One thing I found interesting was the pride in literacy and education. Kerala has a 96% literacy rate which is the highest in India [1].
It's one of my favorite places to visit. Unlike other parts of India such as Bengaluru, Mumbai and Hyderbad -- it's tropical and lush with much less pollution than what you might see in those other parts of India.
My parents have a home in a rural community which hasn't changed much in the past few decades compared to somewhere like Bengaluru. It's quiet and slow with a high important on family relationships. No doubt it's westernizing, albeit slower than other parts of India - but for now it still holds much of the charm I've known since I was a kid.
I don’t see any startup tech or manufacturing in India falling over themselves to start in Kerala.
> much less pollution
Comparatively? Perhaps. One look at the Vembanad Lake and you'll know what I'm talking about: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/high-levels-of-fa... It stinks these days.
> Kerala has a 96% literacy rate
Lieracy surveys aren't as rigorous; likely 5% to 20% drop from reported numbers: https://www.dataforindia.com/measuring-literacy/
> still holds much of the charm
As someone who visited Kerala multiple times a year, things have gotten worse both climate wise & pollution wise. Though, the monsoon gods still bless Kerala, it isn't as green as it used to be. I've found (under similar climatic conditions) the Sri Lankan lowlands (West coast) to be more greener. Ditto for rainforests of NE India & SE Asia.
This is very well studied in sociology and anthropology and has been for many decades. Kerala is a major case study in many fields because of this.
In addition, other states got very close to that literacy rate, but are probably managed quite differently to Kerala. Worth considering if people want to try to replicate Kerala's efforts without considering the wider context
> Education in Kerala has deep historical roots, dating back to the rule of local dynasties and the influence of colonial missionaries. The rulers of Travancore and Cochin played a crucial role in establishing schools and promoting learning, especially among marginalized communities. The British and Christian missionaries also made significant contributions by setting up institutions that emphasized modern education.
> In 1817, the Travancore government issued a royal decree stating that education should be provided to all, including women and lower castes. By the early 20th century, Kerala had already built a strong foundation for literacy, ensuring that access to education was widespread.
https://livekerala.com/blog/how-kerala-became-indias-most-li...
1. Secondary and tertiary education is not all there is to education. A self-learned software engineer might lack a capital-E education, but has still spent significant time and effort on learning.
2. Education is one of many aspects of a successful life, at least as important is conscientiousness, diligence, intelligence and luck.
3. The US benefits from many virtuous cycles. In regards to the labor force it is able to attract a lot of the best talent in the world.
Given the current political climate in the US, it seems prudent to point out that point 3 isn't just true for business-men, doctors and other nerds, undocumented immigrants are some of the hardest-working people out there. They contribute almost 100b in taxes alone, and get almost no services in return.
And given for how many years the US has had sub-optimal results in international education comparison, while the overall economy has done well also doesn't fit.
Too many kids go to other universities and study similar things. It's fine to explore these ideas, but at the end of the day you've got to make someone happy or they won't pay you.
But yeah, if the economy can't use those people its just not effective.
Also, much of typical school history most people learn is incredibly shallow and the waste majority of people barley remember anything. Research show this pretty clearly. So teaching something wrong, is not gone matter much.
Also, since the mid 60s pop culture has embraced the slacker as being hip and cool.
They guy and gal trying to get ahead are portrayed as greedy or at best blindly joining a rat-race forgoing more noble pursuits. Not so for many other cultures.
I think the same it true for most of Latin america, where many of my friends and colleagues are from. And when I was in Nepal they thought that, if anything, western people are way too much focused on gathering wealth.
Islam specifically rejects hoarding wealth, so I think that pretty much takes out most of the middle east and northern africa.
So I'm curious which other cultures you are referring to. Perhaps specifically Indian and Chinese culture?
Islam specifically rejects hoarding wealth, so I think that pretty much takes out most of the middle east
The Gulf countries became wealthy because of oil. They don't really hoard that wealth though. They are pretty famous around the world for investing that money, no? They fund universities (with many Gulf countries having their own outpost of NYU or other such prestigious colleges), arts and arts museums (there is a Louvre in the Middle East), tech startups, and of course invest in tourism to diversify their country.
