India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

http://newint.org/features/2013/01/01/india-elite-sense-of-entitlement/

by nullspace • 13 years ago

339 237 13 years ago

consz2• 13 years ago

>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.

dalke6• 13 years ago

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.

ashray7• 13 years ago

The difference is that you acknowledge that you 'have' money. Also, you possibly acknowledge that you had certain opportunities that other people could ill afford and therefore have this money.

Unfortunately, the difference in opportunity in India is considered (by both rich and poor) to be something that God has handed down and therefore it's fair. By the rich because it's convenient to think that way and by the poor because they feel like they have no escape apart from reincarnation.

I was traveling in Brazil last year and found that the poor in Brazil (also due to drug issues..) actively blame the rich for their poverty and are also to a great extent violent against wealthier people. (at least in the cities that I was in..)

However, the difference in India is that poor people more often than not attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek retribution. I honestly believe this is what keeps the poor in India from revolting en masse. If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system, over here there would be a civil war.

mjn3• 13 years ago

The class system might also interfere with other motives that sometimes lead wealthier people to act generously even when they aren't particularly altruistic or compassionate. In societies where people see each other as roughly part of the same community, one of the advantages of being rich is that you can be munificent with your money, which gains you social status and prestige. You can see that in smaller American towns, for example, where, at least traditionally, the preferred way of demonstrating wealth was to do things like sponsor a library, host a 4th of July party everyone's invited to, etc., not more "separate" displays of wealth like buying a Ferrari. Some people would no doubt do so out of genuine concern for libraries, the 4th of July, and their neighbors, but there's also a bit of social reinforcement in that serving in that kind of "civic benefactor" role is a high-status position: you're not just giving your money away purely altruistically, but in a way buying a certain social role.

LAMike• 13 years ago

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

dalke6• 13 years ago

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 can read some of the difficulties and different viewpoints at http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/473.1 .

trhtrsh6• 13 years ago

The solution of course is higher taxation or philanthropy. The gardener should be paid to build a public garden, not private garden.

You should be paying someone who is more efficient than you at those tasks, so you can write software to solve problems more efficiently than your customers do otherwise. That is wealth creation across a community.

You should not be paying someone (x N) to work at a much lower hourly wage than you simply because you have accumulated more wealth.

Now, some dose of income inequality is healthy, to motivate individuals to better themselves and be valuable (education, skill, physical execise), but extreme inequality is to be remedied by rebalancing the income, not just making someone work for you.

mjn3• 13 years ago

My own worry isn't so much about employing domestic workers per se, as about which kinds of power relations result from it. If it's just an exchange of services for a fee, that's fine. You can sell some hours of programming as a freelancer, and that's not particularly objectionable.

The domestic-help arrangement often seems to end up with weird power dynamics, though, where it's more like having a "servant" who is clearly of lower social status, and is supposed to cater to their employers' whims in some kind of old-fashioned aristocratic style. Feels less like "freelancing" and more like something more problematic.

ashray7• 13 years ago

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.

wicknicks• 13 years ago

Yes, so much prejudice and dogma. Its overwhelming just to think about it.

corin_2• 13 years ago

Guess it depends on your culture/background, but your description of upper class people who believe they are middle class sound like people I would call middle class - I'm English. So while you may be completely right in the context of India, your examples don't necessarily explain it well to an international audience.

arethuza• 13 years ago

Being upper class in the UK isn't as simple as being wealthy - certainly nothing so simple as model of car or location of property!

ashray7• 13 years ago

Not even 0.005% of the Indian populace can afford the things I mentioned as examples. Maybe the problem is that we take our cues of what is considered upper class from international standards and therefore fail to acknowledge our own privileges in a local context ?

pekk4• 13 years ago

The actual American "middle class" might be regarded as completely working class to the English...

rayiner4• 13 years ago

My family is from Bangladesh (we take our cultural cues from India) and I agree with you 100%. The society in Bangladesh is unimaginably classist. Sure, here in the U.S. lots of people have classist notions but people have the shame to not talk in public because it's not culturally acceptable. No such thing over there. As you said, the upper classes treat the lower classes as not even of the same people as themselves.

dchichkov• 13 years ago

Yes. And unfortunately it is a bit of a problem even in the US. Recent immigrants (a few of them) continue the rat fight even when there is absolutely no need. It goes away of course, with the time, but in the first few years a lot of harm can be done.

jimrandomh• 13 years ago

> You know what these people call themselves? Middle class. They refuse to acknowledge that they are wealthy.

