Why is Britain giving aid to India ?

India’s economy is about 50% bigger than Britain’s, the country has more millionaires than the UK, so why should British taxpayers continue to help? This was the question posed by a former government minister – Dennis Macshane, yesterday… 

They’ll be discussing this on a Newshour discussion with Mike Denham, a former economist at the UK’s treasury, and Paul Valentin, the international director of Christian Aid at 12gmt. 

60 Responses to “Why is Britain giving aid to India ?”

  1. May 29, 2008 at 11:11

    Hello Precious Mark from very hot Baghdad… Frankly speaking, I really don’t know why… Aren’t extremely poor African countries which are facing a real danger of famine more worthy of aid and money funds ?! BTW Precious Mark, will ‘To report-or to help’ get the chance to be discussed on air on WHYS at anytime soon ?! With my love… Yours forever, Lubna…

  2. 2 Mohammed Ali
    May 29, 2008 at 11:25

    India is the former colony of Britain, what’s wrong with them wanting to continue to be the master.

  3. 3 Mark Sandell
    May 29, 2008 at 11:56

    Hi Lubna, i can confirm we ARE doing the “to report or to help” debate, probably on Monday. Karnie is fixing….

  4. May 29, 2008 at 12:07

    THANK YOU Precious Mark… I trust it’s gonna be a supermarvellous programme, as always ! :-)… With my love… Yours forever, Lubna…

  5. 5 Bolu' Aladeniyi
    May 29, 2008 at 12:19

    “The poor will always be with us” so since the majority of the population in India are poor without a means of supporting themselves talk less of there families then Bitian being one of the world rich in terms of per capital income and theformer “masters” of India should always lernd a support till…..

  6. 6 Brett
    May 29, 2008 at 12:22

    India’s economy is about 50% bigger than Britain’s, the country has more millionaires than the UK, so why should British taxpayers continue to help?

    Yes, but look at the lower end of statistics too with poverty…
    I don’t think Britain’s taxpayers should have to help, but hopefully the help is going to where it is needed.

  7. 7 Bob in Queensland
    May 29, 2008 at 13:03

    India’s economy may be 50% bigger than the UK but the population is about 2000% bigger than the UK. There is still a lot of poverty in India–enough that, even if all the millionaires gave up their money it would still be a drop in the ocean.


  8. 8 Tom
    May 29, 2008 at 13:05

    Lets do some maths here.

    India’s economy is 50% bigger than UK’s.

    India’s population is 18.7 times bigger than UK’s.

    This means that the average Brit is 12.5 times richer than the average Indian. This would also mean a little sacrifice from the average Brit will make a massive difference to the average Indian.

    Besides, it’s not the average Indian that need help, but those in dire poverty.

    This may help toward answering the question of whether the rich should continue to donate to the poor.

  9. 9 steve
    May 29, 2008 at 13:12

    If India is so poor, why are they buying ex Royal Navy aircraft carriers?

  10. May 29, 2008 at 13:49

    I had the same ideas as Tom concerning UK aid to India. I like to enlarge on it.

    India’s economy is about 50% bigger than Britain’s, but India’s population (1.1 billion) is 18 times more than UK’s (60.7 million). UK’s GNI per capita is US $37,600. India’s GNI per capita: US $720, which means it is at least 50 times less than that of UK.

    India on the surface of it looks richer than UK. And logically, it’s India that should send help to UK. But India has more social troubles than UK; some are almost non-existent in UK like illiteracy. The exception can be among old immigrants, especially those from Asia.

    In India, there are still regions and population that still live in primitive conditions compared to the 21st development.

    On many occasions, even very rich nations needed international help in times of disaster. The USA received outside help after Katrina Hurricane. Germany did the same when faced with flood some years ago. China wouldn’t have coped well after the recent earthquake without the massive international aid.

    The Indian government still lacks full resources to help its entire people. UK still has an obligation to help its helpless population on humanitarian grounds. International help is a means of strengthening diplomatic and economic ties.

