
India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement - nullspace
http://newint.org/features/2013/01/01/india-elite-sense-of-entitlement/
======
davidroberts
This does not just apply in India. A long time ago, I had a job soliciting
donations door to door in the US. We did all we could to avoid the rich
neighborhoods and actively sought out the poor minority neighborhoods. People
in those neighborhoods with only two dollars would give one to help others. In
the rich neighborhoods, they would call the police the moment they saw you. If
I ever had to have a heart attack in the street, I would much rather have it
in a poor neighborhood, because some kind person would help me.

My theory is that poor people rely on cooperation with others to survive, and
this forces them to develop compassion and learn good human relations at a
young age. Rich people on the other had don't need others so much, and instead
are much likely be in competition with them.

Even in family relations this applies. Siblings in poor families offer much
needed support to each other. In rich families siblings seem more likely to be
considered as competitors for parental affections at a young age, and
competitors for inheritance when older. This mentality of constant competition
is poisonous.

Honestly, I think that being rich is a pretty clear path to ultimate
unhappiness. Better to be slightly poor in money and rich in the things that
actually bring happiness, like family, health, friends, spare time, and a
clear conscience.

~~~
jiggy2011
In the UK a lot of door to door collecting for charities is done by private
companies who take a significant chunk of the donation for themselves.

Perhaps richer people are more likely to know this and be sceptical of door to
door collections. They may also value their time more and not like being
"hassled".

This does not necessarily mean that they do not provide charity donations.
They may just do it in a smarter way, for example attending charity
dinners/events where they get to rub shoulders with other affluent people.

~~~
markdown
> This does not necessarily mean that they do not provide charity donations.
> They may just do it in a smarter way, for example attending charity
> dinners/events where they get to rub shoulders with other affluent people.

Smarter = self-serving?

~~~
chii
people don't donate (at least, not those huge donors who throw lavish dinner
parties) out of the kindness of their own hearts. They do so to appear
charitable, and to show off their status. THis is why you don't often see
private, undisclosed and anonymous donations in large amounts.

When a rich elite donates money, they are doing it to sing praises for
themselves - whether they admit it consciously or not.

The end result is still good - i don't care whether their charitible
activities are self-serving, provided that it achieves the results of helping
those who needed the charity.

~~~
jiggy2011
Reminds me of this: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw>

~~~
chii
wow, what show is that?

~~~
jiggy2011
Curb Your Enthusiasm

------
Confusion
Nietzsche and The Last Psychiatrist[1] would have a field day with this.

The article tells a story we love to believe: we may be poorer than the people
the article talks about, but we are nicer, more empathic, _better_ people. We
love to believe it, because it makes us feel good about ourselves and provides
a sense of justice: nobody has it all and if someone has more of one thing, he
will have less of something else.

We also love to believe it because that way we don't have to consider a far
more disturbing possibility: that these people aren't accidentally rich and
their moral shortcomings aren't a result of their riches. That they are rich
exactly _because_ they are capable of the repugnant behavior described in the
article. That our capitalist system is fallacious, can be gamed and _is_ being
gamed by these people. The system we are so infatuated with allows people that
are undeserving, cheaters, to get the prize.

[1] <http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/>

~~~
ameister14
Yes, people who you believe are undeserving can obtain wealth. No, that
doesn't mean that all wealthy people are like that or that it is necessary to
behave badly to become wealthy.

The last psychiatrist is an ok writer, and a lot of his stuff is fun to read,
but he draws some really erroneous conclusions. I'd be careful about being
drawn in by that.

~~~
quadhome
"He?"

~~~
ameister14
I assume it's either a man or a misogynistic lesbian; there are several
references to watching porn from a male perspective, that the writer finds
women attractive, and the writing style is masculine.

I've never bothered to check before but a cursory google shows no real
evidence either way, though most others think it's a man as well.

Or if you're referring to me and saying I drew an erroneous conclusion, I
didn't draw any conclusions at all, save about the last psychiatrist.

------
raganwald
Am _I_ the only one who sees this exact same behaviour here in North America,
and indeed, here on Hacker News? A sense of entitlement? A feeling that things
like anti-discrimination laws are an inconvenience to be brushed off, taxes
are a way of stealing the hard-earned wealth on entrepreneurs, and so on?

I see nothing particularly Indian about this story. It seems like part fo the
human condition. That being said, we have abolished slavery. Women have the
vote and are struggling to control their bodies. Although the rich control the
media, the poor still have a vote.

We humans _can_ change.