No, they've got it right. The distinction between middle class and lower class is entirely about wealth, but the distinction between middle class and upper class is not. Wealth is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for being upper class; the distinguishing features are flexibility and power, not money. It is possible to convert money into these things, but most middle-class people who acquire sufficient wealth nevertheless fail to become upper-class because they lack the mental toolkit, or are embedded in power structures that won't let them.

rm999• 13 years ago

In India being upper middle class can provide you with a lifestyle (and I think therefore mentality) that resembles upperclass in the West because of cheap labor and weak labor laws. I know doctors in India who have live-in servants, chefs, drivers, etc.

redcircle3• 13 years ago

I agree: upper class isn't about wealth. So much of it is about culture (in the sense that culture breeds character traits). And the ambition to obtain wealth in the middle class breeds character traits that impose a barrier for entering the upper class.

ashray7• 13 years ago

You're 100% correct. However, the poor in India are truly trapped, almost like slaves to their own poverty (http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/generat...). By comparison those who have acquired sufficient wealth are free to do whatever they please!

With that freedom comes a responsibility to acknowledge it and to not act like complete idiots. Unfortunately, even the rich to a large extent aren't aware of how rich they truly are.

imissmyjuno• 13 years ago

Is this an established theory? Out of curiosity, I'm interested in sources.

inopinatus• 13 years ago

In the UK we would call them the Upper Middle Class instead to clarify that they are merely rich merchants, not actual aristocracy. It's a matter of blood, don'tchaknow.

galactus• 13 years ago

it sounds a lot like my own country, Colombia, particularly the part about priviledged people considering themselves middle class.

jvm2• 13 years ago

It sounds like my own country too, the United States. :-)

dkarl• 13 years ago

You know what these people call themselves ? Middle class.

You see the same thing here in the U.S., and to be honest, I think it's somewhat accurate. The vast majority of the United States is middle class, and there is a huge range of privilege within it. Some parts of the middle class are virtually inaccessible from other parts. The mistake is not in labeling those rich, privileged people "middle class," but rather in thinking that there is no such thing as middle class privilege. In fact, being born into the middle class is a privilege, and there is a vast range of privilege within the middle class. In the U.S. a middle class kid could have parents with high school diplomas or parents with PhDs, parents with no connections or parents with Ivy League connections, parents who have never been more than a few hundred miles from home or cosmopolitan globe-hopping parents, parents who force them to take out loans for college or parents who pay the entire cost of an Ivy League education with a break year plus professional school afterwards and apartments and cars the whole time. The label "middle class" just doesn't mean much these days.

hkmurakami2• 13 years ago

Many SV millionaires still consider themselves to be "upper middle class" (rather than say, lower upper class), and while it may be a bit inaccurate in an absolute monetary sense, the sentiment may actually be somewhat justifiable considering their relatively lack of influence/status/connections that really drive the country (the "old money", for instance).

In that sense, even the SV millionaires are outsiders to the real power brokers, the real upper class, the real movers of the country.

hkmurakami2• 13 years ago

>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.

If these are people who have "made" the money themselves in their own generation, I can see why/how they still view themselves as middle class. It's a mindset.

I have had the fortune of getting to know many SV millionaires who grew up in modesty/poverty, and still buy shorts from Target and pinch pennies madly. They have their mansions and their fancy cars, but they're still bound by the mindset of their lower/middle class background where they fought ferociously and squeezed themselves and their financial abilities to get to where they are today.

As long as that mindset persists, even very wealthy people won't consider themselves to be "upper class".

Give it one or two generations though. Their kids and grandkids will probably behave and believe that they're upper class.

walshemj3• 13 years ago

Actually the upper class in the UK are known for shabby chic ie wearing the same 2nd hand Barbour coat that smells of Labrador for 20+ years.

coopdog• 13 years ago

I don't think it's just about money though. There's this entitled class who just fundamentally believe they are superior, the example from the article being the guy who threw over the fruit stall because the crowd wouldn't move.

