Why does INDIA choose jet fighters instead of clean water?

Question

India has invited defense contractors to enter the bidding contest to supply 126 new war planes in a deal that is expected to cost the Indian treasury $10 BILLION.

Yet majority of the Indian population do not have clean water to drink.

Every day hundreds of millions of Indians bath, clean their clothes, wash their dishes, brush their teeth and drink water that is laden with bacteria, industrial and agricultural runoff, and untreated sewage, including both human and animal feces.

How can a government which is the inheritor of the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi make such a choice?

When will the Indian people grow tired of literally eating excrement and demand more from their government?

I understand the need that India, or any nation, may have for security forces. Very few nations have managed to survive without them.

But India already fields a large land army.

Further, it has nuclear weapons and systems, including intermediate range missiles, to place them on any of its immediate neighbors who might be a military threat.

In fact, the historical truth is that, with the possible exception of some border skirmishes with China, India has been the aggressor in it's brief existance.

Answer 1

Politicians, and others who govern, see the world in a different way than the rest of us do.

If the fictional state of 'Adini' cannot be defended, then there is little point in improving the lives of the people who live there. They may soon become citizens of whichever nation invades Adini; for example the neighbouring state (also fictional) of Snakitap.

If that happened, then the 'improved' living conditions of the people would only benefit the Snakitapi economy, and the reputation of the politicians who govern there, rather than the Adinian economy and its ruling party.

This would be even more of an issue, if these two fictional states were already in dispute (or at war) over territories.

A political system based on competition will always favour candidates who understand competition, and enjoy it. Once they are in power, this aptitude and attitude will not magically evaporate. They will still compete, with other nations, other organisations, other parties, other departments, other viewpoints and other interests. They are successful competitors, and they will speak to the people in order to win; to beat them in argument; to persuade rather than to ask for guidance.

The Mahatma became popular at a time when India was a colony, ruled by the Imperial government in London. He spoke from outside the political system, asking for a change in the way it was organised. He also foresaw that the leaders of an independent India might be corrupt, warlike and despotic. Being ruled by such people was, in his description, better than imperial rule (also corrupt, warlike and despotic), because it could not be blamed on anybody else.

The Indian people (just like the British people, or the American people, populations that mainly opposed the war in Iraq) DO demand more from their government.

Just like the British and American systems, the Indian system of 'democracy' protects Indian politicians from the demands of the population, by allowing them to impose the wishes of a political party instead.

It is often stated that a 'bad' politician can be 'voted out of office', but this just isn't true. You can only remove a poiltician you don't like, by voting FOR another one. This candidate will only succeed if he/she is at least as 'electable' (persuasive, corrupt, ambitious, well-connected, and positively 'spun') as the incumbent politician.

In most professions, there are people whose only concern is doing the things they are required to do, rather than doing their best. Usually these people outnumber those who want to improve the world, and will try to make a positive difference to the world by means of the work they do.

Politicians, and other rulers, are just the same. Defending the state (and its institutions, including their own powers) always takes priority over making it a decent place to live in.

Answer 2

For the same reason that the US govt chooses to buy tanks and send people to war instead of to college. What we have become is a world full of egotistical maniacs who rule countries to make their own ego seem larger than the other guy's.
I heard a snippet on the news today about the Louisiana gov't spending money on lawnmower races instead of rebuilding Levees or helping people to rebuild cities broken by Katrina.
That being said, and in no way am I trying to justify what is going on in India, I will say that they now have a larger stake in world politics than ever before. If a nation is building wealth, or has inherent value, they must be able to protect what is theirs.
I think that EVERY SINGLE world leader who has one single person of their country at war or in poverty should have to live in the shoes of those that they govern. It would change a lot of things.
You might want to read up on Asoka (if you haven't already), he was truly a great leader who at first was bent on war and imperialism, but when he actually went to where a battle had been fought, it moved him so greatly that he became a follower of Buddhism.

Answer 3

It may be a development deal - buy weapons, but get the money back in other side-deals. India does have several rogue states as neighbours - Pakistan, China and Russia is nearby. If I was an Indian citizen I would want to be prepared for the worst. But - yeah - I'd want clean water too.

Answer 4

Point is absolutely valid and justified.However,there are times and priorities which compel us to resort to certain measures which are urgent but not really important.India has survived for centuries with the same kind of water and can wait a few more years but with hostile neighbors and the looming threat-perception.it would not be advisable to compromise on it's security.Incidentally,the purchase of new war planes would not postpone provision for safe drinking water as the country has adequate financial resources to meet not only this but other social welfare measures as well. Hope the point would be understood in it's correct perspective.

Answer 5

The clean water is no good to anyone if you have been attacked and wiped out by, hostile, nuclear armed neighbours who have differing political, cultural and religious ideologies that oppose what you and your fellow countrymen stand for. Your enemies would kill your population a lot sooner than your drinking water would. It would be nice to live in a perfect world, but we don't.

Answer 6

When they're not afraid of living next door to Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran.....and your favorite,..........China.

Why else would they feel the need to buy war planes? They're scared to death of the threats that exist around them.

Besides, they really like the water. They think it's holy and has healing powers and don't mind crapping, washing, bathing in and drinking the same water.

Answer 7

Defence contractors pay huge kickbacks to the crooked
politico who buys from them, those bribes can buy a lot of bottled water and a neat villa with it's own water system.
everyone else can go on screwing eachother over like always.

Answer 8

Well, for one, jet fighters are waaayyyyyy cooler than clean water.