~~~
dmix
> anti-discrimination laws are an inconvenience to be brushed off, taxes are a
> way of stealing the hard-earned wealth on entrepreneurs,

I personally also see a massive amount of entitlement in the inverse...

A never-ending creation of new laws and controls over citizens lives from
"philosopher kings" [1] who think they know how to run peoples lives better
than they do via "social engineering and idealism".

Or attempting to create some highly idealistic society of total safety....via
as security theater, strictly enforcing victimless crimes [2] (such as owning
a pitbull or drugs)... and the constant erosion of basic civil liberties in
the process to achieve the former.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king#Criticism>

[2] [http://www.policymic.com/articles/8558/why-we-need-prison-
re...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/8558/why-we-need-prison-reform-
victimless-crimes-are-86-of-the-federal-prison-population)

------
knodi
I have seen this kind of behavior going on in India for so many years. There
are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on bikes off
the road and into ditches with their cars.

I'm convinced that this stems from the religious caste system which has now
become the monetary class system in these new times.

I always wondered why don't the poor just revolt, they're treated so badly,
almost like slaves and everyday they lose more and more. They have their kids
run over and police will do nothing about it because the rich will pay them
off to make the case go away. It truly is sad.

The worst part is poor people will do the same to other poor people given the
opportunity. We (Indians) have learned nothing from Gandhi on how to treat our
fellow men.

~~~
16s
___There are countless cases of where rich people would push poor people on
bikes off the road and into ditches with their cars._ __

That would be a serious crime in the USA. If you did that, and you got caught,
you would be in very serious trouble. And, it would not matter how rich you
were. That's assault, perhaps with intent to harm or kill and civilized
society does not tolerate it.

~~~
nbouscal
> it would not matter how rich you were.

Which USA do you live in?

~~~
16s
Every part of America I have ever been in would not tolerate that. It's
illegal.

~~~
wilfra
It may not be as bad as some countries where you can just pay the cops but the
rich and well connected in America definitely play by a different set of
rules, especially with regard to punishment.

Example: a rich old woman in my hometown was drunk in the morning and ran over
a guy riding a bicycle and killed him. She ended up getting probation. Not a
day in jail. Put a poor minority behind the wheel of that car and they are
going to prison for a long time.

~~~
corporalagumbo
That's an entirely different problem set from what seems to be happening in
India. What you're describing in the US is a system where perceptions and
punishment of superficially similar behaviour vary based on your position with
society, namely based on whether you activate the sympathies or antipathies of
the mainstream establishment. I.E. that old lady is much less likely to be
perceived as aggressive and anti-social in court than a young minority member.
The system is not completely fair, and you can argue about the extent to which
the system is unfair, but the system at least holds fairness as an ideal, and
the mainstream establishment identifies with this ideal. Cops and judges may
not perceive it as unfair if a similar crime when committed by an old rich
lady is more likely to be viewed as a regrettable mistake (especially if she
appears distraught and repentant in court) than when committed by a minority
member.

In India it seems like fairness is not even part of the equation. It sounds
like a seriously dog-eat-dog environment, where there are few if any checks on
raw, ruthless antisocial behaviour. Society lacks even the value system which
would encourage the privileged to feel guilt and regret over their treatment
of those beneath them.

Basically it is the difference between a society where people are shocked and
angered by unfairness and a society where people are desensitised or even
perversely excited by unfairness.

~~~
chii
> ...lacks even the value system which would encourage the privileged to feel
> guilt and regret over their treatment of those beneath them.

i'd like to talk a bit about this "value system". While i'd like to believe
that in a western society that the value system for me to not steal and murder
is built in, i really doubt that's the case.

The value system is one which is enforced by laws - and actual enforcement,
instead of lip service. I assault a person, i get to go to jail. Imagine if
the enforcement isn't there - i'd steal my way thru life! Forget about the
morals, when you can have the latest shit for free! This is the exact psyche
of a software pirate - because it is unenforceable.