It's actually a problem in Australia where we all sort of treat each other as equals, for example our hospitality classes won't scrape and bow and call you sir, and everyone is ok with that. Racism has started to emerge because the only Indians who can get to Australia are the rich ones. All it takes is a few bad interactions and people start to write off the entire race, when I'm sure that 99%+ of Indians are actually pretty damn nice people.

I just wonder if those new generations will be less cheap but more entitled than ever.

bradleyjg2• 13 years ago

> Give it one or two generations though. Their kids and grandkids will probably behave and believe that they're upper class.

I don't know about India, but in the US there is a bizzare cultural phenomenon where everyone wants to see himself as middle class. Being identified as rich is somehow faintly embarrassing.

You see all kinds of strange verbal gymnastics in trying to justify middle class status. Heck there is plenty of it in this thread!

So I suspect that is going on with your wealthy friends, and that it will continue in thier kids and grandkids (unless the overall culture shifts).

microarchitect• 13 years ago

I agree but let's not lose track of the fact that empathy doesn't end at national borders. We Indians have a responsibility to help those of us who are less privileged than us, but so does everyone else in the world. And let's also not forget that our conditions are the way the are thanks largely to colonialism and that the British in particular and the western world in general profited massively from our suffering during that time. And finally let's also not forget that immigration and employment laws in the western world even today actively work towards denying economic opportunities to people in developing countries and this plays a huge part in countries like India staying poor.

My point is that it's a bit too simplistic to frame it as Indians need to do X instead of Y and then they will be fine. Indians are doing Y not because they're genetically deficient but because we've gotten stuck in a local maxima that is mostly not of our own making.

cafard• 13 years ago

I have never been closer to India than San Diego, and most of the persons of Indian descent I know speak with either a Midwestern or a Mid-Atlantic accent. Evidently the point has been made about American entitlement, so I'll pass on that.

In general it seems to take a couple of generations of security for any given elite to look around and decide that it has obligations. In an American context, think of the Rockefellers, Harrimans, and Kennedys.

cynicalkane2• 13 years ago

Actually, It took Rockefeller 0 generations to decide he had obligations to society. Massive philanthropy and libertarian-flavored egalitarianism was a hallmark of the old "robber barons". My hometown library was a Carnegie library, and the college I went to was founded by Rockefeller. Rockefeller also funded one of America's first colleges for black women (Spelman).

By contrast, the Indian elites described in the OP seem to consider themselves above humanity and the law. Wealth alone does not make you a horrible person, though it's fun to believe that it does.

maddalab• 13 years ago

Quote from the article

"Let me tell you another story: my neighbour in the upper-middle-class area where I live is a man who owns luxury hotels. His house is huge, but no sooner had he moved in than he appropriated about half of the pavement space to the front and side of his house, claiming it for his own. This means less parking for others, less pavement for children, less walking space for everyone. Of the 400-odd houses in this area, at least half have done this. At the same time they have also collectively seen off the only roadside tea stall in the area that served all the service providers – the guards, the drivers, the domestics, the sweepers. "

Both the writer and you are discounting the 200 odd houses in the area that have not claimed an entitlement on the pavement, by doing so you are discrediting the willingness of those who are playing by the rules to further an argument that does no hold scrutiny. Further more as others have stated in comments, there is nothing in the article that is uniquely Indian.

> In India this is quite possible, a middle class person could easily hire 3-4 people and therefore start to create change.

Most people do not have a need to hire 3-4 people. Growing up it was common to have a maid who helped with household chores due to the absence of amenities like a dish washer or washing machine. As these services become available there is no need to hire folks to do such work. Hiring folks and having them laze around only to take home wages is a ridiculous idea, moreover wealth saved by not hiring these folks is spent on other purposes (movies, restaurants etc.) that the so called wealth might consider a good return on investment. These in turn create jobs for services that are required (taxi drivers, ticket vendors, waiters, restaurant managers etc.). The fact that the so called upper class people do not hire folks to do their dishes and laundry is if anything a move towards a society with fewer artificial classes.

kamaal5• 13 years ago

This is a common pattern with all articles about India. The west really likes to talk about how shitty conditions are here. The theme is to take a one-off incident and then exaggerate and generalize it so much that it must look like the norm. Then talk about about evil rich, selfish middle class and super poor farmers.

And then yes your usual dowry, caste system issues thrown here and there.