    Indians living and working in UK are also helping UK economy through their high skills and economic enterprises. So the help given to India shouldn’t be seen as a waste of money but as a means to strengthen the relations between the countries. UK aid to India totalled £1billion. But surely UK gets more than that in its economic exchange with India.

    So let’s say, every pound donated to India as aid will be returned by 10 pounds through commercial exchanges.

  11. 11 VictorK
    May 29, 2008 at 14:16

    The idea that country A should support country B is a perversion of government.

    The British government has no mandate to be spending taxpayers’ money in this way and should leave it to individuals to make donations to causes in India and other places as they wish.

    Of course, what is described as ‘aid’ is sometimes nothing of the kind, since the word often includes making repayable loans and the provision of funds whose receipt is contingent upon being used to buy goods from the providing country. That kind of business arrangement, which promotes Britain’s financial interests, is better than outright aid, but is still unacceptable..

    That India’s economy is bigger than Britain’s is not the relevant measure. Per capita GDP or income would be more to the point. But even so, as Lubna mentioned, there are many countries with a much lower per capita GDP/income than India. But those countries are too poor to repay a loan and too underdeveloped to have any reason to purchase manufactured goods from Britain. Which increases my suspicion that ‘aid’ to India is not what it seems.

    All inter-government aid should be abolished. So should loans between governments: banks exist for that and will do it more professionally. If a country’s goods are worth buying they’ll be purchased without governments’ distorting the market by, in effect, using taxpayers money to subsidise local businesses. No country has a right to welfare at the expense of another government, and no government has an obligation to make life better for the citizens of another country.

  12. 12 Dave
    May 29, 2008 at 14:53

    Britain occupied India for quite a long time, enriching itself by the occupation. Has India been fully compensated yet?

  13. 13 VictorK
    May 29, 2008 at 15:06

    @ Dave: do you have any statistics about how Britain was enriched by the occupation of India? I know that the East India Company and ‘nabobs’ like Lord Clive grew rich from their involvement, often exploitative, with India (all before India was a part of the British Empire), but I’m not so sure that Britain grew especially wealthy from its Indian Empire. Of course, in your eagerness to blame Britain you’ve forgotten the extent to which, before the British ever appeared on the scene, India’s wealth had been exhausted by its Mughal rulers. Perhaps India was enriched by its Indian possession – I don’t know that much about that side of Indian history – but I am a bit tired of people making wide-ranging allegations without offering any kind of facts to support them.

    I can think of how India was enriched by receiving the benefits of British law and administration, modern medicine, modern education, new technology, etc. Let’s set that on one side of the account, and whatever facts you can give us on the other side and then make a judgement about who owes whom.

  14. May 29, 2008 at 15:06

    Hmm it seems that India is a country where the rich are really rich and the poor are really poor. Do you think that the US could petition Britain for aid?

    Aid should be given from one government to another for three reasons. 1) it is the human thing to do and a separate bill has been passed through the legislative branch. (If all of the legislators can agree a country needs aid it is probably needed pretty bad.) 2) To stabilize and secure a government in a region that has favorable attributes to the sponsor government. (If you are going to preach democracy you can’t prop up oppressive dictatorships for your financial benefit.) 3) aid as a loan to help an economy of a trading partner that has suffered some anomaly that interfered with their economy. All of them should have stipulations on not only what is bought with the money, but what can be bought with their budget. If they can afford to buy weapons and warships, then they are not hurting for aid.

  15. 15 Abraham
    May 29, 2008 at 15:20

    Though the intention was wrong, Britain ruled India for many years which helped India in some areas like English language and Railways with the result the present generation of Britain should be proud of that because when they tour India they see English Boards and travel by train from one end to another end of the country. While they travel surely they will remember the aid gave to India by their forefathers has proven absolutely right. Again giving aid to India will not be a mistake. But it should reach to the right person so that the people of Britain and India can rejoice.

