Letter: Why are we giving aid to India?
Tuesday 1st March 2011, 5:58AM GMT.
Letter: The Con Dems are cutting up to 100 RAF top gun pilots and are to dump half of its Tornado fighter jets.
They have axed the Ark Royal and the Harrier jump jets and the Nimrod spy planes.
And the Invincible has been sold for scrap.
So why are we still sending £280 million in foreign aid to India?
This country has been independent from us since 1947. It has its own space programme and aircraft carrier and has commissioned its first nuclear powered warship. The Con Dems care nothing about our defences.
What next, pensions for Al Queda?
John and Jackie Pond
Shrewsbury
UK News
Most Commented
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Shrewsbury’s broadband speed one of slowest in UK
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
I’m ever hopeful that the Shropshire Star will put life affirming, hopeful letters that show Shropshire to be the diverse, free thinking community I know it is but at least once a week my hopes are dashed.
The UK has been a leader in the fight against poverty, most recently because by becoming the first country to pass legislation to ensure we reach the internationally agreed target of giving 0.7% of our GDP to the reduction of global poverty. We can also help in another important way by ensuring the wealth generated by natural resources in developing countries is used to benefit all the citizens of those countries.
I’m proud that our government ensures children can go to school, and women are able to have children safely. I’m proud that money is spent on helping stop deaths by preventable health problems like diarrhoea and malaria.
To say that the next step in International Development is “pensions for Al Queda” shows the writer’s lack of perpective and understanding of the issues and doesn’t serve to move the debate forward.
Report abuse
Ben, I would be very interested to know how you reason that a space programme, an aircraft carrier and a nuclear powered warship, all costing vast amounts of money, can possibly help the causes you quoted.
As for the pensions for Al Queda, the way the British governments treat the likes of these people, that may not be as far fetched as you seem to think.
Charity begins at home, unless, of course, you are a government spending taxpayers money.
Report abuse
Colin, your use of the phease “these people” needs a little clarification. Who exactly do you mean?
Report abuse
Perhaps Ben has a small point – but not by giving countries like India, Singapore, Russia, China etc money that could be better spent at home and in those third world countries that actually do need help (the ones that are not the fastest growing or investing billions in their own nuclear weapon/space programmes). So yes I have to agree with Ben in that he has ‘dashed my hopes’ of himself becoming part of that diverse free thinking community he speaks of.
Report abuse
I think the point of the letter was that India is actually a rich country so why instead of using its money to fight against its own poverty and to ensure its children can go to school, and its women are able to have children safely, is the Indian government spending its own money on arms, its army, its own space programme, nuclear weapons programme, aircraft carries and aircraft to go on them ect.
The World Bank has India as the fourth largest economy in the world the UK was the sixth.
Report abuse
That is a slightly facetious argument considering the population of India is approximately 1200 million, compared with around 60 million in Britain. It’s a rich country only inasmuch as the significantly larger population create a cumulative wealth greater than ours. Not only is our mean GDP per capita something like thirty times greater, a greater inequality of wealth distribution means the median GDP.p.c. is even lower in India.
Plus we essentially exploited India of so much material wealth over the years; post-colonial guilt / bleeding heart, say what you want, but I think we have a moral duty to alleviate suffering which was partly the result of two centuries of British occupation of India. And which we can also afford, and makes strategic sense, as others have pointed out.
Finally, I may be paraphrasing here, but it seems to me a curiosity of the British conservative outlook that considers nuclear weapons and a strong army the fundamental duty of the British state, yet considers similar expenditure by other governments evidence of wasteful or unnecessary spending. We could cut nuclear weapons from our nation, and invest in schools or hospitals instead; if you dont think we should do that, why should India? Personally, I think such the original letter shows a worrying sense of post-colonial ‘exceptionalism’.
Report abuse
It may be a fundamental duty of a government to protect the state and one would hope that it were not just Conservatives who thought that. But we are winding down our capacity to do that, soon we will not have the capability to defend ourselves or our interests. The question has already been raised that we should dispense with our own nuclear capability in order to fund our society demands. We are reducing our armed services, facing cuts in schools, universities, the NHS in all of our social services, we are facing increased taxation and our government is donating our money to a country that has a massive military expenditure, nuclear weapons program, space programme, and can actually afford aeroplanes to put on its aircraft carriers when we have just got rid of ours and will have to rely on French or USA planes and pilots.
