Is India, which has more poor people than any other nation in the world, worth spending aid money on? You decide.
In a breathless piece from the US today, the Times of India tells readers that Washington now sees India as a "transforming" economy, no longer a "developing" nation scrabbling in the dirt with the globe's basket cases.
"The change in nomenclature which rids India of a decades-old label comes from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which has decided to whittle down the already marginal US assistance to India and eventually eliminate it because of India's thriving economy."
The piece is actually based on a piece of work by the Washington Post that calls into question the Bush administration's skewing of aid priorities. The Post fingers Dubya's team for pouring money into frontline states rather than those in need.
Here's the nub of the argument
"The bulk of the $23 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid goes to a handful of key countries, leaving about 120 nations to battle over $3 billion of the pie.India, for example, is one of the big losers in Rice's foreign aid revolution. All U.S. aid to assist India in education, women's rights, democracy and sanitation is terminated under the new system. Overall aid to India, where 80 percent of the population lives on less than $2 a day, would be cut 35 percent in 2008, to $81 million, on the theory that India has one of the best-performing economies in the world.
Under a detailed grid that Tobias developed, India is labeled a "transforming" country, in contrast to Pakistan and Bangladesh, which are labeled "developing" countries. As a result, India's slice of aid is cut.
Assistance to countries such as Nepal, Congo and the Philippines also was cut, while democracy programs were reduced in Eastern Europe and Russia. Meanwhile, huge sums are devoted to administration priorities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."
However for the Times of India, the story is good news not bad. Bush's shake up of aid shows India is not a loser but a big winner.
"India was among the top recipients of US aid in 1960s when it was considered a basket case and termed an "underdeveloped country". It stood a distance fourth behind Israel, Egypt and Russia in 1994 in terms of US aid. As for the fiscal year 2008, it will not even be in the the top 20."
The Indian newspaper's gripes are that Washington ought to be remitting $500m a year in social security payments from Indians working in the US and perhaps be wary of handing over $2bn to Pakistan for "economic and military" assistance.
Letting in Indian readers on the realities of hard power, the piece ends with the information that Israel gobbles up most American aid.
"But Israel remains the most favoured US aid recipient. In per capita terms, US aid to India is almost negligible ($ 84 million for a population of $ 1.1 billion) compared to what Washington lavishes on Israel ($ 2.4 billion on a population of 7 million)."
The Washington Post's story firmly tags India as a poor nation shunned by the Bush administration. The Times of India prefers to see reductions in aid as a triumph while reminding readers of Washington's long-term objectives. Like I said, you decide.