They also have many horrible qualities, which are 100% not condoned in Islam like employing slaves in deadly conditions even though all nations agreed to abolish slavery years ago. Or confiscating the passports of foreign workers. Or their ethnostate mentality (similar to Israel where citizens must be of a specific blood lineage even though the majority of people living in their nation are not of that lineage). I could go on and on.
Anyways, Tl;Dr, I don't think they really hoard wealth. They do spend and invest in the world around them and find lots of charitable things (they have rebuilt Palestine a few times now, a very costly endeavor). Also, being Muslim doesn't mean they don't do anything morally wrong by that religion's standard. Same as the many charlatan "priests" of various religions in the world.
Full disclosure, I worked in Dubai for 2 years(as a disenfranchised expat), working closely with guys from above mentioned countries. I install heavy machinery.
It's true some are treated poorly, but most are there genuinely there out of free will, because they make buckets of money to send back home. One Pakistani foreman I worked with had stashed away 250k Dirhams and was going back home to start his own business.
The gulf states can/could be an opportunity for the poor, see Bin Laden family for a famous example.
More than criticizing the gulf states for using these people as cheap labor, the criticism should be aimed at their corrupt governments not giving opportunities to their own population. Ironically they are not even allowed inside Europe and the US.
FWIW my experience in Dubai changed my views on the region to a much more nuanced one.
Like many religion it emphasises the importance of being good, and doing good, to enjoy the rewards of that in the after life (i.e. it teaches delayed gratification). But it also recognizes that advocating its adherent to forego all wordly attachment and live like a saint is also not practical for society. Thus, it also pragmatically says that a muslims doesn't have to wait for the afterlife to enjoy the rewards of good deeds - God has given humans the ability to enjoy certain pleasures in life, and achieve a higher sense of spiritual enlightenment, and that too depends on the good deeds you do in this life:
Whoever does good, whether male or female, and is a believer, We will surely bless them with a good life, and We will certainly reward them according to the best of their deeds. (Quran 16:97)
More here: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/12702/is-there-reward-for-go...
That is why no muslim needs to feel guilty about the wealth they have inherited or earned provided it is done through honest means, without hurting others, and they also follow the Islamic obligations of Zakat (charity). This charity is how socialism works in Islam. Islam says that the wealth of the world doesn't belong to anyone but God. And wealthy muslims (and rulers) are just custodians of his wealth. And God commands the wealthy to share their wealth with the poor, and prescribes how this should be done (annually 2.5% of your wealth should be given to the poor and needy). Even here, Islam is very practical - it recognizes how human nature is often suspicious of helping strangers, and thus says to look for people within your own family, your own friends, your own neighbourhood, your own muslim community etc. (i.e. your own social circles) to do this kind of charity.
More on this: https://thequranrecital.com/zakat-obligatory-charity-explain...
And this kind of wealth creation, with charity, is seen in the middle-east, amongst all these middle-eastern countries you mentioned.
Interestingly enough the same forces are at work in kerala, which is one of the most Christian states in India (and the ruling communists are associated with them)
Prior to the mid 60s seeking betterment and wealth was one of the main reasons people migrated to the US replacing religious persecution back home as the main reason to come.
Secondly, Catholics are often setting up schools for everyone. India has always had a history of education, especially Kerala, but universal education of even the lower classes is extremely protestant. The church ended up adopting this around the time colonialism started and thus brought universal education to a widespread base in India.
Finally, the idea of touching everyone and treating them equally was against the general zeitgeist of the prevailing feudalistic highly hierarchical indian society. The first conversion attempts of the Portuguese for the south indian brahmins actually were incredibly successful (Nicholas of Tolentino). The Vatican even allows (and still allows as far as I'm aware, although no one does it) vedic rites for Catholics (malabar rites controversy).
However, no one wanted to give up untouchability. The Vatican eventually forced the missionaries to not have separate missions for touchables and untouchables, which basically ended Brahmanic conversions (and is one of the reasons indian Catholics no longer really care to do the vedic rites, since most are now from the lower class. As far as I know, some still do in Mangalore). Caste is still a problem in some christian communities in India but the bishops work to end it and it is officially condemned.