And those who leave India to settle else where too, find these topics indulging. It gives all them all the reasons in the world why they were right to leave the country.

hazov• 13 years ago

Dude I live in Brazil where we have dish washers and washing machines for decades and here the upper middle class really never let their maids go with a fair salary or even said they were unnecessary once these stuff became available, I doubt they will disappear overnight, just like they did not over here.

gaurav_bubna2• 13 years ago

"Most people do not have a need to hire 3-4 people. Growing up it was common to have a maid who helped with household chores due to the absence of amenities like a dish washer or washing machine. As these services become available there is no need to hire folks to do such work."

I completely agree with this. When I was living in New York, I rarely felt a need to "hire" someone to do stuff for me. Apartment didn't get dirty so easily. Clothes didn't get dirty so easily. Very easy and convenient access to laundromats. Dish washer at home. Easy access to fairly high quality groceries. Lots of places to eat around which had healthy food options at reasonable prices (relative to your salary). Anything you wanted could be ordered online.

If on top of all this, you just hired a maid by the hour, for a couple of hours, to come clean your house like once in two weeks, you didn't need anything else.

Here in India, it's hard to get by without a maid. Clothes get dirty fast, house gets dirty fast, no laundromats, no dishwasher, no space to keep a washing machine at home, poor availability of healthy food options, groceries sellers have bad quality of food and vegetables so you need to spend time picking them out, supermarkets have massive checkout lines etc.

ajju• 13 years ago

>are completely fine with spoilt rich brats driving circles around them while honking away.

I find it quite hard to believe that most (or any) girls would be fine with anyone driving circles around them and honking. All women I know from Delhi are quite sick of eve teasing and don't really give a shit whether the guilty person is poor or rich.

curiousfiddler• 13 years ago

I just hope that this is not how we reason about things in general. I feel very sad reading your comment especially on HN. Not because what you are saying is right or wrong. But because the conclusions you draw are based on pretty much your personal experiences and those experiences are a very small sample set. My concerns:

1. "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."

How many "statements" did you get?

2. "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."

Based on what do you conclude this?

3. "You know, rich people with 4 bedroom apartments on the 17th floor in and around the capital."

Rich?

4. "Most people who the 'middle class' perceive as lower class are almost sub humans in their eyes."

Based on what do you conclude this?

5. "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'."

Did you participate in any of the protests? You know, this is an egg on the face of all who spent days protesting after the incident. Again, what is this based on? Can you point to any news articles or any research/survey that got this out?

Yes, situation is complicated but people have started debating about a lot of things. There is a lot more participation from the common man. This never happened in the past. This evolution of 1 billion people to a developed and civilized society is indeed slow as much as it is unique. But I am confident it will happen - India is still a democracy, people still have a say in determining their future...

gaurav_bubna2• 13 years ago

> 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.

India definitely makes you feel this. I know this one senior guy who lived for a very long time in New York (~10 years) after his grad school and moved a few years back to Mumbai. He is very rich but he says that he feels poorer in Mumbai than he ever felt in New York, even compared with the time when he working in his first job, fresh out of grad school.

ippisl• 13 years ago

Ashray, do the new middle class(programmers for example, people who came from poverty) behave any differently ? Is there a growing new middle class ?

ashray7• 13 years ago

The middle class in India is growing quite fast. I can't imagine a programmer behaving this way, so I'll say no. The example in the article is very indicative of behavior in and around New Delhi however, it'd be hard to find that kind of behavior in say Mumbai or Chennai. (I currently live in New Delhi btw)

Areas around New Delhi suffer from an acute nouveau riche problem. Most well educated (programmer like..) people wouldn't act out in such a callous and insensitive manner. However, they will most likely still view people from lower classes differently, this may not be evident in the way people act but you can catch onto it if you pay attention to certain remarks that people may make. (eg: I can't ride with those smelly people in the Delhi metro)

Again, these are generalizations, not everyone is an asshole. Most people aren't. However, there is a great deal of prejudice and I believe the only way forward is for people to acknowledge it in the first place.

seivan• 13 years ago

This happen to be a very Chinese and Indian thing. You don't see this in say countries like Sweden or Germany.

PeterisP• 13 years ago

You don't see this in stable societies with more income/class equality, but it shows up in any place with large social inequality. Russia/ex-USSR after the 'wild capitalism' of 1990'ies is also a great example with similar situations as described in the original article.

toomuchtodo• 13 years ago

You mean you don't see these things in countries with strong social safety nets (i.e first world countries).