I do not oppose cutting our nuclear replacement program so you have assumed a position I do not hold, and I am not a conservative, your argument however does not hold water, India is not sending money to the UK to help our poor.
India can do whatever it likes, it is an independent state, I do not ask it to do anything, as far as I am concerned it can send a man to the moon, I am questioning why we are donating money to India under these circumstances when the Indian government should look after its own people, if it chooses not to do so, I see no reason why we should be forced to step into fill the gap.
Report abuse
UK has directly/indirectly dis-mantled 100 year old – successful – indian financial model and economical model over 150 years of rule ( by partnering with some trator indian rulers as well ); this is so that West can sell it’s own finished products to India. This is what has created proverty in first place !!
UK has exploited indian wealth for 100 years; (as indians did NOT knew the value of steel, and other minerals during that time) and UK also contributed in creating larger divide between poor and few corrupt rich for selfish motives.
India DOES NOT need UK money i think; they are recovering and fast – real question is – will UK ever be able to level it’s wrong doing in india, asia and everywhere !
Isn’t what is coming from middle-east part of uk’s previous sins?
At least india is honest enough to accept some of it’s own mistakes and working on it – just like the way China did !!
Anyways India does not need UK money – it is eastern tradition of ignoring worldly pleasures and doing karma.
i just hope earlier West understands this, earlier there will be Peace in world.
Report abuse
How about we put our own house in order first, then go back to giving out foreign aid, surely with our own house in order and a growing economy, we may even be able to increase the foreigh aid if this is needed?
Report abuse
What a ridiculous and naive letter.
If the writers had an ounce of sense they would understand that foreign aid is not given solely out of altruism, but in order to allow us to exert political influence, often in unstable areas of the world.
That’s why the current government, who let’s face it by inclination are not inclined towards altruism (except perhaps to the very wealthy!), have decided to actually increase foreign aid.
There are more ways to protect our national security and to encourage political stability in the world than by shooting and bombing people – and as Ben says above, if we can help vulnerable people in so doing, then all the better.
To put that £280 million into some perspective, we currently have at least £47 billion per annum that is expected by HMRC in taxes from wealthy individuals and corporations, but which goes unpaid via a variety of loopholes.
The aid to India represents just 0.6% of the tax income that we miss out on – on that basis, wouldn’t the letter writers be better spending their time raising concerns over the fact that nothing is being done to close these loopholes?
Report abuse
Aid of this sort in my view should be stopped for at least five years while we deal with our own problems . I think most people are aware in places such as India the wealth is among a very , very small percentage of people and as such they should be given aid but only during a time we can afford it . The sad fact is many British people would probably prefer never to give ever to any thing . The British globally as a people are seen as a not very nice people, good example is the way the way we treat our own and how we frown upon any one who is trying to better themselves here in the UK. As some one once said you become rich in america and buy a rolls people congratulate you, in good old blighty you do well and buy a rolls they scratch it and accuse you of being dodgy .
Report abuse
“We can also help in another important way by ensuring the wealth generated by natural resources in developing countries is used to benefit all the citizens of those countries.”
As has been the case in this country?
Sadly the history of UK foreign aid (and that given by many other countries) has been one of buying influence rather than actually benefitting the poor. Just look at the correlation between British arms sales and foreign aid to Third World countries – and the fact that the regimes in many of those countries have managed to salt away an equal or greater amount of money overseas (often in the form of extravagant property purchses in the UK and elsewhere).
Report abuse
Well said Bob Whitehouse. Why does this country (government and charities) donate to others? Because we are decent human beings, because we can, and because we can see beyond the shockingly selfish attitude of the little Britons.
Report abuse
My apologies Ben for the lazy error in mistyping your name.
Report abuse
You really can’t afford to. UK is broke.
Report abuse
The UK is not broke because of attempts to push aid up to 0.7% -yes, 0.7%- of GDP.
It is broke because (according to Bank of England estimates), the British taxpayer subsidised the big British banks to the tune of around £50bn in 2008 and around £100bn in 2009.
Surely we would be better off focusing on the biggest recipients of taxpayers’ money rather than being distracted by attacks on something which is improving the lives of some of the poorest people in the world.
Report abuse
Because by 2050 India is going to be the world’s largest economy. America will have imploded and sunk and China will have fallen into social chaos…oh and Europe will be the sweatshop that puts things together for pennies and exists on it’s service industries of burger flipping and care home bottom wiping. Better to position wisely now, though a bit of good old altruism shouldn’t hurt the soul meantime.