Which is to say, catholicism is associated with labor movement, equal social treatment, and universal education.
Which is also what the communists want.
It's no surprise that Kerala, being way more christian (and Catholic particularly) with a rich and prominent Christian history is thus the center of socialism.
Keep in mind also that communism in feudal countries has basically no relation to the communism you find on university campuses of america.
Now to the west. In the west, the church is seen as conservative, but the church is actually radically left wing in most parts of the world. It's only because leftism (in a global sense) is fundamentally a part of western culture that the church seems right wing because the church does not go as far as some leftist parties in the west.
If you ask me about communism, I would say its effects were kind of bad - overseas remittence came in as gulf nations flourished but for others from 60s till end of 90's economic opportunities were bleak. It came in power around 1956 in Kerala and a lot of privileged christians migrated to US in the following decades - with the christian cultural background they have, they integrated really well in that society.
Kerala did not become wealthy from socialism, it became literate and land reform lifted many out of poverty. The actual wealth started accumulating when Keralites took advantage of opportunities to work abroad and send remittances home. That has been a major economic driver for the state and India as a whole, but they did it long before others did, largely because land reform gave people a safety net to fall back on so they could risk going abroad to earn more
I would suggest God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican as for a pop-culture introduction of how the Catholic church aligned itself with fascist states including Mussolini's PNF, the Nazis and the Ustaše.
The Ustaše were particularly closely associated with the Catholic church.
India is so far removed from Europe that things work a bit differently.
The keralites were not communist the way European countries were
More relevant would be K-12
At least in STEM, its all about the ability to get grants. A professor who consistently gets grants is worth their weight in gold in "indirect" costs. Foreigner or otherwise
(Fun SNL video with similar confusion: https://youtu.be/8h_N80qKYOM)
Outside of the US there are very few countries where being highly educated (as in having an in-demand degree from a prestigious university) nets you anything beyond a small earnings bump over the middle class, and the people who have this are a small elite (no more than a few percent) everywhere.
Somewhat ironically these are relatively low pollution as large cities in India go. There is still a good amount of greenery in Bengaluru (it is famous for it) but obviously far less than a few decades ago, as many residents lament.
For outsiders not in the know, Bangalore was famous for its beautiful lakes and the lush greenery around them. It was absolutely something else, finding these beautiful water bodies smack in the middle of what is supposed to be a major city. The weather was cool, almost like a warm European summer (which is extremely cool by Indian standards).
Then they got greedy, drained the lakes, built real estate and office properties on them and now Bangalore is an unbearable cesspit just like any other Indian city. Bad weather, bad traffic and a shit scenery.
I still have some photos of my visits to Bangalore in my childhood a couple of decades back, and the visual contrast between past and present is so stark. Of course, locals love to resent the regression of the city, but they also love their coin.
To be honest, my only relatively poor experience in Bombay in terms of scenery was in the Four Seasons hotel in Worli, when I could get a nice view of couples going at it on the rooftops of the chawl nearby, somehow appropriately from my bathroom window.
Delhi does have its own charms too. Assuming you're a strong enough male, it's worth exploring South Delhi on foot solo over autumns, winters and spring, just immersing in the city. Obviously face mask recommended and not recommended for ladies.
hope indian government turn around, because china back then has a smoke problem even in its capital too
its hard to fought stigma but its not impossible
I also think that there's a strong overcurrent of people wanting to emulate US living standards in a city that's simply designed for a different way of living, more similar to other dense cities in East Asia or maybe even Europe. You need to have skyscrapers and not large low rise estates for example.
It became India's Silicon Valley. Acecnture. Infosys. Western IT money came pouring in and never stopped.
https://www.businessinsider.com/india-silicon-valley-bengalu...
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/10672gn/til_before...
In my 20s, the contrast hit when I traveled across other parts of India.
Kerala has a mix of Western population that decided to stay back after the Indian Independence that brought with them Christianity, education, hospitals, and the Catholic culture. Kerala is also one of the few places in India where you can eat beef without inhibitions.
