Anas Sarwar, Labour MP for Glasgow Central and a member of the international development select committee, explains why we very much need to continue giving aid to India.
Anas Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Central) is a member of the international development select committee
There has been recent controversy over the government’s decision to continue its aid programme to India. Some argue that as India is the fourth largest economy in the world, with a space programme and an aid programme of its own, it should not receive support from the UK, particularly at a difficult time for our own economy.
Yet these bare facts do not tell the whole story.
I have recently returned from India with the international development select committee, as part of our inquiry into the UK’s aid relationship with the sub-continent.
We visited the poorest states in India, including Bihar and Madhya Pardesh, where we met with key state government and central government figures and visited many aid programmes that the Department for International Development (DFID) funds both bilaterally and through multi-lateral organisations like the World Bank.
What I saw and heard in India convinced me that the government was right to take the difficult decision to continue its programme in India. I also agree that it is right to concentrate DFID’s work in the poorest states of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa and to look towards greater involvement for the private sector.
This does not mean I do not have concerns; I do, which I will outline later.
India is a place of extremes. It has a fast-growing economy, yet is also home to a third of the world’s poor (source: World Bank). Half of these – more than 300 million people – live in the country’s five poorest states, where progress towards the Millennium Development Goals is slow and hindered by complex social issues, poor infrastructure and weak government (source: Oxford Development Initiative: India Country Briefing; pdf).
India’s income per capita is 1/20th that of the UK; 456 million people live on less than $1.25 a day; 1.83 million children under five die every year; and India accounts for 1/5th of all maternal deaths globally (sources: World Bank, UNICEF).
Yes, India has a space programme, but let’s be clear: this isn’t some mission to get Indians on Mars. It includes investment in satellite technology to improve its telecommunications system, set up a GPRS system and to track weather patterns to help with early detection of severe weather. This is real development, helping to grow India’s economy, create employment and promote growth as well as protecting citizens.
The Indian government has made significant progress in improving the lives of its poorest citizens, however its poorest states continue to need our support and expertise if they are to be pulled out of persistent poverty.
In Bihar, I was struck by the number of powerful women who were leading the fight for change in their villages, cities, state and country. One of the success stories are “Anganwadi” centres for nutrition and sanitation, where a trained health worker looks after a local population of 1,000, providing health advice and outreach services particularly targeted to children and mothers.
It is right that DFID focuses on the poorest states, but it must also focus on the most pressing problems. In the rural areas of India approximately 70% of people still openly defecate (source: World Health Organisation and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme).
This leads to a number of health problems, harms education and has specific risks for women. Poor access to water is a related issue – even those with a toilet don’t want to use it as they don’t want to “waste water”. Yet only 1% of the DFID budget for India is allocated to sanitation (source: International Development Select Committee Inquiry into British Aid to India; pdf).
Looking to the future, Secretary of State Andrew Mitchell has said that by 2015, 50% of DFID spending in India will be in the private sector. This is both an opportunity and a risk. An opportunity because it is quite clear that if India is to lift millions out of poverty and continue to grow it will need a huge rise in the private sector, alongside investment in the public sector – particularly in poorer states.
The risk is the impact this will have on brand DFID. At the moment, DFID is recognised around the world for its work and its no-strings-attached grant and programme support. The notion that DFID could directly make investments and look for returns is a cause for concern.
It is clear that India is a country on the rise. USAID has said India doesn’t need money; it needs expertise and our expertise costs money. The question is whether, post-2015, the UK sells its expertise or donates it.
The international development select committee’s report on The Future of DFID’s Programme in India can be read here (pdf).
37 Responses to “Don’t listen to the sceptics – India’s poorest will die without our aid”
Clare Fernyhough
I think many of us, especially those who fully support overseas aid and do what we can personally, feel very conflicted about this issue at the moment.
I understand about the space programme and how the treatment of the poor has improved in India, but I watched ‘Question Time’ last week and was quite shocked to learn that India give away around the same amount that we give them in aid to other countries; I’m sorry, but that cannot be right.
Similar to Robert above, I am chronically disabled and I am facing homelessness within the next 5 years if the Welfare Reform Bill is not altered. There will be millions facting the same throughout the UK, both the working poor, the unemployed and the disabled.
With the localism bill removing the obligation for local authorities to address homeless we’ll have our own humanitarian crisis. We’ll be a laughing stock throughout the world because of our overseas aid programme then. Give aid by all means, but not whilst impoverishing your own country and giving money away to those who then give it away to others.
Ed's Talking Balls
Stating that the UK gives aid to other countries with space programs, nuclear capability and higher levels of corruption is hardly a convincing argument for continuing to give aid to India.
Besides, I was under the impression that aid was no longer being given to China and Russia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10334927).
Beth Misenhimer
Don't listen to the sceptics – India's poorest will die without … http://bit.ly/mthXFO
Paul (Reading, Berkshire)
I have recently returned from Tamil Nadu, where we sponsor two school-age girls. We went to visit them. Their father has died of AIDS. Their mother is dying of AIDS. When she can, she gets ‘coolie work’ in the fields for a dollar or so a day. There is no other family income. The mother smiles all the time – despite everything, she is a good person, just down on her luck.
The family of 3 live in something smaller than a garden shed made of palm leaves. The floor is mud and rocks. The mother has a camp cot. The girls sleep on the floor. In the hut there is a plastic suitcase. All the family’s posessions pack into it, because when it rains the hut floods. We took the girls to buy shoes – the first new pair they had owned.
Why do I say this – well all things are relative. I do not dispute that things are bad for some people in the UK, but there are shades of bad and differences in scale. There are more than 400 million people like ‘my’ girls in India.
Everyone deserves a certain minimum standard of living and, if possible, a chance to better themself. What we have to do for India is to do something for those in severe need and to show the way for the rising Indian middle class, who will need to show philanthropy when they are able.
Whatever we can do as individuals, we should. Whether it is helping people in UK or helping people in India – they are all people.
Have a look at kingschildren.org if you want to help.
AnasSarwar
Read my article for @leftfootfwd. Tackling the myths – why the Government is right to give aid to India. http://bit.ly/lmHkcC