Why does the UK give aid to India?

[Future17]

Interesting article from the BBC website here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12607537

Basically discussing why the UK taxpayer donates to a state that is itself a foreign aid donor, which is classified by the World Bank as a middle income country (MIC) and whose economy is growing at nearly 10% a year.

Opinions?

[Beefster]

It's nonsense that we donate more money to India than any other nation. I saw Andrew Mitchell being asked this on Sunday and he kept coming back to 'alleviating poverty'. That's all very well but he had no answer to why India couldn't do that themselves before they start spending billions on a space programme and nuclear weapons.

[Removed]

And a state that can afford it's own space programme and nuclear weapons :bitchy:

I think we need to reprioritise our spending given our own welfare issues in this country.

[PeeJay]

Seems a contentious notion, but India - even if it is an emerging state - is truly poor beyond belief as a nation. Perhaps we shouldn't let Bollywood and nuclear weapons blind us to the realities of life on the Indian Continent for most of the people there? I don't live in the UK (so it's not my money anyway, although Germany also contributes to India and similar countries) but I basically think we in the West should support such countries. My main worry is more along the lines of "who controls the aid money and how it is actually used?" I also feel the answer to the immigration problem may well lie in ensuring that poverty-stricken countries make progress in economic and social terms to ultimately stop people wanting to leave such countries and head West?

Maybe the real reason we provide aid to such countries is because it helps us to forge better business relations with a strongly growing economy? Maybe we have to factor that into the equation?

[Removed]

Seems a contentious notion, but India - even if it is an emerging state - is truly poor beyond belief as a nation. Perhaps we shouldn't let Bollywood and nuclear weapons blind us to the realities of life on the Indian Continent for most of the people there? I don't live in the UK (so it's not my money anyway, although Germany also contributes to India and similar countries) but I basically think we in the West should support such countries. My main worry is more along the lines of "who controls the aid money and how it is actually used?" I also feel the answer to the immigration problem may well lie in ensuring that poverty-stricken countries make progress in economic and social terms to ultimately stop people wanting to leave such countries and head West?

Maybe the real reason we provide aid to such countries is because it helps us to forge better business relations with a strongly growing economy? Maybe we have to factor that into the equation?

I've been to India 3 times for charity work and have seen the unbelievable poverty for myself. It was truly shocking. Surely one of the main reasons that their economy is growing so well is because of all the money pumped in by private companies offshoring jobs out there?

I have no idea if any of the aid filters down to really relieve any poverty, but in my mind now giving them aid when they spend millions on non essential things like space exploration is a bit like me giving someone here who cannot afford to clothe and feed all his kids some money and he decides to spend it on a Sky tv subscription. I'd soon stop that aid in that scenario.

[Beefster]

Seems a contentious notion, but India - even if it is an emerging state - is truly poor beyond belief as a nation. Perhaps we shouldn't let Bollywood and nuclear weapons blind us to the realities of life on the Indian Continent for most of the people there? I don't live in the UK (so it's not my money anyway, although Germany also contributes to India and similar countries) but I basically think we in the West should support such countries. My main worry is more along the lines of "who controls the aid money and how it is actually used?" I also feel the answer to the immigration problem may well lie in ensuring that poverty-stricken countries make progress in economic and social terms to ultimately stop people wanting to leave such countries and head West?

Maybe the real reason we provide aid to such countries is because it helps us to forge better business relations with a strongly growing economy? Maybe we have to factor that into the equation?

I don't think anyone is disputing that India has a lot of people living in poverty. My objection is to the government using our tax money to deal with India's poverty whilst India spends about 100 times more on foreign aid, nuclear and space. If we are going to help, surely we should be insisting that they do everything they can to deal with the problem first?

You're right about there being a 'political' element to where our money is directed though.

[ancient hibee]

We're doing it so that we'll have political clout with India and also to encourage two way trade and investment in the UK by wealthy Indians such as the Mittal family.

[DH1875]

"India spends £36bn a year on defence and £750m a year on its space programme," he says. "What's more, India is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. It's completely unjustifiable, especially at this time."