  16. May 29, 2008 at 15:40

    The concept that high economic growth rates are the best way to reduce poverty is deluded. The reality – in every economy with high growth rates – is that high growth rates end up in a few huge winners and massive losers. Hence a growing number of billionaires and millionaires at one end of the spectrum and growing poverty at the other end.

    Now lets take a big step back. We only have one planet and we are already living unsustainably – using more than one planet’s worth of renewable resources . If the global population rate and the average per capita consumption rate were to freeze now we are still heading for wipeout. Yet governments and opposition parties all around the world are pushing for more economic growth – the IMF’s definition of a global recession is a global economic growth of below 3%. Talk about newspeak (1984 George orwell) and delusion.

    Clearly democracy is an unworkable solution for sustainability because of its nature – short term populism wins the day and the guys with the biggest ad spend can buy the outcome (read al Gore’s “assult on reason” for more details).

    Reality sandwich is there are too many people consuming and polluting too much on this planet. Billions will have to die is we persist with our living standards. Wake up. Maintaining high living standards and bailing out poor people around the world will simply make the global situation worse in the long run. If you are for real in your wish to help the poor, reduce your personal global footprint – otherwise accept your guilt, let go of it and speed up the global population reduction but lets stop the bleeding hearts aid – it is only pre-longing the agony and making the end game larger than it would be otherwise.

    Oh and by the way – the UK is technically bankrupt as a nation as is the USA, Australia etc – so whose money are we giving away anyway?

  17. 17 Will Rhodes
    May 29, 2008 at 15:46

    Mr MacShane said it was bizarre that UK aid to India totalled £1billion when that country has more billionaires and millionaires than the UK. In another swipe at waste, he complained: “Can I be the only MP outraged that town clerks – even dressed up with fancy titles such as chief executive – can now get paid £200,000-plus for running rubbish collection services in small towns?”

    That is where the real problem lies.

    My dad, a Labour man like myself once said – “Have a Labour national government and all the councils run by the Conservatives and bring back county councils. And most of all get rid of Kirklees (No idea why – but he detested Kirklees).

  18. 18 Justin from Iowa
    May 29, 2008 at 16:06

    Basically agree with VictorK. Altruistic aid, aid without strings attached and with the will of the taxpayers who provide the money… would be less objectionable to me, but at that point why not just reduce taxes by the .01% used towards aid and let people privately donate.

    World organizations can take and transfer donations with less taint of government support, and should be preferably used anyways.

  19. 19 Syed Hasan Turab
    May 29, 2008 at 16:26

    I remember BBC India rising week now talking about Birtish aid is complain or compliment’s to India?
    Infact heavily populated India dont know & dont want to know the quality of life along with accepted standard to live in presant fast media time.
    Just pretented big because of population is creating a human desaster kind of society in India, this is what Birtish is smelling & helping out poorer of poorest of the world as we all know this desaster been created because of Fundimental belive in segregation & cast system.
    Just lable of Democracy cannot resolve humanatrian crises in Indian society.

  20. 20 Peter Gizzi UK
    May 29, 2008 at 16:50

    Hi everybody,
    India is a member of The Commonwealth of Nations. There are I believe 53 Members and a poppulation of 1.6 billion People. It represents about 40% of World Trade. I feel we owe more to India than The European Union who cost us £10 billion per annum. Where does that money go?

    As for the very rich they are everywhere. Under a so called Socialist Government the gap between rich and poor in The UK has grown considerably.

  21. 21 Roberto
    May 29, 2008 at 17:35

    India’s economy is about 50% bigger than Britain’s, the country has more millionaires than the UK, so why should British taxpayers continue to help?

    ——- Because, the global big dogs and all their minions need a free wheeling 3rd world development to become fabulously weathy so they can pull all the strings.

    All this nonsense coming to a grinding halt with rising oil and oceans with a steady makeover of the worlds geography. Just look at what a single earthquake did to China, and a single tsunami did to south Asia. Global warming and global speculation to create a mess well beyond the scope of the World War conflicts and isolated earthquakes.

    Maybe I sound like an alarmist to some, but the news out is dire and alarming in what should be the golden age of the world but for naked greed.

