maybe some housing could be provided partly using charitable donations.

India is huge , how would the government even start to help people out the slums. . I have only been there once and was overwhelmed by the sheer size and pace of it all.

yes it's economy is doing ok but for the size of the population I believe it's GDP is still a fairly long way down the list.

Unfortunately it is also a country plagued by many other issues which also need tackling

(haven't seen the film btw)

It is a tricky business applying 1st world sensibilites to a country that (sorry) does not have 1st world attitudes ...

interesting article about the Indian economy

Thanks for that FAQ, to be honest, I had expected India to have suffering in the recession because my understanding was the recession was a global thing and no country was immune.

Still shocked that this sort of thing is happening over there on such a large scale though.

As Meglet said India is huge and the government just wouldn't be able to provide social housing for everyone. I agree the poverty in India is shocking, but think that Slumdog is good, because it opens eyes to the real India and I hope that charities working out there see an increase in their incomes, rather than people just saying 'look at the poverty in India'. (Daizy makes a mental note to put her words into actions!)

I don't understand what the size of the country has to do with it.

Surely a small country requires less housing and has fewer citizens to pay for it. A large country has more citizens paying tax. It's relative, no?

Only if the proportion of people paying taxes is considerably larger than the proportion livin in poverty, which is not the case in India.

It's a real shame

Don't forget the caste system, which is still very evident in India and helps perpetuate poverty

I read in the Times about 2 years ago (have googled but can't find it) that only 2% of Indians pay income tax. I found that shocking.

I too found Slumdog deeply depressing, it was about as uplifting as a visit to the dentist.

YABU it's like saying the EU should provide decent housing - it would be a very large scale process and as we can't manage to sort housing in England how are they supposed to sort out the whole of India

We have managed to sort housing in England. British children don't sleep in slums with open sewers trickling past their heads.

It matters that it is a big country because the wealth is concentrated in certain regions and cities, while the population as whole 9and it is a HUGE population) are spread over miles and unimaginable miles, living subsistence lives, scratching out a living with little technoology, no mains water, big problems of climate, weather, disease and harsh land, etc.

Also - 800,000 workers have lost jobs this year because the recession has menat that America is importing fewer t shirts made in India (I can't imagine the huge voume of t Shirts that represents - 800,000 workers!). Meanwhile land is used for export and cash crops , GM agriculture means that farmers have to buy new seeds from patent holding multi-nationals each year rather than using thier own (many GM seeds can't be used to plant a new crop year on year), Bhopal was an industrial city where every inhabitant (practically) was killed or bllinded by Union Carbide and still hasn't had compensation.....I doubt all this can be rectified by a few call centres and the dilution of the caste system.

Hopefully India will continue it's rise to economic success and stability, but building housing, hospitals, everything across an entire continent is going to take time, time and more time.

I'm not convinced that the people who live in Dharavi are really that desperate. I think those who live in the remote villages are probably worse off. Much of Dhavari does seem to have running water, electricity, cable tv, telephones.

I wouldn't be happy with the idea that the Indian governemnt is being pressurised to reform Dharavi when there are people living in villages who don't have even the basic ammenities.

Did anyone see the real slumdog millionaire program on recently? Some of the people featured on there, who had money chose to carry on living there because of ties with the community even though they had the money to move elsewhere.

I think the whole dhavari thing is being overplayed and they do all have a vote and I don't think the government does neglect them totally.

I think our own government is jsut as blameworthy for the impoverished inner city areas in our country where the quality of living is equally bad compared to the average in this country.

I haven't seen the film.

But you are trying to apply British principles to a country that does not have the same systems or priorities, or the same levels of income, and so on.

People in this country have a distorted view of poverty. Poverty in this country is considered to be having an income of less than a certain amount of money. But in actual fact, no-one in this country has 0 income. If you do not have a job you are entitled to certain benefits. And while those benefits may not be a huge amount of money (benefits are designed as a last resort not a way of life) no-one in this country lives with no money at all. And if we have no house we can get local authority housing. No-one has to be homeless. And if you get sick you go to your local hospital and you are treated on the nhs, whether you are a tax payer or not.

But most countries in the world do not work like that. Most countries do not have comprehensive state benefits systems. If you don't have a job, then you don't have any money. None. The state doesn't provide, you either earn a living or you go without. If you don't have a house then you live on the street, or squat somewhere. If you are in poor health then you either have medical insurance to pay for your treatment or you die.

People really don't realize how lucky they have it here. And while by UK standards of living there are people living in poverty in this country, by world standards, there are not.

Before I get accused of being a troll, I'll admit that this is my first post (though I've been on MN for years now). I just could not let this post go by without answering it!

I am an Indian myself and have lived in Mumbai for 23 years. While Slumdog Millionaire is not telling untruths, it does not give the whole picture. ChopTheDuck has got it right when she says that conditions in Dharavi are not as bad as is often portrayed in the Western media, things in remote villages are much worse (this is why many Indians are not convinced by Slumdog Millionaire and refuse to support it). Many many people live in shanty towns because they then escape the census, and thus the need to pay income tax, housing tax etc etc.

And the Government DOES try. Five years ago, they brought in a Slum Re-Development Scheme (called SRD) which meant they would demolish all the slums, giving the people temporary accommodation, build pucca flats on the land and give a flat each to the original slum-dwellers...the idea was that they would occupy 70% of the flats and the remaining 20% would be sold to recover costs. Guess what? The scheme failed spectacularly because the slum-dwellers refused to vacate the land!

This does not mean that genuine cases of tragedy/poverty does not exist. They do, and the Government DOES provide help through charitable organisations.

Please do not blame the Indian Government without knowing the full picture.

exactly wannabe, you said exactly what I was thinking and couldn't really articulate without coming across as hard hearted and unfeeling!

I enjoyed SM but agree that it is about as uplifting as root canal.

What annoyed me was that the story relied on it's happy ending being about one poor child being made rich. Is it just me, or is that not really happy at all?

And now in 'real life' we're supposed to be uplifted by the fact that the child actors are to be given houses. Well, that's great. But what about all the other kids living in a hell we can barely imagine?

Are we really assumed to be so thick that we go 'awww' and imagine that everything is ok just because a handful of people manage to escape from grinding, hideous poverty?

Reading the press coverage makes me wonder if I'm going mad.

I think the idea of him breaking the caste barriers was more uplifting than the money, personally. The more people who can break the stereotypes and caste barriers, hopefully the more acceptable the lower castes will become, although that's never going to be easy. The book I think plays up this theme more than the money side of it. I've read the book and seent he film.

The two child artistes were given money to buy "proper" houses. That does not mean their parents will actually buy them! The current story in the Indian media is that the parents intend to use the money to further the child's education and stay put in their shanty-town house....and I can't say that I blame them.

I am not putting down the sentiment here. I'm just saying that often people in the West don't realise that many people CHOOSE to live in shanty-towns and will not budge from them, no matter who tries to convince them (why do you think they still exist even in the current economic boom?) The real problem lies in rural areas where people are experiencing true poverty (starvation, disease etc), and are getting much less support than Mumbai's shanty-towns simply because they aren't news-worthy.