The writer hasn't emphasized this enough, but when oil struck the Middle East in the 1960s, the massive influx of blue and white-collar labor (who had the English language and engineering skills) that helped set up what's now Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Oman, and many other countries was built by Malayalees. My father-in-law was one of the earlier engineers at Aramco in Saudi. The Middle Eastern money has flown back to Kerala thanks to high bank interest rates (nearly 10%) and landlocked real estate that helped raise the state's GDP.
Christianity in Kerala is much older than European Christianity. Literally the land of the Apostles
The British Christians were engaged in evangelism and, consequently, set up colleges, schools, hospitals, and other such institutions. They were also involved in conversions that led to the penetration of Christianity from a minor fraction (during the time from the early AD till 18th century) to double digits. This was obviously instrumental for English language inculcation.
That's literally just a nice story that people claim with very, very, very little to back it up. But I guess they literally claim that.
In fact many European maps contained the belief that there was a Christian kingdom in Kerala. They even had saints from there whose stories made their way over and were recorded.
Thus Kerala is as holy to christians as Rome, Constantinople, Spain, Armenia, Ethiopia, etc.
This talking point is often used by Hindu nationalists who claim that India is not holy to christians and thus christians are foreigners. I'll point out that (1) Kerala is holy and (2) there is more evidence of st Thomas in Kerala than of Parasurama parting the seas to reveal Kerala.
... all
> The story of st Thomas is ancient and even before colonization
So? All Christian communities made up a bunch of nonsense about themselves, often linking themselves to the early church.
> the prevailing attitude in Europe was that st Thomas and st Bartholomew both proselytized India.
Yes and if you actually look up why that is the 'prevailing attitude' you will find that it is at best based on some 3rd century stories that Thomas might have been in Partia. But even those claims are completely baseless of anything before it.
> You'll find references to this in many books and manuscripts.
No you can't. There is one reference in Origen about Thomas maybe having gone to Parthia but that is just as much a story likely based on all the fake gospels people were writting at that time. We know well that by Origen time there were tons and tons of made up stories about all the (supposed) apostles, including about Thomas.
And then Eusebius later claimed he went to India (and India doesn't even mean necessarily mean India as we understand it). And Eusebius is basically the 'myth maker extraordinaire' of the early Christianity, and his claims is basically what almost everything later is based on. Basically anything the Christian believe about their history comes from this 4th century 'source'. So basically anything Eusebius claims is basically accepted by later church tradition as 'the truth'.
Its quite typical of early christian source to grow the story and add increasingly more and more stuff to them. You can see this even in the bible, compare Paul letters to Paul in Acts. Basically just a random wandering preacher, getting transformed into a magical superhero. Pretty typical of all early Christian figures. You start out with few people doing not so amazing things (likely as there is little evidence they existed at all), and 300 years later, every one of those people is basically the hero of their own expanding story. Characters that are not mentioned anywhere, get inserted into a later versions of the text, and then all of a sudden more text show up mentioning them, and couple 100 years later three is a whole textual tradition about all the things that person supposedly did. Basically its the Marval Cinematic Universe. Thomas is basically Hawkeye.
A much more likely story is that Eusebius book (or other gospels about Thomas) arrived in India and then expand on by the locals.
> In fact many European maps contained the belief that there was a Christian kingdom in Kerala.
There are tons of claims about all kinds of Christian kingdoms in the East threw-out the middle ages.
By the time firm knowledge of Kerla existed it was, much much later and is completely irrelevant to the question of Thomas.
I am not denying Christianity came to India pretty early on. That said, I think the claim that it arrived in the first century are not based on much, neither textual nor archeological evidence has ever been found to my knowledge.
> (2) there is more evidence of st Thomas in Kerala than of Parasurama parting the seas to reveal Kerala.
Sure but that's not how history works.
I am not sticking my finger into whatever Indian ideological drama I seem have stepped into.
Clearly I don't agree with whatever nationalist faction you are talking about. I am just point out what we actually know historically.
There are two factions vying to de-link India from early Christianity, the white nationalists and the hindutvas. You've stepped into this mess because in a thread where I pointed out Christianity in India is native to India and as old or older than Europe you butted in to point out that may be the story of the apostles is not true
We can have a debate on the veracity of early Christian claims, but this is really not the place for it. The Syriac church has existed in Kerala for as long as Christianity and they do things their own way
> Christian kingdoms in the East threw-out the middle ages.