    India now has 4 of the wealthiest men in the world, more than any other country. Big dogs to be setting up shop in these poorly regulated backwaters to make fabulous money. The only reason the Chinese ain’t on the list is because the government makes sure it gets the lion’s share of everything, just leaving the Chinese entrepreneurs mere multimillonaires instead of multi billionaires.

    This world of ours not set up for this massive overpopulation, conflict and scale of exploitation. Something to give way, and I shudder to even envision the aftermath.

    At least it’s a beautiful day in my neck of the woods…..for now.

  22. 22 Jeff Minter
    May 29, 2008 at 17:36

    For a country with so many rich people, why is it then the majority of people there have no access to clean water?

    And we say the rich-poor divide here is getting bigger.

  23. 23 Jens
    May 29, 2008 at 18:45

    @ Abdelilah Boukili

    are almost inexistent in UK like illiteracy.

    are you sure, i have met plenty of illiterate brits

  24. 24 Jens
    May 29, 2008 at 18:49

    well india gave the UK culinary aid (curry dishes) at the time when the needed it the most, so they deserve to be paid back, me thinks.

  25. May 29, 2008 at 18:51

    Hello every one, I think we are mixing ideas, India is a country where the gap between the poor and the rich is abnormal .The few rich people are much richer for India and the poor are too much poorer to be in the country.To me British aid should be directed to the persons in need of it ie is the poor, and who are the majority.I think the major reason for giving aid to a country that country out of poverty that is indirectly helping a common man
    Am wondering if the minister wanted Indians to start giving aid to Britons!!

  26. 26 Dennis
    May 29, 2008 at 21:41

    Why is Britain giving money in term of aid to India….Here are my problems!

    1]India is bigger than Britain—more taxpayers…
    2]Who is going to finance it [the government via loans from whom?]

    I can understand that in certain situations, then financial resources
    should be given!

    Madrid, U.S.A.

  27. 27 Glenys
    May 30, 2008 at 02:08

    one reason: England colonized (exploited) India for years. there is not enough money in the world to cure that misery!!

    Now, can someone please tell Britain, Italy, France and all those empire hungry first world nations to stand up and take responsibility for all of their former colonies in Africa and the Americas? Please!!

  28. May 30, 2008 at 03:02


  29. 29 Tom
    May 30, 2008 at 06:49

    VictorK: Do you have any statistics about how Britain was enriched by the occupation of India?

    Britain gained Hong Kong as a direct consequence of its occupation of India. Hong Kong was the prize for winning the Opium Wars over China, who attempted to block the importation of opium from British India.

    Though back then the Brits complained of gaining a piece of unpopulated barren rock, we all know now how Britain and the world (esp. China) have been enriched by the subsequent growth of Hong Kong.

  30. 30 Tom.C
    May 30, 2008 at 09:04

    So right,Tom!!
    “Why is Britain giving aid to India?”..To make a profit in the long run, of course.

    It is capitalism wearing the mask of humanitarianism. Makes me want to spew chunks.

    Leave India alone and fix your own country instead.

  31. 31 Tom
    May 30, 2008 at 09:54

    Tom.C: It’s just one of the inconvenient truths that Britain must live with given its imperialistic history and current global position.

  32. May 30, 2008 at 16:25

    In the first instance,i would like to say that India has a great importance in the region of subcontinant.

    India is greatest democracy in the world and also a nuclear power.

    On the other hand,a vast market of american export including weapons and technology.

    The united States has desire India will remained under its influence like Pakistan and not inclind toward China and Russia.

    As it is well known that British and the united states are ally in the world politices as you have seen in the war against Iraq and Afghanistan and the proceedinghas been going on in The United Nations general assembly as well as security council.

    The policy as you have temed ”Why is Britian giving aid to India” is the vital part of the policy adopted by the United Kingdom amid to stop Indian inclination toward China and Russia.

  33. 33 Nartey
    May 30, 2008 at 16:57

    It’s the poor people who benefit and not the already rich.If India’s poor people are in need,why should’nt Britain help?