I would say that the value system is so poor or non-existent in india could be
because they are unable to enforce their laws, or that those with money can
get away from the punishment etc. Hence, the poor sees that and assumes that
the laws are selectively applied, and that its OK if you get away with it.

I m sure things will improve (as things have improved in western society over
the past several hundred years - you'd see similar behaviour in the
middle/dark ages in europe). It just takes time, and takes wealth build up in
such a way that those who are most desperate aren't anymore.

------
hypertexthero
Questioner: What do you think of Indians?

Krishnamurti: That is really an innocent question, is it not? To see facts
without opinion is one thing, but to have opinions about facts is totally
another. It is one thing just to see the fact that a whole people are caught
in superstition, but quite another to see that fact and condemn it. Opinions
are not important, because I will have one opinion, you will have another, and
a third person will have still another. To be concerned with opinions is a
stupid form of thinking. What is important is to see facts as they are without
opinion, without judging, without comparing.

To feel beauty without opinion is the only real perception of beauty.
Similarly, if you can see the people of India just as they are, see them very
clearly without fixed opinions, without judging, then what you see will be
real.

The Indians have certain manners, certain customs of their own, but
fundamentally they are like any other people. They get bored, they are cruel,
they are afraid, they revolt within the prison of society, just as people do
everywhere else. Like the Americans, they also want comfort, only at present
they do not have it to the same extent. They have a heavy tradition about
renouncing the world and trying to be saintly; but they also have deep-rooted
ambitions, hypocrisy, greed, envy, and they are broken up by castes, as human
beings are everywhere else, only here it is much more brutal. Here in India
you can see more closely the whole phenomenon of what is happening in the
world. We want to be loved, but we don't know what love is; we are unhappy,
thirsting for something real, and we turn to books, to the Upanishads, the
Gita, or the Bible, so we get lost in words, in speculations. Whether it is
here, or in Russia, or in America, the human mind is similar, only it
expresses itself in different ways under different skies and different
governments.

— From Think on These Things (also published as This Matter of Culture) by
Jiddu Krishnamurti, Chapter 11 - Conformity and Revolt. - [http://www.jiddu-
krishnamurti.net/en/think-on-these-things/1...](http://www.jiddu-
krishnamurti.net/en/think-on-these-things/1963-00-00-jiddu-krishnamurti-think-
on-these-things-chapter-11)

~~~
linvin
Krishnamurti truly gives all the tools to free oneself of the very root of
culture.

Indians are also known to be highly tolerant of different types of behaviours;
they usually believe that this world is "maya" - a virtual reality. Depending
on one's own predicament, they will create and experience their realities. All
this comes from the core Indian philosophy, and those who have read
Krishnamurti, know that he very well represents that philosophy.

While this view may not mean all Indians are philosophical; I would say, it
may be higher % wise than other cultures. Even the most popular religious
channels and their gurus hold extremely engaging philosophical discussions -
very different from other cultures.

------
not_that_noob
Humans are apes. It happens right here in Silicon Valley too.

Atherton has nice little yellow signs that say 'No Through Traffic'. Why? They
don't want the poor people from Redwood City coming through. In fact, one
Atherton gentleman went to a RWC City Council meeting complaining about it and
asking RWC to put up signs on their side too. The folks at RWC apparently told
him to go stuff himself, that those little yellow signs were potentially
illegal and if Atherton kept pressing, they would disallow traffic from
Atherton through RWC. This was about two years ago.

The rich are different from you and me - they take because they can and
because they can then get away with it.

[This is not to say that all rich are evil, nor all poor virtuous. Just that
as money accumulates, so does power, and this when left unchecked by self-
imposed moral constraints leads down this path.]

~~~
javert
Humans are not apes. Neither literally, nor figuratively. That's not only
incorrect, but it's a vicious thing to say, and it has dangerous implications.

~~~
vacri
I loathe pop sci interpretations of animal behaviour applied against human
behaviour (which includes the context of the parent of your comment) but
humans _are_ apes. The 'Great Apes' are chimps, gorillas, orangs, and humans.

~~~
javert
Thanks for the correction, I guess I was wrong on that point, though hopefully
the actual intended meaning of my statement remains intact.