Indeed. The difference of course is that, the Syriacs have existed the entire time and are not a story
Yes:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Thomas_Christians
See the History section.
The english language helped, sure, but it's the lack of opportunities in their own state and the higher education levels that created the conditions for the immigration to Middle East. Kerala also had a long history of trade with Arabs.
Yes, there is restriction on beef consumption in India but nobody protests for pork while in the middle east - it's all about which side the bread is buttered.
A strong business environment, or strong investment opportunities, or a large consumer base is very much needed to have attractive jobs. A strongly educated workforce does little to enable such an environment. Intuitively, it is just very hard to make money off of a small, low income population, and it is even harder to export services built for a local market to a non local market. So the ambitious talent just find opportunities elsewhere.
It also depends how hard it is to migrate out of the region. If there are strong family ties and good standard of living, you'd be surprised at how much talent is willing to stay.
Interestingly enough, Taiwan in 2024/2025 has seen huge growth in wages, for many reasons, but the biggest IMO being the highly educated workforce.
The reality is that in all places the most ambitious people are likely going to move, as such talents usually depend on specific environments.
And with things like TSMC in Taiwan, claiming anything close to 'no opportunities' is a bit ridiculous.
Just sharing my perspective, Taiwan's Software Devs were paid 1/3 of what devs in SG or HK are paid, the biggest reason being there aren't any software companies headquartered in Taiwan that are big/growing fast enough to offer competitive salaries to SG / HK. In SG/HK you have banks, hedgefunds and tech companies all competing for talent—Grab, Amazon, Google, Shopee, DBS, HSBC, etc, pushing up prices to be competitive globally. Taiwan's local companies have to make enough money to pay global salaries for strong talent, or they just get their best talent poached by SG/HK or China (which has plenty of strong tech giants of their own).
But... a tiny 23 million population island where the average wage is low and people are generally happy and content... is not a great business environment for startups. I think some local startups saturated the Taiwan market with like 70% of the island's population in their database... and like $2-5m US revenue/yr? Great achievement but not a large base for continued rev growth.
As a Taiwanese company, you are not winning against bigger tech companies in China. Neither are you building for english speaking audiences of SEA because Taiwan's english is not native... in short, the local market conditions is just unable to pay for global level talent, who leave.
This is a software dev focused view of Taiwan, but it applies to all or most other industries not named TSMC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokku_kooli
For instance, the richest Keralite, Yussufali MA, made his fortune in the Middle East. His sons-in-law, both billionaires, as well as KP Basheer, Ravi Pillai, PMC Menon and Mohammed Ali of Gulfar made their fortune in the Middle East, all of whom are silent billionaires even most Indians barely know of. Vivek Ramaswamy's parents were from Kerala too, as is Thomas Kurian (head of GCP).
If you look at the West, Keralites are increasingly taking spots in the medical and healthcare sectors, especially nursing, and now even the education sector. There are Keralite teachers in the oilfields of Midland, Texas, because most people are otherwise not ready to work there. Some of my neighbours relatives from back home were even working in Afghanistan for the USG, making bank for working in a warzone. The only groups that are more or equally as prominent as Keralites worldwide might be the Gujaratis (the Patel motel guys and diamond merchants) and the Jews.
Also, the Communist party in power has not stopped themselves from adapting to the new times and dumping older views.
The most recent Econ Nobel showed how institutions create wealthy nations, and Kerala is building those.
Perhaps the statement “not a place to be ambitious” can be seen in a narrower sense, while seeing that it leaves much more space for the median individual.
Ambition doesn't imply exploitation. I think you mean "predatory".
What's the basis for this claim? What is a "mismanaged government" but one that is controlled by narrow private interests? Or is this coming from a "all tax is exploitation" angle?
Without deep knowledge, I'd suggest Switzerland, simply because of the directness of its democracy
I never really got why the west is so proud of not establishing basic rights of access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education. I don't quite understand the point of them otherwise.
They know exactly what it is, but they don't wanna say it out loud.
If it makes him feel good not to call that 'capitalism' then that's fine. I guess it wouldn't have played well with the base back then.
But in reality and operations, its is how capitalism has worked in practice.