If this is true then I got to say that the fact we give them millions in aid is nothing short of a joke. Am I also right in saying we also give aid to Russia? I mean WTF is that all about.

[marinello59]

Playing devils advocate here.
Defence - In a relatively unstable region isn't that a legitimate expense?
Space - Surely there are spin offs form their space programme in terms of technological advances and gaining of expertise that could be used in other industries. In the long term that has to be a major plus.

[Woody1985]

Playing devils advocate here.
Defence - In a relatively unstable region isn't that a legitimate expense?
Space - Surely there are spin offs form their space programme in terms of technological advances and gaining of expertise that could be used in other industries. In the long term that has to be a major plus.

Nice thinking and valid points.

[Beefster]

Playing devils advocate here.
Defence - In a relatively unstable region isn't that a legitimate expense?
Space - Surely there are spin offs form their space programme in terms of technological advances and gaining of expertise that could be used in other industries. In the long term that has to be a major plus.

Using that logic, we would donate to any country that chose questionable spending priorities over helping their own population.

I still don't think that it justifies the UK slashing public spending here and paying to eliminate poverty in India whilst they spend billions on 'status symbols'. They also have a foreign aid programme that gives out hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, each year. It's a bit like a beggar taking in £20 a day but having the wealth to spend £100 a day on drugs, £10 a day on cigs and still managing to give £20 a day to his homeless mate.

Aid is a fine tool but it shouldn't be unconditional.

[marinello59]

Using that logic, we would donate to any country that chose questionable spending priorities over helping their own population.

I still don't think that it justifies the UK slashing public spending here and paying to eliminate poverty in India whilst they spend billions on 'status symbols'. They also have a foreign aid programme that gives out hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, each year. It's a bit like a beggar taking in £20 a day but having the wealth to spend £100 a day on drugs, £10 a day on cigs and still managing to give £20 a day to his homeless mate.

Aid is a fine tool but it shouldn't be unconditional.

As I said, I am playing devils advocate here. The spending policies may be questionable but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong.

[Removed]

As I said, I am playing devils advocate here. The spending policies may be questionable but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong.

Whilst we are in devils advocate mode, we don't restrict how people spend their benefits in this country so why should we do it with foreign aid. Lets get our own house in order first or we are just being hypocritical :dunno:

[easty]

Whilst we are in devils advocate mode, we don't restrict how people spend their benefits in this country so why should we do it with foreign aid. Lets get our own house in order first or we are just being hypocritical :dunno:

I might give up my job and sign on, then I'll spend all my benefit money on the new Broomie Andy's Well-good Space-programme (BAWS). Once I've spent it all on space suits and a big engine and stuff, I don't think I'll have money left for food though.

The Tories will see me good though, right? I mean if they're giving money to India because they're such a poor country that can still afford a luxury of a Space Programme then I must qualify for more help as well?

Anyone want to join my BAWS? I plan to be the first Broomie in space.

[marinello59]

I might give up my job and sign on, then I'll spend all my benefit money on the new Broomie Andy's Well-good Space-programme (BAWS). Once I've spent it all on space suits and a big engine and stuff, I don't think I'll have money left for food though.

The Tories will see me good though, right? I mean if they're giving money to India because they're such a poor country that can still afford a luxury of a Space Programme then I must qualify for more help as well?

Anyone want to join my BAWS? I plan to be the first Broomie in space.

Does travel to Earth from your home planet not count then? :greengrin

[bighairyfaeleith]

Does anyone give us aid?

Surely glasgow qualifies as a poverty stricken city:agree:

[heretoday]

I think we owe India a bit of assistance given that we messed them around and exploited them for so many years.

I'm more interested in why we give aid to Russia and China since their weapons are no doubt trained on us.

Or am I being naive?

[easty]

If they money we give them isn't filtering down to help those who need it then we need to look at what's happening.