  34. 34 arshams
    June 8, 2008 at 11:38

    Britain may consider, as per many peoples’ concept, India is its most suitable choice as to be an ideal region to renter there and begin trade there in the name of ‘East India Company’ and run its monarchy here again for another century or more than that.

  35. 35 Felicita
    June 27, 2008 at 03:42

    The English Language and Railways that the English gave to India can not be compared to the number of life’s and families lost in the independence fight. so whoever thinks that Britain colonialism in India has done any good for the country it is at a very huge cost of human life. Wonderful national monument which were 1000’s of years old where destroyed… How Hippocratic the British can be …..

    The aid provided by uk is history repeating itself….. the main reason is to secure the huge marketing potential available in India.

  36. 36 Beck
    October 22, 2008 at 17:01

    Why are the british people giving aid to India when they are blasting off to the moon and don’t seem to care about the poor in there country

  37. 37 Ian
    October 22, 2008 at 17:31

    Well I am donating my job so that will be a help. Dole queue and day time TV for me.

  38. 38 Layman
    November 2, 2008 at 01:31

    US stopped aid to India in 1971 – and much to everybody’s surprise, we did not die.
    Similarly, UK should also stop its aid to India – no one will die in India. Yes, Indians may be poor – but the absence of aid would mean that Indians have to put up with fewer sermons (on how they should manage their economy).

    On the other hand, that money may be more useful to UK at home. Many Brits have no jobs at home. They seek jobs in Australia, New Zealand and of course, the US.

    The citizens of the world see UK, as a part of the problem – not a part of the solution. Fewer Brits outside Britain mean fewer problems for the rest of us.


    • 39 hi pal friend
      December 28, 2009 at 08:29

      hi my pal friend its very hurt to know that what every British has been thinking about aid to India .even america president says India and china are self sufficient country when tsunami struck India no country came forward to help us we are the one who contributed money foods and clothes for the people who make it hard to save their life and still you say that India is burden India never asks for any aid to any country while even i heard that lot of India companies are in London the companies like tata are giving employment to British also we never complains. so thinling wrong on indians they are also contributing on british economy

  39. 40 Irsh
    November 10, 2008 at 18:06

    The UK is sending BILLIONS on subsidies to India??? It’s a myth that must give great satisfaction to all the do-gooders! India stopped getting aid from most countries years ago especially govt-to-govt that came with strings attached. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1056274.cms

  40. 41 P.Allen
    November 19, 2008 at 11:46

    Why are we sending money to India,we have sent them jobs(closing our own companies )etc.and then India orders cruise missiles and warships from Russia?????????????????

  41. 42 selena in Canada
    November 19, 2008 at 13:00

    Well, finally, the question that should have been asked decades ago!

    It is not considered cricket to ask questions like that, Dennis Macshane! There are some questions that are just off limit.

    If one asks that question, one is considered a cruel person. How can you question sending money to starving children?

    But the answer to the WHYS question may lie in: who really benefits from foreign aid?

  42. 43 Layman
    November 28, 2008 at 04:13

    Its not as though the loss of jobs started recently. The closing of Western companies – started way back in 1971, when President Nixon opened relations with China. US gifted every known manufacturing technology to China in an effort to isolate Russia. Other western countries followed suit. None of these events has anything to do with India.

    As regards orders to Russia – don’t you think its in the interest of every nation to purchase goods at the best possible price? Perhaps, the US/West needs to make its offer more attractive.
    I actually tend to agree with you because very little aid reaches the needy. Research shows that about 65-70% of the money collected is spent in the West itself – i.e. in the administration of the Aid Program.

    But, what about the remaining third? A good part of it is given to NGOs. Whatever is left goes the poor – usually with strings attached. Let me elaborate.

    NGOs are not God’s angels. Most of their activities cannot bear scrunity of any sort. If the NGOs were to practice their craft in the US, they would soon end up in prison. Did you know that there is one NGO for every 10 Indian families? WHAT exactly are they doing?