That's not actually what happened, you should look up some history.
The USSR didn't throw away, communism, the member states just simply left.
And many of those states were then free of the communist party actually did quite well. Russia didn't, Ukraine didn't, but that's the reality when a country splits apart, some parts do well others don't.
> Any China scholar could tell you that China was already implementing market reforms before Deng
Part of it wasn't even voluntary on the party front, they simply accepted what was already happening instead of reversing it again.
> China is still a country operated on the basis of five-year plans.
hose plans are mostly projects of what they hope they can encourage private business to do and some public investment. Guess what many countries do, planning and public investment.
Lots of things they plan don't happen, lots of things that happen aren't planned. The planning is constantly adjust to what actually happens in the economy, including the global context.
> China is still a country where the state owns all land.
Legally maybe, but if you hand out control for 100 years the relevance of that isn't all that great. And that land can be freely traded between people. So in practical terms it works far more like private land ownership then anything the socialist thinkers of the late 19 and early 20th century.
> China is still a country where capital is not allowed to usurp the public interest.
That is just factually false, large companies in China regularly do things that hurt public interest. Unless you mean 'interest of the party leadership' and even then its only mostly true.
> In this, the reforms of Deng and the continued path of Xi are simply the highest synthesis of communism
Lol, they literally copied other East Asian economic models almost 1 to 1. They are just a log bigger and have more people. But I guess copying other successful clearly capitalist countries can be resold as 'highest synthesis of communism' to people who have irrational hate for capitalism.
And China economic growth or wealth isn't all that magically, its simply that China is much bigger then most others who have done it.
> They are the most faithful to Marxism, which has never preached any kind of static dogma, especially as it relates to economic policy.
I love Marxism, since he didn't actually define any outcome beyond maybe 'stateless and moneyless' you can just make up whatever the fuck you want as long as you are claiming to 'get there'. And China doesn't seem to go into a stateless moneyless direction.
Marx's "Historical materialism" is wrong for Western Europe and laudably false for China.
His critic of capitalism seems to be mostly ignored in China. As is his theory of class struggle as in China there is an ever growing Bourgeoisie.
But I guess copying what Taiwan and friends did and calling it 'Marxism' is one way to go.
Socialists love to add some negative word 'X' to capitalism to highlight that all bad things in the world are connected to capitalism, and if they could finally defeat capitalism, then the world would be perfect. Instead of actually trying to fix 'X' they will tell you that what we really need to change is 'capitalism'. Surveillance Capitalism, Crony Capitalism, Disaster Capitalism and so on.
Trying to fix corruption, to hard, lets just destroy property rights and money instead. Great idea!
Let me give you a tool for your mental toolkit. When you find yourself saying this:
> <some group> loves to
...it's a smell. What follows may be perfectly reasonable, but in my experience it's more commonly unexamined twaddle.
If you happen to be American, see where you get with these:
- many Americans fetishise America - J Edgar Hoover spent 20 years programming Americans to consider socialism to be "un-American"
In this case, I think a little reflection would reveal a J Edgar Hoover homonculus in your head, pulling your levers.
I'm all for emotional arguments. Ultimately, we all have core values, and I like to lead an argument by stating mine.
But hating socialism isn't a core value, it's _at best_ a reaction. Which is to say, if you're from, ooh, Bulgaria or Cuba, then I can indulge you. You may not be logical but you do have cause.
If you merely have a little J Edgar Hoover homonculus in your head, pulling your levers, then refrain from posting, because a J Edgar Hoover homonculus is not an interesting conversationalist.
Just like anything else that can't be back up with solid empirical research in a discussion forum. With is 99% of what we are dissing. (And most books written by intellectuals of both the socialist and capitalist variety).
Communism is originally a utopian social movement, and there is a strong tendency and a very well document intellectual history of communism that asserts that pretty much most problems at its root are an issue with capitalism and that they can only be solved in the absence of capitalism. So much so that it was pretty normal for communist to oppose working with social democrats on any reform of existing systems.
> Americans to consider socialism to be "un-American"
I'm not american and I couldn't care less if something is 'American' or not. And I have no idea what 'americanness' has to do with our discussion. So far as I can tell, nothing what so ever. And I don't hate 'socialism' either.
