[QUOTE=morpeth;12657861][QUOTE=madathil.krishnanunni;12657486]Sir

The best remedy for government to stop spending on fanciful projects would be to stop paying taxes. The best way for government to allocate funds which it did not make but collected from the people is to give it back to them. Poverty is a convenient ruse used by government know-nothings to extort money from efficient private businesses. That is the corruption you keep talking about and enough Indians have faced that for sufficient time to want to rid of the entire thing.

Again you miss the point. Why does it matter what money is spent on? It matters, in my view, where it comes from, and the best way to keep making more of it. It is not by higher taxes. As for space programs, it could be privatized for all I care. But given there are military dimensions to airspace, it is understandable that governments like to keep a tab on these things. Even Elon Musk gets his space company shepherded by NASA, even if covertly.

If you wish to take the line of argument of prestige, then most of what governments do and takes up government budgets - construct grand government buildings (you think “the people” funded the grand monstrosities in New Delhi?), pay civil servants for doing nothing, keep inefficient businesses running by giving them ‘national importance’ status, construction of statues, monuments and museums, airports, belt and road for crying out loud are all prestige projects. All that cost money, much more than the space program.

What government project in your opinion has an ROI sufficient enough that a private party would consider putting in their hard-earned money into? The results of the space program are at least visible. It is a thorough exercise of the skills of the scientists and engineers concerned. Not your concern, but yes, the country by and large appreciates that. And, much more, much more is spent fattening up civil servants than is spent on the space program. I thought you were from Britain; Margaret Thatcher did a whole thing about privatizing state enterprises there in the 1980s. Apparently, coal was a prestige industry.

What lack of empathy do you keep talking about? It is fine for visitors like you to be empathetic about India; it is a picture you’d like us to fit in. I call it racism and nothing else. I recognize the extreme levels of poverty in India and look for the quickest ways to get as many of them out of the trap as possible. Your recipe to cure it is to, judging from your views, to have a massive welfare state to support the moochers rather than getting people to work. You agree with me that India needs cleaning up? And there is no shortage of people. So why the unemployment?

In all honesty, except that many are thin, dark and poorly clothed, what do you know about India’s poor? Honestly? What do you know about their motivations, their aspirations, and their idea of climbing up the economic ladder? What these people lack most of all is confidence. India is USD 3 trillion economy. A space program is a trickle. An affordable trickle hell yes. Just like the Republic Day parade - an expensive boondoggle. But they all serve a purpose.

I don’t like the politician’s approach to poverty at all - they’ve cried about it since 1947 and what has happened? Why is it still a problem today? This is how I see it, as a potential Indian voter - come election time, you will invariably get a bunch of paid-to-be-poor, otherwise useless layabouts to feign the wrath of the apocalypse at the incumbent, come up with demands on the public purse (the taxpayer’s money) that cannot conceivably be met, find some identitarian basis on which to gather votes (not on policy merits) and then demand booze and girls in payment. This is how it usually works. The question is very pertinent - why is India still poor after 70 years of peacetime? The amorphous term “poor” has been used as a readymade votebank by politicians for election cycle after election cycle. Is it wrong to ask - when will they go away?

I fear I will enter a loop repeating the same point so I will stop on that.

On a more general note, it is worthwhile to observe that in India, there is really no such thing as a right-wing conservative political conversation, at least not in the public sphere. All the cacophony you hear are a number of socialisms fighting each other, playing off on divisions. These days it is the fate of the UK as well. The only real classic liberal - conservative right-wing - conversations I have seen taking place are in the US.

In India, the sad part is that everyone is into the socialism nonsense. Even pro-business is pro-crony capitalism. The country is in such a stranglehold of socialism and people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated they don’t even realize it. There is simply no public conversation about a pro-free enterprise, pro-market, low-government, classic liberal, culturally conservative method of operating society. None. The right-wing you hear of in Indian media are cultural identitarians - they aren’t right wing at all. I prefer not to make much of the fact that I am Indian in the interest of an objective conversation, so I try and stay away from “As an Indian...” statements. The deep resentment of free enterprise and open markets among the general Indian population, and the wild propaganda that exists about political events, mixed with the typical petty Indian biases means that it is just hard to get them to think any other way.

