The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

I have seen the benefits of aid to India

As you walk through Delhi’s slums, you realise the enormous scale of the problems India faces.

Labour MP Dan Jarvis listens to slum dwellers in Delhi.
Labour MP Dan Jarvis listens to slum dwellers in Delhi.

I’ve just returned from visiting Save the Children programmes in India, where I saw that all eyes were fixed on London for the Olympics. When asked in a Delhi slum if the Queen and James Bond really had parachuted into the opening ceremony, I’m afraid I couldn’t bring myself to tell the children that they hadn’t , but it showed how the Games have shone a spotlight on the UK. As the Olympics close next week, David Cameron will host a summit of world leaders to try and address hunger and malnutrition. The convergence of global attention on London provides an opportunity to galvanise political commitment to tackle these critical issues, which each year mean that 2.6 million children die before their fifth birthday.

Having visited India before, I knew it was a place of enormous contrasts; death is part of life and life can be desperately cheap. I was, however, still shocked to learn that in India nearly 5,000 children die every day.  Can you imagine the outrage if 5,000 children died every day in a war? A major cause of these deaths is malnutrition, which weakens children so their bodies can’t withstand routine illnesses like diarrhoea and pneumonia.  Almost half of India’s children that do survive are stunted, meaning their bodies and brains don’t develop properly due to lack of nutrition.

In Delhi, I visited the Okhla slum, home to some 100,000 of the most marginalised people. Many of the slum dwellers are migrants from rural India who, ironically, came to Delhi in search of a better life. Okhla is like much of Delhi; chaotic and vibrant, the skyline breached by hotels, factories and businesses. It is as you delve deeper in to the winding, rubbish strewn streets that you realise the sheer size of the slum. It was in Okhla that I met Kusum and her baby daughter, Ritu.

Ritu was born nine months ago, the sixth of Kusum’s children. Her eldest child is 16 years old, born shortly after Kusum’s marriage at the age of 15.  Ritu was severely underweight at birth, weighing just three and a half pounds. At nine months, she is about the size of my own four month old daughter.  For Kusum, life is a daily battle to find enough food to feed her six children, with wheat the staple food in the slums and vegetables incredibly difficult to afford.  Kusum told me that Save the Children’s mobile health unit allows her to seek regular medical advice and treatment, without which she’s not sure what would happen to Ritu. She may not be sure but I’m certain what would happen to her.

The mobile health unit is a free service provided to the community for women and children. The unit I visited was well equipped with medical stocks, and I watched professional and dedicated doctors and staff dispensing diagnosis and treatment for a broad range of ailments and infections.  Importantly, the doctors also provide education to the local community about health, hygiene and sanitation, in order to reduce the reoccurrence of preventable diseases.  On the day I visited, and despite monsoon rains, the mobile health unit treated over 200 patients from Okhla alone. 

There are those who question British aid to India. At a time when India is investing in a space programme and our economy is in recession, with severe cuts being made to vital local services in our communities, that is understandable. But seeing the benefit that the poorest gain from lifesaving interventions such as this, justifies Save the Children’s investment in India and the Department for International Development’s largely well-targeted aid programme.  And as you walk through Delhi’s slums, with children scavenging piles of rubbish in search of food to eat or scraps to sell, you realise the enormous scale of the problems India faces. 

The elephant in the room is the extent to which India, a brilliant and proud nation, can better ensure that it invests its own resources in the most effective way – given our historic links, a diplomatic minefield for the UK and a huge challenge for India. Fundamentally though, for the UK to behave as a responsible member of the international community, it is right to take action that saves lives every day.

The government is right to convene next week’s meeting of world leaders to address the crisis of malnutrition, which is responsible for 300 children’s deaths around the world every single hour.  But to turn the tide on this endemic problem, one summit will clearly not be enough.  Next year, as the UK hosts the G8, there is a real opportunity to further galvanise global action to address hunger.  And to truly demonstrate his commitment to tackling poverty, Cameron must now introduce the long-promised legislation committing 0.7% of national income to aid, and secure a brighter future for millions of children like Ritu.