While the US is a first world country (disclaimer: US citizen/resident), we have nowhere near the social programs other more progressive first world countries have.

not_that_noob4• 13 years ago

Actually, in countries with strong legal systems where the risk of losing money is real, this sort of behavior is held somewhat in check. But when no one is looking, or the risk of being caught is low, it happens. One can make the argument that the entire mortgage crisis was one where the insiders (rich people on Wall Street) knew the edifice was crumbling, and went ahead and made bets against its survival, while selling instruments out the back door that were the opposite bets. These were promptly sold off to the hinterlands of the country. And of course the poor saps that bought overpriced houses paid the price. Those on Wall Street not only made obscene amounts of money on those bets, but never were prosecuted for it. It's good to be rich.

seanmcdirmid• 13 years ago

> This happen to be a very Chinese and Indian thing.

My father is li gang!*

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Gang_incident

LarryMade2• 13 years ago

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.

http://www.cityprojectca.org/ourwork/beachaccess.html

lifeisstillgood2• 13 years ago

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

Welcome to running the planet. Beware.

pvnick• 13 years ago

This problem is far more complicated than political parties. It's an issue with human nature. Entitlement exists outside of politics.

cynicalkane2• 13 years ago

Margret Thatcher is responsible for the entrenched class system... in India?

skore• 13 years ago

No, it's pretty clear that that wasn't the point being made.

Camillo• 13 years ago

There's plenty of right-wing people in the middle and lower classes.

pekk4• 13 years ago

The claim made (right or wrong) was that the problem was not being an elite, but having certain ideology. In other words, that class is not the real issue.

angersock2• 13 years ago

This sort of maltreatment of those less materially well-off predates any modern concept of political frameworks by centuries if not millenia.

scarmig2• 13 years ago

The "left" in India in the 1970s was dissolving legitimate governance, declaring martial law, and engaging in mass forced sterilization of undesirables.

If I were to take sides in what's worse... well, I wouldn't. Don't take sides on account of lesser of two evils. Just condemn evil.

tusharc• 13 years ago

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.

jusben1369• 13 years ago

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.

ryanmolden• 13 years ago

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.

trhtrsh6• 13 years ago

Well, with modern technology, it's harder for a newly wealthy person to conceal their past. The days of whitewashing personal history are fading.

acjohnson55• 13 years ago

I can see it working in both directions, and I'm sure it does.

hcarvalhoalves3• 13 years ago

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.

bbbhn2• 13 years ago

You're grossly simplifying things. A person may be driven to succeed and generate wealth for their family because they want to be able to send their children to the best schools possible, or they want to be able to access the best medical practitioners and technology if someone they cared about were to get sick. It may have absolutely nothing to do with owning "more than the next person."

andybak• 13 years ago

"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

pavs• 13 years ago

See also: Delhi Boys

lquist• 13 years ago

Don't know if those outside India will find it funny, but: http://www.quickmeme.com/Rich-Delhi-Boy/?upcoming.

trhtrsh6• 13 years ago

Ugh is there really such a problem of rich kids shooting people? That's horrible

donatj2• 13 years ago

Call me crazy but "taking"? The man scratching the mans car with his cart was Taking. The people in the street who wouldn't get out the way were taking.

Pwnguinz2• 13 years ago

Do you mean how the man in the SUV threw over someone else's cart full of produce (likely his only source of income/livelihood), and then throwing a large heavy metallic object at him in a effort to physically harm him is NOT "Taking" (with a Capital T)?

donatj2• 13 years ago

As opposed to charging the man for repairs and the man likely ending up in jail? I say the man got off easy. If the man had to pay for the damage to the SUV he would have been much worse off.

forgottenpaswrd• 13 years ago

My experience in Delhi is that there is too much people in a very small place.

You see chaos everywhere, in the roads, children playing around electricity cables(non insulated, working cables), so much people living in trash...

If I were to live there for extended periods of time, I will get crazy. It is like living in a beehive.

knodi• 13 years ago

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.

16s2• 13 years ago

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.

nbouscal• 13 years ago

> it would not matter how rich you were.

Which USA do you live in?

neckbeard• 13 years ago

Must be a different USA to this one:

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101104/NEWS/101109939/107...

mayanksinghal2• 13 years ago

> 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.