> But hating socialism isn't a core value, it's _at best_ a reaction. Which is to say, if you're from, ooh, Bulgaria or Cuba, then I can indulge you. You may not be logical but you do have cause.
So unless you are the victim of rape, being against rapist isn't a 'core value'? That's a outright crazy line of argument.
P.S: I really think you are waste overestimate the importance of Hoover.
You can look at other sources to see how good kerala is doing wrt other states but I do agree the article over emphasised the good parts without any hint to it's bad parts
Kerala is one of the few states that managed medical supplies of Oxygen pretty well. In many other states many died because hospitals ran out of it.
Now, as for Kerala's handling of Covid, that was funded by state govt coffers. So Middle East money had a negligible contribution. What made a difference though is a history of preference for investing in social safety nets and basic infrastructure for people, such as schools, nutrition, hospitals.
It's the same story in east Asian countries where they had the SARS outbreak in early 2000s and so they were prepared for new outbreaks.
India has a lot of other issues, I grant you that the socialist ideology probably had a positive influence in some ways other than economics, particularly socially. But no offense, if you've ever walked the streets Trivandrum and other cities you know there are much more pressing issues.
A capitalist dictatorship will be every bit as horrible as a communist dictatorship.
Btw, for some historic context this part of India used to be extremely rich in the past by global standards, centuries ago. They became rich with international trade. Modern India is nowhere close to its wealthy past, the subcontinent as a whole produced the largest percentage of the world's GDP during Late Antiquity, surpassing China and all others!
"Kerala is Hawaii at a tenth the price! You must go. The people there love three things: Alcohol, Food, and side to side head bob Alcohol!"
He was delightful, and he took great care of my wife. I fully intend to visit Kerala at some point.
Does this have a name? I know exactly what it looks like, and I think I get some of the connotations of emphasis and agreement...
I had many aunts or uncles who would leave their family behind in India and work in the middle east for many years before returning to India. This practice helped them shore up savings and build houses.
It was supposed to be his life's work and he said he left with grandiose aspirations.
Only to get caught in the Kuwait War and barely make it back in a bus of refugees.
He always used this as a reminder of "pride goes before a fall", but I personally just found it a fascinating reminder of the sheer random horrificness that life can bestow out of nowhere.
Many laborers from my state- West Bengal travel to ameliorate the labor shortage of Kerala. Because their laborers are in the Gulf. The unskilled labor wage in Kerala is almost twice of my state.
There is a common phrase in Bengal- "Kerala money" to explain big, well-made houses in villages mired with poverty. Many people, mainly Muslims migrate en masse to Kerala to earn a relatively much higher income and save the money to build big houses and buy motorbikes. We call that "Kerala money".
> Kerala is a very empty place. People emigrate parmanently or stay outside for decades. Elderlies live on their own. Schools and home remain empty. It is just intuitively sad. One should read this interesting piece...
I'm writing this from my home here in Kerala. Empty is not how I would describe the place. It's very crowded around here compared just a decade here. My house was surrounded by farm land from 3 sides. Now it's all houses in close proximity. Even remote places were developed into commercial or residential areas. The biggest indicator is that the road traffic is way more than what it was 15 years ago. Schools aren't that empty either - my own sister is a teacher. Job situation isn't that great - in line with the global situation, but the private sector has been growing fast in the past few years - driven especially by a startup boom. We do have problems with some anti-corporate sentiments like 'nokku-kooli' (supervision fees). But it seems to be less of a problem to businesses these days. (Not sure what happened. There is less news about it too)
To add in more context, I lived in a western country for several years before returning to take up a job with a decent pay. I can't say that Kerala is too bad in comparison, considering the cost of living and the general law and order situation.
I am sure what you are saying is true.
Did you even read what I linked? And it was not the only reason I wrote the comment. There are other points in the comment as well.
However, there is nothing good or bad with these variations. Tourism also adds to its economy. Higher per-capita doesn't always mean a good thing. Sometimes it comes at a cost of family separation etc. Kerala is also known for high levels of alcoholic consumption and unhappiness rates.
> India has a vast variation of cultures.
isn’t consistent with this.
> mainstream India
You can have a variety and a single largest.