Until a time comes when people in Britain say “Look, the Indians are dealing with this problem this way; maybe we should do that” I simply cannot stop you from your poverty snores. More than anything, Indians should realize that. They are far from that point now.

[QUOTE=morpeth;12657861]

[QUOTE=morpeth;12662253][QUOTE=madathil.krishnanunni;12661667] Sir

The bit we disagree on is where I think the space program is one of the few things we get right. Of all the money pilfered away via the welfare state, in terms of return on investment, whether measured in dollars or pride, the space program and the workers involved there can hold there income statements and balance sheets up high. Much more is spent on farm subsidiaries, has been for the past forever years, and there is barely any improvement in their condition. Your outrage, and of those who think similarly, is misplaced.

I don’t there are enough wealthy private citizens in India yet with deep enough pockets to fund such projects on their own.

The drift in your argument is - Indians are too poor, so no space. There is a segment of them that are poor, and they are not poor because of the space program. The prescription is for the wrong symptom. I can repeat my whole argument again and come to the same conclusion.

The problem is one of definitions. What is a prestige project? If you define it as something with little to no return, and lump the Indian space program into that, then clearly you are ignoring the utility of the space programs - please refer to my previous posts. Now whether it is your innate bias or just ignorance; I will leave that to you. Olympics are a prestige project; Brazil did it; China did it; for heavens sake Greece did it. I suppose Indians have learnt a lesson there; still couldn’t resist splurging on the Commonwealth Games. Zero returns there.

I could argue that the Indian space program has aided the active management of crops which has led to continuous surpluses in India for decades on end now, helping millions escape the poverty and hunger trap. Are you suggesting you’d rather have many more millions wallow in poverty rather than gallop along away from it? The INSAT telecom satellites too have helped revolutionize Indian telecoms. Those in India who label this, at the outset, as a boondoggle often are on a long vacation from facts.

I think you and I agree that poverty is a problem and a grave one at that. But we differ by a mile on how to go about resolving it. What you are suggesting is akin to cutting down all the trees in a forest so the short ones can feel better about themselves. I suggest the short trees be given the means and incentives to grow up to the tall trees.

If if it were the last USD 200 million available to GoI, I’d of course divert it to basic necessities. The space program is 0.5% of India’s GDP if not less. Think about it, 20% of GoI’s annual payments are interest payments alone. There are far bigger issues here than ruining a few space scientists’ party.

[QUOTE=morpeth;12662253] My argument is that for a country that can't even meet the basic sanitation needs of tens of millions, and the depth and scale of poverty in India, that a Space and similar programs are for prestige and betray an impression of the de-sensitized nature of the upper and middle classes in India to the poverty that exists.

Your comments about supposed benefits of the space program to India first depends on whether on a humanitarian basis one accepts the poverty situation in India, and second if not, how could be better employed to help the poor and the economy in general or simply whether better left in private hands. Arguments about the benefits of the space program such that it has a greater multiplier effect on the economy than alternate uses would depend on whether there is any hard and objective data showing that starting India's own space program is cheaper for example that booking space on other satellites. Anecdotally speaking to officials from the World Bank, IMF, and having been in international business for thirty years the pretty consistent message has been the difficulty in the Third World trying to keep government officials away from prestige projects or uneconomic allocation of to nationalist concerns, How India spending money to put a man on the moon when tens of millions do not even have toilets is beyond my understanding though it seems to make sense to Indians whenever discussed.

( This is not to say India is the only country prone to politicians making inane decisions).

At no point have I stated or even implied poverty was caused by the Space Program- what I have stated that India since 1947 for decades followed ineffective and often inane economic policies up until the progress of recent years- and the socialist-crony capitalism remains in place albeit impressive economic progress in recent years.

Actually you kind of prove my point you admit at some level you would agree funds should be diverted to help the poor or economic growth- just a question of at what point.