I dont think the answer is to stop helping them altogether, but maybe to help in a way that doesn't see the money going directly into Indias coffers to spend as they see fit. Could our Government create projects (funded by the aid money that we would hold onto) in India, in collaboration with Indian Government? Projects that actually see the funding go to a good use. I don't know if this would work in practise, or what projects we could fund, but the way things are isn't right.

[(((Fergus)))]

"India spends £36bn a year on defence and £750m a year on its space programme," he says. "What's more, India is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. It's completely unjustifiable, especially at this time."

If this is true then I got to say that the fact we give them millions in aid is nothing short of a joke. Am I also right in saying we also give aid to Russia? I mean WTF is that all about.

I thought you were going to make a different point with that! If we pay them GBP 295m while they spend GBP 36bn on defence plus 750m on space, then - given that the UK is one of the world's leading defence system manufacturers and no doubt has a few space contractors too - the "aid" we hand over is actually just a bung to get some of those orders. That is the only justification I can think of for spending this money and I do not believe we would bother unless there were some tangible image benefits for the UK that eventually translate into hard cash. We obviously cannot admit publicly to being so cynical however at the same time I hope they have got their sums right.

[Future17]

I thought you were going to make a different point with that! If we pay them GBP 295m while they spend GBP 36bn on defence plus 750m on space, then - given that the UK is one of the world's leading defence system manufacturers and no doubt has a few space contractors too - the "aid" we hand over is actually just a bung to get some of those orders. That is the only justification I can think of for spending this money and I do not believe we would bother unless there were some tangible image benefits for the UK that eventually translate into hard cash. We obviously cannot admit publicly to being so cynical however at the same time I hope they have got their sums right.

Next time I meet a girl in a bar, this is what I'm going to tell her I do for a living. :greengrin

[easty]

Next time I meet a girl in a bar, this is what I'm going to tell her I do for a living. :greengrin

Space Cowboy will impress her more.:greengrin

[(((Fergus)))]

Next time I meet a girl in a bar, this is what I'm going to tell her I do for a living. :greengrin

Surely she would be the space contractor. :greengrin

[Mon Dieu4]

I dont mind us giving money to India, probably only a fraction of what we took off them when the "empire" was on the go :agree:

[RyeSloan]

Does anyone give us aid?

Surely glasgow qualifies as a poverty stricken city:agree:

Pretty sure you will find that Scotland as a whole give 'aid' to Glasgow.

A substantial percentage of business rates raised in the capital is 're-distributed' to Glasgow for that very reason......

[Phil D. Rolls]

If you give aid to a country, is it normal to expect some of it back the way in the form of arms purchases? If so, it might explain Britain's thinking with this "charity".

[ancient hibee]

Does anyone give us aid?

Surely glasgow qualifies as a poverty stricken city:agree:

I know someone who works for Oxfam dealing with poverty in Lanarkshire.

[Dashing Bob S]

If we didn't give it to India, we'd presumably give it to impoverished people at home, then we'd have even more threads about junkies in schemes ripping off the state.

[Alec Splode]

The UK government give aid to India is to promote better trade agreements with the UK.
Can't think of another reason tbh.

[marinello59]

The UK government give aid to India is to promote better trade agreements with the UK.
Can't think of another reason tbh.

Because no politician could possibly be motivated by genuine compassion and concern for our fellow human beings could they?

[Alec Splode]

Because no politician could possibly be motivated by genuine compassion and concern for our fellow human beings could they?

I'm sure many are, however the question was why do the UK give aid to India.
I gave the correct answer.

[marinello59]

I'm sure many are, however the question was why do the UK give aid to India.
I gave the correct answer.

You did? I thought it was merely an opinion. Debate over, we have the definitive answer. Close the thread.:agree:

[Beefster]

I'm sure many are, however the question was why do the UK give aid to India.
I gave the correct answer.

While you're on a question-answering roll......

How come every time I use Soy Sauce on food, I always manage to slaver it all over a white t-shirt whilst eating?

[Alec Splode]

While you're on a question-answering roll......

How come every time I use Soy Sauce on food, I always manage to slaver it all over a white t-shirt whilst eating?