[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...

yarou2• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, this is quite an accurate article. I've only been to Delhi once, but in my parents' home city of Hyderabad, this behavior is commonplace. That being said, this article is being written from a feminist and classist perspective, so one should be careful when making generalizations about India. It's important to keep in mind everyone has an agenda, and this author has clearly delivered one.

scscsc• 13 years ago

It's not the rich. It's the "nouveaux riches"... Happens all over the world. Little education + fast money does that.

potatolicious2• 13 years ago

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.

huhtenberg2• 13 years ago

Precisely.

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.

Sharma• 13 years ago

Inter related things.Ferociousness here is due to frustration of too many people around.

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.

PAULHANNA842• 13 years ago

India has many wonderful things to offer but my biggest issue in that country would be the cast system. The untouchables! I think it's awful that any human is deemed less than human at the point of birth. Awful!

yarou2• 13 years ago

Actually, the caste system isn't that much of a problem anymore. Because of various affirmative action programs, many former Dalits have risen to high governmental posts and industry titans.

angersock2• 13 years ago

Out of curiosity, have there been any students comparing caste of origin with corruption?

PAULHANNA842• 13 years ago

That's good to hear. My friend was recently in India some months ago and when visiting he was delegated a servant which he didn't even ask for or want. The kid was not even allowed to sit on the couches! Sad.

hypertexthero• 13 years ago

Questioner: What do you think of Indians?

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...

linvin• 13 years ago

Krishnamurti truly gives all the tools to free oneself of the very root of culture.

Indians are also known to be highly tolerant of different types of behaviours; they usually believe that this world is "maya" - a virtual reality. Depending on one's own predicament, they will create and experience their realities. All this comes from the core Indian philosophy, and those who have read Krishnamurti, know that he very well represents that philosophy.

While this view may not mean all Indians are philosophical; I would say, it may be higher % wise than other cultures. Even the most popular religious channels and their gurus hold extremely engaging philosophical discussions - very different from other cultures.

kang• 13 years ago

Any solutions? I have mostly given up being beaten down by the scale and inherited mentality of 100s or years.

not_that_noob4• 13 years ago

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.]

trhtrsh6• 13 years ago

Or maybe they just don't want people using residential streets as highways?

Do you know what "through traffic" means? If those poor people try to stop their cars in Atherton, they aren't "through traffic".

not_that_noob4• 13 years ago

Those are public streets in Atherton, that they want to treat as if it was their private property. If it was all private they can do what they like. The roads belong to the public - including the folks from RWC.

javert3• 13 years ago

Humans are not apes. Neither literally, nor figuratively. That's not only incorrect, but it's a vicious thing to say, and it has dangerous implications.

not_that_noob4• 13 years ago

That was more figurative, and perhaps too much of a literary flourish. My point is that this behavior is endemic to our species, and not unlike that observed among chimps or other members of Hominoidea, as detailed in: http://evolvingthoughts.net/2012/03/are-humans-apes-monkeys-...

That is to say, the rich in all societies take and do what they like, modulated either by internal moral codes or external legal enforcement.

lobotryas• 13 years ago

Please expand on your line of thought. What are the "dangerous implications" of calling all humans "apes"?

drdaeman• 13 years ago

If "ape" is a synonym to "hominoid", humans are apes. Literally.

Daniel_Newby• 13 years ago

Since when are humans not apes?

gnaritas• 13 years ago

What on Earth are you talking about? There's nothing vicious or dangerous about that statement.

vacri6• 13 years ago

I loathe pop sci interpretations of animal behaviour applied against human behaviour (which includes the context of the parent of your comment) but humans are apes. The 'Great Apes' are chimps, gorillas, orangs, and humans.

davidroberts• 13 years ago

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.

huhtenberg2• 13 years ago

> Even in family relations this applies.

And you are saying this based on what? Common sense?

chii8• 13 years ago

hollywood dramas...

moens• 13 years ago

Agreed, "All elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement"

[fixed]

sk5t• 13 years ago

I don't think it's that the rich don't want to help, but they are accustomed to fending off people trying to take their money. Deal with it often enough and everyone looks like a swindler--it's a bit like the experience of moving to the big city, and learning that it's better to brush off 100% of the people on the street who have a sob story, just need bus or subway fare, or claim to have gotten their car towed.