    I did mention that some aid actually reaches the poor – but with strings attached. “What strings?” you may ask. The “string” usually consists of the poor giving up their faith and converting to an alien Abrahmic faith. So, the poor get hit twice over.
    Worst of all, they cannot hit back.

    Robbing is a crime in any society, robbing the rich may be acceptable under some circumstances, but robbing the poor of their faith is the worst form of terrorism.

    So, lets stop this aid.

  43. 44 J Mullen
    December 2, 2008 at 14:05

    We should cease all aid to so called poor nations/countries and be very aware that they will drag us down to their level with without doubt, that, in most cases being the sole intention of them with the proverbial chip on shoulder, that we hear daily.

  44. 45 Mugil
    December 21, 2008 at 17:17

    I’m an Indian, and it completely baffles me that India should receive aid from Britain. India is an export & savings based economy and has foreign exchange surplus of about 400 billion US dollars in its sovereign wealth funds. The economies of UK and USA are debt based currently, and it sounds completely ridiculous for the debtors to hand out aid to their creditors. What’s going on here. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to make sense of the world around us. I urge the Indian government to liquidate some of the US treasury bonds to spend on the people of India, instead of embarrassing the nation.

  45. 46 abq
    February 16, 2009 at 17:18

    Some pretty good arguments here- particularly by Layman. Why to give aid to India when truck loads of homeless people (including 5-10yr kids) spent winter nights on London streets, when scores of retirees spend half their weeks on semi/empty stomachs, when average waiting time for a council house is over 3 years, when NHS surgery waiting lists extend over 1+ years (that’s the urgent ones), when county schools do not get enough teachers (due to poor pay)? The answer is elementary- it’s the game of returns. You donate $100 to someone called poor, establish administration in your country for that great program and spend $60-65 on setting up admin office in your own country (and employ your people), spend $10-20 on travels (by your airlines & by your people as they deserve all expense paid holidays) and put strings on the remaining $15-30 in terms of 80+% sourcing your home products (again generating employment). So at an estimated cost of $3-6 per $100 spent as advertised, you get a chance to shout before the world that you are a great humanitarian. You also get a good footing in one of the fastest emerging markets with 8+% growth (when growth in your own country is<0%). Additionally, you may also get the chance to influence the local govt (otherwise who will listen to you?). Great marketing strategy and an intelligent move, I say. Attending and receiving hospitality in 5-star hotels to discuss poverty alleviation strategies & programs round the year is the bonus pay-off.

    • 47 India
      December 19, 2009 at 09:59

      Thank you for writing so coherently and putting the point across. I respect you for what you wrote. And every bit of it is so true. I really think we should put up an online petition asking India to stop accepting financial aid, cancel registrations of UK based charities operating in places like west bengal who are absolutely hand in glove with the communist party of india and whose hidden agenda is either to disrupt th secular cohesion of this country by providing economic incentives to poor people to convert to christianity or use their humanatarian cover to assist and provide reconissance to intelligence missions of their own countries. We need to petition the government to make their finances come under Right to Information Act so that we could set up our survelliance and fact finding teams to catch them red handed. One would be astonished if one speaks to some of the volunteers who actually come to India to do charity to find their perception of what India is what India should be. This ‘tamasha’ of financial aid must be stoppped. It is time Mittal and Ambani opens up a charity in the heart of London to help their backwaters like Ali G says…’East side…Staines Massive’…my blood boils to see these hypocrites cosying up with communists in Bengal.

  46. 48 William
    July 8, 2009 at 12:50

    Personally its simple we should not be giving any money to India. They are spending millions on weapons and space when their own people are starving…this is nonsense. We should not be giving them anything, its not our problem and we could build several schools or hospitals with that money or give people the drugs they need to let them live another few years because they have cancer.

    Democracy needs to be taken back from our politician and if this sort of subject was put to a UK vote we would not spend a penny on India.