12 comments

Fraziel1's picture

60p per day may be peanuts but its more than i got in a pay rise this year, or last for that matter. I am now in a 7th year of pay restraint and while this country is skint we should not under any circumstances be giving money away, let alone to a wealthy country. The fact India chooses no spend its money the way it does is absolutely none of our business what so ever. We have no obligation to help a country that chooses not to help its own even though it has the money.
Maybe we should send aid to the US which has 16 million children living in poverty? India is a wealhy country and utterly undeserving of any aid from us and if that means children suffer then it is Indian people and their government that should feel shame and guilt about that as it is entirely down to them. The Uk government has a duty to look after its own first and if we do give foreign aid, and it should be cut drastically until we are out of the recession, it should be to poor countries not rich ones.

AAMVN's picture

The UK and other developed countries have ample means to give aid to India, Pakistan and other such countries. Their own governments are unable or indeed unwilling to adress the problems. So Britain (and others) are obligated to do what they can.

If you can help someone, and you don't then you are guilty. It is a truly trivial amount of money - far more should in fact go on overseas aid IMO.

You may think it's 'ludicrous' but I think you're incredibly mean and selfish by begrudging such a small contribution to an ex-colony's poorest people. Britain will never pay it's debt to Indians, Pakistanis and Bangledeshis and others who were the victims of an Empire that Britons still profit from today.

Even if the UK aid budget goes up to £12Bn that's only 60p per person per day. Peanuts.

Red Rain's picture

It maybe peanuts but their our peanuts. Didn't India's finance minister Pranab Mukherjee say that their booming country should 'voluntarily' give up the £280million a year it receives from Britain, didn't he also tell the Indian parliament: "We do not require the aid'. It is a peanut in our total development spending". Africa doesn't need our money or pity. There are many critics who argue that all foreign aid — whether from individuals or governments is actually holding Africa back. A vast body of research shows that foreign aid has done little to aid economic growth in Africa — and may have actually slowed it down. The long-term solution is not aid. It may seem cruel that aid should stop, but it should..

AAMVN's picture

Eventually - perhaps it should stop or be reduced. But certainly not yet and not because greedy selfish people begrudge it. The benefits are huge - the cost is trivial.

If you want to argue alternatives to aid then that's reasonable. But what is argued is that just because the Indian government has nuclear weapons or a space programme we shouldn't spend money to stop children dying of easily and cheaply preventable diseases is untenable.

I'd say - put in place policies that might reduce the need for aid, but maintain the aid as long as it's needed which will be a long time yet whatever is tried.

Fraziel1's picture

@AAMVIN, what utter garbage.India is not a poor country, it is not for us to fund their poor if they choose not to. Your post is possibly the most ludicrous I have ever read.And @Eddie B, I meant nuclear weapons not nuclear power.

AAMVN's picture

Aid to countries that need it is the duty of everyone - regardless of what the government does/doesn't do. So North Korea gets food aid because the starving kids are not ot blame. And these Indian children suffering malnutrition are not to blame for their governments bad choices and indeed corruption.

And - at the end of the day all these millions are trivial in the scheme of things. How much is it per UK person per day? I'll try to find out but post it if you know.

Red Rain's picture

I see another Labour MP enjoying another foreign holiday at our expense!! It's not for us to give more... it's for the Indian's to share out what little they have more equally.

Sivraj Alemap's picture

Oh yes - Dan looks really rested & tanned in that photo!!

Red Rain's picture

Looks like Dan's had too much Tiger beer!!

Fraziel1's picture

Well said Des Demona. It is not for us to give them aid when people here are hurting and they spend billions on space and nuclear programmes. They can afford to help their own people and choose not to. We should not be giving them anything.

Eddie_b's picture

YES! Why should the poor have nuclear energy! They should be running round on tread mills!

Des Demona's picture

''There are those who question British aid to India. At a time when India is investing in a space programme and our economy is in recession, with severe cuts being made to vital local services in our communities, that is understandable. ''

But apparently unanswerable. Unfettered capitalism has given Inda one of the biggest gaps between rich and poor in the world. The answer is for India to distribute it's own wealth more evenly not for the west to to shoulder that responsibility. Why should they bother when they know we will put our hands in our pockets for them?

Latest tweets