EDIT: Well, according to Wikipedia, "Great Ape" is a common name, not a
taxonomic label, and is only sometimes used to include humans. I, personally,
would advocate not equating the term "great ape" with the hominidae family.

~~~
potatolicious
Your original intent remains intact because I don't think anyone here knows
what the original intent was. How is labeling humans as "apes" dangerous?

------
andybak
"Bill Goldman, the great screenwriter, said to me when I was pathetic enough
to ask what Robert Redford was "really like" - ‘what would you be like if you
hadn't heard the word “no” for 30 years?" - Stephen Fry

------
manishsharan
I highly doubt the veracity of the article about the SUV driving young man and
the vegetable seller; this story confirms your worst stereotypes about India
and gets eyeballs but it is bullshit.

I would like to point out that poor people in India are a very well
represented : Communist part and Marxist parties are doing very well in India.
Every political party courts the votes of poor people. If you pull shit like
that SUV kid , the vegetable sellers would swarm your car and fuck you up
good.

I grew up in Delhi. The poor people in Delhi day are very well aware of their
rights and exercise them -- sometimes with violent consequences for the brash
rich.

The feudal India that you allude you is gone and good riddance to it . One has
to be super fucking powerful to get away with shit like that in India.

Btw , Salman Khan (the actor) is facing jail time. So yeah !

~~~
derringer
Stereotypes often ring true, no one attributes this kind of stuff to northern
Europe and there's a reason for that.

As to your claim that he's lying about the vegetable cart story. In order for
his car to get swarmed, at least one of those vegetable sellers has to make
the first move, sometimes this happens, but 9 times out of 10 people look out
for their own skins ahead of righteous vengeance.

~~~
intended
A rich man or the bigger car banging into a smaller cart, especially in a poor
neighborhood, will get swarmed 9 times out of 10.

You drastically misunderstand the level of righteous vengeance and drama
centrism in such a situation. On top of that many people will look at a richer
person as someone who is likely to have connections and hence escape justice.

You are more likely to be swarmed than not.

------
consz
>You’d think if people had more than they need, they would be generous about
it, and would see, reflecting on themselves, that others might want to have
more as well.

This doesn't really make sense to me. People who value relationships or are
compassionate generally, in my anecdotal experience, value money less. So of
course they'll have less. Th people who rich are the ones who value spending
their time getting money over helping others (empathy, essentially). At least,
that's how I feel about money, and I assume other people who are rich/desire
to be rich feel the same way. More precisely, it's not that people who get
rich lose their ability to empathize -- people who never developed the ability
to empathize have an easier time getting rich.

~~~
dalke
Strange. When I have money, I feel generous about it, and want to use that
money to help others. I thought most people felt that way. It's one of the
reasons that a progressive tax system makes good sense to me.

There are many ways that people get to be rich. Some are born into it, and
stay rich because of systemic biases. Others "value spending their time
getting money over helping others" and get rich that way. Still others get
there by luck - winning the lottery - or by semi-luck - getting paid in pre-
IPO shares of a wildly start-up.

Based on the various stories I've heard, those who win by luck tend to be the
most generous with their money.

This essay is about those in the first category; those who are rich because of
systemic biases, where society "is so deeply hierarchized along both class and
caste lines" and "wealth is so completely tied in with political power, and
often to crime without punishment." It's not really the one you're possibly
thinking of, where someone starts average and ends up rich.

My income does tend to fluctuate. Some years I make really good money as a
consultant. Other times I don't. I don't have much control over it. That would
fit with the semi-luck category, since I don't get the feel that my income
level is a good reflection of how much effort I put into things; income isn't
a good measure of my self.

~~~
ashray
The difference is that you acknowledge that you 'have' money. Also, you
possibly acknowledge that you had certain opportunities that other people
could ill afford and therefore have this money.

Unfortunately, the difference in opportunity in India is considered (by both
rich and poor) to be something that God has handed down and therefore it's
fair. By the rich because it's convenient to think that way and by the poor
because they feel like they have no escape apart from reincarnation.

I was traveling in Brazil last year and found that the poor in Brazil (also
due to drug issues..) actively blame the rich for their poverty and are also
to a great extent violent against wealthier people. (at least in the cities
that I was in..)

However, the difference in India is that poor people more often than not
attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek
retribution. I honestly believe this is what keeps the poor in India from
revolting en masse. If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system,
over here there would be a civil war.