Report abuse
Our government would only fritter that money away…
Report abuse
AID to india is well suited but it should be clearly monitored.
Yes aid helps uk to negotiate trade concerns,investment in companies and sale of European defence equipments to india.
Report abuse
The Department for International Development’s budget for 2009/2010 was £7.8 billion, but the total foreign spend in all sectors for that period was £8.4 billion.
This figure is set to rise to £12.6 billion per year by 2014, equal to £479 for every household in Britain.
Furthermore, at this rate, the total foreign aid spend over the next ten years will amount to £126 billion. This figure is a conservative estimate, as both Labour and Tories have promised to keep increasing the budget year-on-year.
Report abuse
HM Government’s expenditure (source: BBC, 20 October 2010)
NHS: £106.4bn
Education: £57.6bn
Northern Ireland/Scotland/Wales: £55.5bn
Defence: £46.1bn
Communities and Local Government: £33.6bn
Business, Innovation and Skills: £21.2bn
Transport: £13.6bn
Home Office: £10.2bn
Justice: £9.7bn
International Development: £7.7bn
Treasury: £4.4bn
Energy and Climate Change: £3.1bn
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: £2.9bn
Cabinet Office: £2.6bn
Work and Pensions: £2.25bn
Foreign Office: £2.2bn
Culture, Media and Sport: £2bn
Report abuse
the government is not giving £238 million to india, it is giving 238 million to charities like oxfam, save the children etc to ensure it will get to some of the poorest people in india. it is called charity, similar things happened under labour where gordon brown led the way amongst other rich nations in feeding the poorest in africa.
it is no good giving governments money they just steal it.
i am glad we are cutting back on our giving to 16 countries like china russia etc, so that even more aid is able to be distributed to those who are desperate for our help
Report abuse
The government argument that it is funnelling this money to the three poorest Indian states avoids addressing the point about India`s own government`s choice to spend its money on something other than its own nationals wellbeing. It does not answer why we should step in to fill the gap, at a time when we are having to borrow money on the world markets, reduce our own armed forces, police pay, national health service ext and pay increased taxes.
Report abuse
In 2007 the UK was the 2nd highest spender (in cash terms) on Defence in the world behind only the USA.
In addition to the regular defence budget the Treasury has been paying nearly £10bn a year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2006 the UK spent 2.5% of its GDP on Defence (above the NATO European average).
2.5%.
By contrast the UK does not yet even spend
0.7% of its GDP on development aid, and will take years to reach this target.
0.7%.
The UK committed to spending 0.7% in 1970.
Two of the Millennium Development Goals our aid and that of other countries is being targeted at are:
-to halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day, and
-to halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.
450 million people in India live on less than 50p a day.
And India ranks below Zimbabwe and Sudan in the World Hunger Index.
Is it not important to target aid at where it is needed most, Ken?
Report abuse
It might be Huw, but should we consider India is amongst the most needy when they are choosing to spend their money on a space programme or nuclear weapons programme.
We seem to be talking of nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from the west.
Report abuse
For many in the debate about foreign aid, the World Hunger Index and the Millennium Development Goals simply do not exist.
Starving people are as invisible in this debate as the 450 million people living on less than 50p a day in India or those whose lives are being worsened by undeniable changes in their climate.
If I was living in India, I would be campaigning for a re-adjustment of priorities.
Living here in the UK, the best thing to do, in my view, is to highlight the expense of OUR nuclear weapons programme and to continually ask why the amount of money the world is spending on weapons completely dwarfs the amount we are spending on human need.
Report abuse
What, no comments about UK Coal, green energy, the effect of the paraguayan cotton beetle on the lesser spotted thistle butterfly in antartica? things must be slipping
Report abuse
the reason the UK gives so much aid to India?
Guilt.
Report abuse
Then perhaps we could apportion some of that “Guilt”toward the action of a mean spirited UK government that refuses to index the pensions of British Citizens who are living in other countries! .. many of them Ex Commonwealth Countries! .. many who served the UK in uniform in time of it’s dire need and sadly many who will die before this disgraceful wrong is righted.
Report abuse
Fair comment, there will however always be those who will see different classes of commitment to Mother England, a life is a life in my book
Report abuse
We simply cannot afford to give support to India any more,the UK has too many problems of it’s own which need to be dealt with.
We should stop giving money to India ASAP.
Charity begins at home.
Report abuse