Also, in rich neighborhoods, the police have the time and inclination to speak with unlicensed door-to-door peddlers. It is unquestionably in the wealthy homeowners' interests to discourage both solicitors and burglars from wandering the neighborhood, knocking on doors, seeing who's home and who's not...

duck• 13 years ago

There has been numerous studies that show the rich give far less than the poor to charities, so this doesn't back up your claim at all.

jiggy20114• 13 years ago

In the UK a lot of door to door collecting for charities is done by private companies who take a significant chunk of the donation for themselves.

Perhaps richer people are more likely to know this and be sceptical of door to door collections. They may also value their time more and not like being "hassled".

This does not necessarily mean that they do not provide charity donations. They may just do it in a smarter way, for example attending charity dinners/events where they get to rub shoulders with other affluent people.

prawn• 13 years ago

Or they have already selected charities or provide professional support, and don't want countless more charities hitting them up.

markdown2• 13 years ago

> This does not necessarily mean that they do not provide charity donations. They may just do it in a smarter way, for example attending charity dinners/events where they get to rub shoulders with other affluent people.

Smarter = self-serving?

zoul• 13 years ago

Exactly. I live in the Czech Republic and give a part of my income to a non-profit of my choice. The organization’s well known, they promise to give at least 90 percent of the money directly to those in need, and they have a regular audit to check the money flow. That’s why I refuse to give money to charities collecting on the streets, where the guarantees are much smaller and the way of collecting much more intrusive.

mynameishere• 13 years ago

What the hell kind of idiot would give money to some guy begging door-to-door? You might consider that the rich didn't get that way by being idiots.

vacri6• 13 years ago

Low-quality and dysfunctional friends and family are rife everywhere, not just in wealthy areas.

Confusion• 13 years ago

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.

[1] http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/

ameister142• 13 years ago

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.

quadhome• 13 years ago

"He?"

corporalagumbo2• 13 years ago

I definitely agree with you that the current socioeconomic system is suboptimal, and rife with perverse incentives and loopholes. It can be fixed though.

chii8• 13 years ago

i don't believe the assertion that the "system" can be fixed - in a very complex system, there necessarity exists optimal strategies for "advancing" (in this context, it means getting more money faster). I compare it to making sure a complex computer system is secure from attack - the surface area is just so large, that you can't plug every single possible hole, you can't plan for every single eventuality.

To fix socioeconomic problems means to redivide the pie more evenly, and there are just way too many vested interests in keeping things the way it is.

aswanson• 13 years ago

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.

ruchir• 13 years ago

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.

Xcelerate• 13 years ago

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.

gary4gar• 13 years ago

The reason is Population

there are just too many people fighting for same resources. hence it gets messy

capex• 13 years ago

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.

manishsharan3• 13 years ago

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 !

derringer• 13 years ago

Stereotypes often ring true, no one attributes this kind of stuff to northern Europe and there's a reason for that.

As to your claim that he's lying about the vegetable cart story. In order for his car to get swarmed, at least one of those vegetable sellers has to make the first move, sometimes this happens, but 9 times out of 10 people look out for their own skins ahead of righteous vengeance.

manishsharan3• 13 years ago

I am not excusing the appalling behavior of some of the rich in India. All I am saying is that this article is highly sensational and is merely backed by anecdotal evidence.

>>no one attributes this kind of stuff to northern Europe and there's a reason for that. Could the reason be a willingness of the those societies to overlook this kind of behavior towards people with ..umm higher melatonin levels ? Slavery / colonialism / apartheid ring a bell ?

intended6• 13 years ago

A rich man or the bigger car banging into a smaller cart, especially in a poor neighborhood, will get swarmed 9 times out of 10.

You drastically misunderstand the level of righteous vengeance and drama centrism in such a situation. On top of that many people will look at a richer person as someone who is likely to have connections and hence escape justice.

You are more likely to be swarmed than not.

markdown2• 13 years ago

> Btw , Salman Khan (the actor) is facing jail time.

For a crime he committed over a decade ago, right? You think that's justice?

intended6• 13 years ago

Simply put: the system seems to be slightly better than what the situation was in the 1980s

As such yes it is better, but in absolute terms there is still further distance to cover.

walshemj3• 13 years ago

or the young man has connections to Criminals / Politicians

renanbirck• 13 years ago

Only in India? I'd be inclined to think that elites everywhere have the same sense of entitlement.

raganwald• 13 years ago

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.