  47. 49 e north
    August 11, 2009 at 00:01

    the indian goverment has nuclear power, nuclear arms and a space program. all in all this must cost billions of pounds. , if they have this much to waste on non essentials then they should surely be able to tighten thier belts a little and support the poorer people amongst them without accepting aid from countries such as the united kingdom? the indian economy is growing at the expense of great britain, so why should we direct vast amounts of funds to them? in the current econic climate the british should suspend all but the most essential donations to countries like this, as we have enough problems of our own.

  48. 50 raj
    September 20, 2009 at 06:24

    i agree from all of u but I’ve some points which are as follows :-

    1. UK has to support India on the grounds of terrorism
    2. UK is supporting India because nearly half of the things which are in UK market
    are made of India…..why because the manufacturing cost is low in India e;g
    Primark the clothing brand top man,gap they all have manufacturers in India
    because it gives them profit of more than 50%.
    3. Every year so many international student come to UK for their higher studies
    and they charge thousands of pounds as fee from us, and from their own citizen’s
    they hardly charge any fees so we are paying much more than what u people

    • 51 Doug Anders
      March 28, 2010 at 15:12

      So your saying we have a good trade relationship already. Fine. Why then is it one sided with one country paying back much of the benefit to the other.

      UK citizens leave University with 10s of thousand of pounds in fees on average. Its not like our Universities make a profit on any of their student population. In fact they are all subsidised. My wife was not English she also had to pay the relevant tuition fees and fully expected too as she chose to finish her studies in the UK.

      I dont understand your point here either, are you saying we should be pleased that UK student places are given to non UK people because they rightly pay for the tuition ?

  49. 52 Lionel
    September 24, 2009 at 11:07

    If I were a trillion pounds in debt, I would’t give aid to anyone!
    I certainly wouldn’t give aid to India unless it was to help their 400,000,000 who live in abject poverty. And there are enough wealthy people in India to do that themselves!

  50. 53 LOL
    September 26, 2009 at 02:32

    Countries give ‘aid’ to set up institutions of influence in other countries. It has nothing to do with feeding the poor…poor countries give aid to poorer counties. (India to Bangladesh for eg) These institutions of aid are long term bets placed by a country to influence, cajole or otherwise arm-twist the other country’s policies to be in line with that of the aid giver all of which takes place under the guise of giving alms. Britian should give aid to whatever country it feels would bring the most bang for the buck long term.

    • 54 India
      December 19, 2009 at 10:49

      Short and sweet but the message is crystal clear. You are absolutely right. Lets sign up an online petition and ask our Indian government to simply refuse any financial aid from the UK government or any government in Continental Europe.

  51. 55 Sunil
    September 26, 2009 at 22:42

    I am an Indian and I request the UK government to immediately stop all aid to us and shut up.

  52. 57 pushtupma butt
    November 20, 2009 at 06:29

    Simple – if a nation requires aid from another, then it isnt ready yet for self governance. Lets move back in and take control of what we have paid for. We could send a few former indian nationals back as well….

  53. 58 loser
    January 15, 2010 at 09:34

    The British looted at least $ 1 trillion from India when they ruled India,excluding the valuable gems that they stole from India(including the Kohinoor diamond that is seen in the British Queen’s crown).There is nothing wrong in giving back 2% of what you have looted.

  54. 59 looneymetal
    January 21, 2010 at 22:29

    India seem to have the money when it comes to their space program, they are pumping billions into getting an Indian into space, surely that money could be put to better use. I don’t mind helping out a country that is at least attempting to be self sustainable.

  55. 60 Phil
    January 28, 2010 at 17:24

    Poverty in India is officially over, now that they have announced plans for manned space flight and missions to Mars.


    This means that they have all the welfare, education, sanitation, fresh water and health-care they want, and have plenty of money left to spend on nice but not essential things like spaceflight.

    As it’s also the world’s largest democracy, those that think the money should be spent on other things can simply vote for someone who will do just that, or stand for election themselves.

    Either way, it’s the last time I put anything in a charity bucket with ‘India’ on it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: