Apropos your rather funny edit “Not for the poor and sweaty” (August 13), the main argument seems to be that hot and poor countries fare poorly; ergo India deserves to be lauded on its rich haul of six medals (two silver and four bronze). If hot climes is a criterion, it perhaps is irrelevant to the writer that Brazil pulled in 17 medals of which three were gold and five silver; or that Australia won 35 medals (7 gold and 16 silver). But, wait a minute! What about the poor country argument — Australia is rich, remember?
So it is, but what about the “B” in “Bric” — Brazil? And while we are at it, what about China, since the edit refers so eloquently to per capita incomes? According to the very same International Monetary Fund, China’s per capita income in 2011 was $8,382 (rank: 92), while India’s was $3,694 (rank: 129). So, yes, India ranked lower than China in per capita income, but Kenya ranked 154 (but won two gold, four silver and a total of 11 medals) and Ehiopia ranked 169 (but won three gold, one silver and a total of seven medals).
So let’s not give spurious arguments to assuage ourselves the way we did for our economic non-performance during India’s 45 socialist years. In fact, the last two sentences in the edit let the cat out of the bag: of institutional structures, systems and budgets. It may be worthwhile to check if Suresh Kalmadi or A Raja had any capital constraints when they went about their business. It bears repeating, however inconvenient this may be: India is a rich country with poor people and the people are poor because of non-governance.
J Srinivasan Bangalore
Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:
The Editor, Business Standard
Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
New Delhi 110 002
Fax: (011) 23720201
E-mail: letters@bsmail.in
All letters must have a postal address and telephone number