Simply because you're a slaverer. :agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

While you're on a question-answering roll......

How come every time I use Soy Sauce on food, I always manage to slaver it all over a white t-shirt whilst eating?

Because you don't have t-shirts in any other colour?

[Beefster]

Simply because you're a slaverer. :agree:


Because you don't have t-shirts in any other colour?

I fear it's a combination of the two answers. Question answered though so I'm satisfied!

[HibeeEmma]

I'm sure many are, however the question was why do the UK give aid to India.
I gave the correct answer.

Aid is always strategic:
I would suggest the reasons we give aid to India is
1. Guilt over colonialism
2. Defence strategy to protect themselves against an up and coming power. If the UK needs anything from India once they have stable industries its almost a condition on the aid that they'll get it
3. India may have an increased economic growth rate but the country remains divided between North and South. The North is generally wealthy and the majority of skilled Indians in the UK are from there. The South on the other hand are not prospering. The caste system (similar to tribes or clans) does not allow the wealthy to give assistance to the needy. Therefore extreme poverty still exists

[Alec Splode]

Aid is always strategic:
I would suggest the reasons we give aid to India is
1. Guilt over colonialism
2. Defence strategy to protect themselves against an up and coming power. If the UK needs anything from India once they have stable industries its almost a condition on the aid that they'll get it
3. India may have an increased economic growth rate but the country remains divided between North and South. The North is generally wealthy and the majority of skilled Indians in the UK are from there. The South on the other hand are not prospering. The caste system (similar to tribes or clans) does not allow the wealthy to give assistance to the needy. Therefore extreme poverty still exists

1. If colonial guilt was a factor in determining who receives aid we wouldn't be cutting the budget for Gambia & Lesotho.

2. We don't need protecting from India, who've been "up and coming" in nuclear terms since the early 70's and currently have twice as many nuclear plants than their benefactors, the UK !
We do however need protecting from "terrorism" and there's an element of self-interest in this respect, ingrained into who receives our support.

3. Extreme poverty indeed exists in India but it shouldn't be forgotten India is also an aid donor, giving almost £300m in foreign aid in 2008.
There's something wrong when a country with more billionaires than the UK, is providing foreign aid, pursuing a space & nuclear programme, whilst 450 million of their own population are starving. That's another argument though.

The UK gives aid not primarily to alleviate suffering - although no doubt it does. We give aid selectively, and in India's case it's simply to get soemthing back from the worlds fastest growing economy, with the worlds most highly educated and skilled workforce.
It's no cincidence that when Gordon Brown was announcing the previous aid budget in India, he was joined by representatives of the best UK universities, the CBI director general and Richard Branson !
As I said before, the promotion of better trade agreements between India and the UK is the main driving force here.

[clerriehibs]

1. If colonial guilt was a factor in determining who receives aid we wouldn't be cutting the budget for Gambia & Lesotho.

2. We don't need protecting from India, who've been "up and coming" in nuclear terms since the early 70's and currently have twice as many nuclear plants than their benefactors, the UK !
We do however need protecting from "terrorism" and there's an element of self-interest in this respect, ingrained into who receives our support.

3. Extreme poverty indeed exists in India but it shouldn't be forgotten India is also an aid donor, giving almost £300m in foreign aid in 2008.
There's something wrong when a country with more billionaires than the UK, is providing foreign aid, pursuing a space & nuclear programme, whilst 450 million of their own population are starving. That's another argument though.

The UK gives aid not primarily to alleviate suffering - although no doubt it does. We give aid selectively, and in India's case it's simply to get soemthing back from the worlds fastest growing economy, with the worlds most highly educated and skilled workforce.
It's no cincidence that when Gordon Brown was announcing the previous aid budget in India, he was joined by representatives of the best UK universities, the CBI director general and Richard Branson !
As I said before, the promotion of better trade agreements between India and the UK is the main driving force here.

:top marks
and no coincidence that overseas aid is one of the few areas where the tories aren't cutting the budget. That's enough evidence in itself that "aid" isn't really about "aid".