I read the article, "Charity? Thanks but no thanks" by Rakesh Krishnan. It is clear he does not understand the "40 hour famine" that Christian nations practice. They are not saying there is famine in India. They, adults and children, forego food for 40 hours and give the money the food would have cost to Christian organisations that work tirelessly for the poor of the world. As for 40% of the money going to pay the staff, I am surprised it is as low as that.

Mr Krishnan needs to understand the people that work among the poor need to eat, educate their children, etc. I am told that majority of the money that goes to help the poor is from Christians. So i don't see what Mr.krishnan's gripe is about. Let us not forget that India gained much from the education, hospitals, humanitarian works that these people brought to us. I am told there are many Indians in India who are rich enough to buy the whole of New Zealand.

If our people who are so rich will spend their money for the upliftment of the outcastes so that they become integrated with the upper castes, it will be good. There will be no difference between the Brahmin and the outcaste and the Christian organisations can divert their money and talents to other nations that need help.

Geetha, Mt.Roskill, Auckland
--
Indian Weekender columnist Rakesh Krishnan responds:

The article is about a whole new industry that can be called 'India bashing'. Words and images are very powerful and have the utility of implication, which has several times more impact than a direct statement. A huge "famine" banner in the background while talking about soliciting funds for school desks in India is enough to give the impression to people in New Zealand that there is famine in India. The bundling of India with extremely poor countries is something that we Indians cannot and should not accept. India is such a big country it has a US, a Europe, a Middle East and a Somalia and Bosnia within it. However, the West only shows the poorest side of India. It is this stereotypically negative depiction of India that my article is against. Take this example: When India's first lunar vehicle, Chandrayaan, achieved orbit around the moon, Fox News headlined it: "Where'd They Learn to do That?"

Indian industrialists are engaged in the business of business. They don't need to practise charity, though many of them do. Their dharma is creating wealth. Reliance, for instance, has such a vast number of shareholders that its AGMs are held in sports stadia. Millions of their shareholders have built palatial homes, married off their daughters in style, and retired rich because Reliance consistently gave good dividends and the share price has always travelled north. (Clarification: I and my family don't own Reliance shares!) Indian industrialists create millions of jobs every month, creating wealth of a magnitude unimaginable in western countries. When NR Narayana Murthy was CEO of Infosys, India's largest IT company, his company driver became a millionaire because every Infosys employee had stock options. These are the movers who will remove poverty from India.

As the article says, charity has not lifted countries out of poverty. It is a fact that some, but not all, Christian charities are fronts for proselytising churches. As Kenya's father of the nation Jomo Kenyatta told the British: When you first arrived, we had the land and you had the Bible; now you have the land and we have the Bible."

As for caste, it is a convenient handle for western nations to berate India. Modern India hasn't shut out the lower castes from any sphere of national or social life. Mayawati is the elected leader of India's largest state. Backward caste chief ministers rule many states in India. Just as India's economy grows, slowly but steadily, caste is losing its grip. India doesn't need foreigners to tell what is right or wrong. India welcomed Europeans in the 16th and 17th century with disastrous results. Nearly 190 years of European rule and proselytising by missionaries did nothing for the outcastes. Their condition is changing for the better only under a free democratic India, as it rightly should be.