We humans can change.

dmix• 13 years ago

> 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.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king#Criticism

[2] http://www.policymic.com/articles/8558/why-we-need-prison-re...

hcarvalhoalves3• 13 years ago

Just one of the many side effects of private property.

denzil_correa2• 13 years ago

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.

[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

ashray7• 13 years ago

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.

baali• 13 years ago

This link might be a good read related to income per day context and an attempt to manage in that much amount: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Harsh_Mander/barefoo...

denzil_correa2• 13 years ago

TFS. I was trying to find this article but I couldn't.

dpmehta02• 13 years ago

Entitlement is a problem amongst many people who experience success, regardless of class or nationality.

Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky have shown this in numerous studies, but here's an easily relatable example of theirs: Financial advisors.[1]

Predicting markets is an inherently random game. We often point to those who have been successful for a long period of time as an example that it is possible to beat the system, but that analysis fails to account for the other end of the probability distribution: those who have failed for a long period of time (or failed so hard early that they had to get out of the game).

In other words, for every big winner, there is a big loser. The fact that some people win or lose can (mostly) be explained by randomness (or cheating).

But Kahneman & Tversky's stunning finding with Financial Advisors, and humans in general, is that those who are successful attribute their success mostly to skill, hard work, etc, while failing to adequately acknowledge how large a role chance played. For the humble, this is not a problem, but for the arrogant or uninformed, this can easily turn into entitlement.

(BTW I definitely believe that, in most fields, a person needs to meet certain thresholds of hard work, energy, intelligence, etc. to be successful, but the level of success after reaching those thresholds is largely a function of chance.)

We humans are very good at drawing false conclusions from random data. Have you watched a basketball game recently? If a good shooter misses a couple free throws, commentators seem obligated to explain that the reason for this is fatigue, or poor form, or this, or that. How about the fact that it just randomly happens sometimes?

Applying this thinking to Indian elites: they have a lot of money, probably through their families or their own success. They believe their status is well deserved and earned, either because of superior genetics or superior skills (or any other number of reasons), and as a result, the uninformed feel entitled (and act accordingly). The author's anecdotal examples aside, this is no different than how many (but not all!) people behave on Wall Street, in athletics, at the high levels of corporations, etc. This is not an Indian problem, or an elite problem; it's a human problem.

Fooled by Randomness[2]. Again.

[1]http://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-kahneman-on-wealth-man... [2]http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Market...

bonchibuji• 13 years ago

Change is already happening. One of the best examples I can cite is the Madurai based chef-turned social worker, Narayanan Krishnan. He quit his 5-star hotel chef job to feed the poor. He was one of the CNN Heroes in 2010.

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/archive10/naryana...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayanan_Krishnan

jjacobson• 13 years ago

Calvanism

chaostheory• 13 years ago

Well they did have a religious caste system that pervaded everything in life for hundreds if not thousands of years. Is this a surprise?

intended6• 13 years ago

Why is this article here on HN?

It takes a single incident and extrapolates from their to the authors biases.

How is this at all worthy of discussion for intellectually curious people?

anuraj• 13 years ago

India is a banana republic in every sense of the word; where the mighty have their way and even basic amenities are denied to the poorer 80% of population. But do stay tuned - the Indian class war is yet to play out.

goggles99• 13 years ago

India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

That is better than here in America. Here its our lazy freeloaders whom have a ferocious sense of entitlement.

snambi• 13 years ago

Wow... very nice. While the rich are really mean and ferocious, the poor (normal) people are very generous and giving. That is the reason the country is still functioning. Fortunately there are millions of normal ( poor by western standards ) people in India, especially outside of the big cities. Still most people live in villages which is a very good thing, they are not yet corrupted by the greediness. I hope they don't.

redwood• 13 years ago

I'd suggest that the elites from all societies have a ferocious sense of entitlement. However, some are better at hiding it and coming across as harmonious members of society.

Attocs• 13 years ago

I'm a NZer living in India and I see the themes described in this post on a daily basis. One example: http://lostinmumbai.org/2013/04/14/a-man-called-bunty/

newyork• 13 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pj8QKTvRTQ

"this car can buy your whole family" - same attitude everywhere mate!!

India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement

Related Stories