~~~
chii
> attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek
> retribution....If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system,
> over here there would be a civil war.

that's interesting. I've always considered religion to be a form of control
over people by a certain elite group. This gives me more anecdotal
confirmation.

I wonder if indian society could be better served if there was a civil war,
where the poor raise up, and appropriate the land from the wealthy. I keep
reading articles like
[http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/generat...](http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/generations-
pay-off-debts-through-slavery/) and it sounds like that would be a painful
fix, but may be the end justify the means...

------
ashray
Ooh, no comments, I'll bite. The last time I said something negative about
Indian society I had my personal details thrown all over HN. Wonder what's
going to happen this time.

So here's the thing. This article is pretty spot on. We, the privileged of
India, do indeed feel entitled. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

My theory is that the population pressure in India is so very high that you're
always fighting for your piece of the pie and over extending yourself (such as
the man with the large house who took over the pavement). Yes, it's greedy,
but it's a particular mentality that comes out of being part of this massive
rat race with millions.. billions.. of competitors. I have several friends in
India who I would call upper class. You know, rich people with 4 bedroom
apartments on the 17th floor in and around the capital.

You know what these people call themselves ?

Middle class.

They refuse to acknowledge that they are wealthy. That they are privileged.
That they are truly upper class. I have a friend who drives an Audi presented
to him by his father who thinks he's middle class.

These people struggle (or think that they do..) for so long in the rat race
that they forget that they have risen above it and gone far beyond that.
Perhaps that is why they seem to lack compassion and empathy. Maybe they feel
that they are still struggling to survive and therefore can't spare a moment
for someone else ?

The rich do need to take a moment to feel rich and then feel responsible.
Unfortunately, as the article mentions the rich in India - to a great extent -
are failing at this. Maybe it's desensitization due to the immensely large
number of poor people. Maybe it's something else - further study is required.

Of course, I'm not even going into how hierarchical and class oriented Indian
society truly is. Most people who the 'middle class' perceive as lower class
are almost sub humans in their eyes. This is another reason in my opinion the
Delhi gang rape case was such a big deal. The middle class got to point
fingers once more at the lower classes who 'rape us'. They got to ask the
government what they are doing to protect them from these 'evil immigrants who
come into New Delhi and ruin our fair city'. I've had statements from rich
girls in New Delhi who don't like 'these poor people who stare at us', but are
completely fine with spoilt rich brats driving circles around them while
honking away.

On the flip side though, this article mostly covers behavior in New Delhi.
I'll go as far as to say that New Delhi is possibly the most horrible city in
India when it comes to these things. Other cities tend to be more relaxed.
There are far far better places than New Delhi.

The class system in Delhi is enforced and reinforced by the rich and poor
collectively. I had a reservation at the Hilton for one night two years ago
and I arrived on a friend's motorbike. The security at the hotel wouldn't let
me through because I didn't look 'rich enough'. The security at the hotel by
this logic, wouldn't let in people who looked like themselves either.

Situation's complicated.

EDIT:

There are a lot of replies to this post comparing the mentality I've mentioned
above to that which exists in the west. I can see where that is coming from,
but the main factor that needs to be taken into account is the kind and scale
of poverty that exists in India. In India we say that if you have two meals a
day, and a roof over your head, you're already rich!

Consider that, some posts here say that SV millionaires do not consider
themselves upper class. That would be absolutely ridiculous in India! But,
there are people here who go by the same ideals.

It's VERY EASY in India to make a difference in someone's life. Even if you're
middle class, you can make a difference because people around you are way
poorer than you. The problem is one of large scale apathy and complete
indifference.

As an example, being middle class in the west, it's impossible to think that
you could change someone's life by just hiring them to work in your house - by
giving them reasonable pay and good working conditions. In India this is quite
possible, a middle class person could easily hire 3-4 people and therefore
start to create change. Maybe not the best example of how you can make a
difference but the article is about how the privileged in India _should_ feel
more responsible and try harder to make a difference. For example, if you do
hire people to work in your house, make sure that you encourage them to
educate their children ? (stuff like that helps us move forward with these
problems..)

My point is, being privileged in India is not really like being privileged in
the west. You may not have government and industry connections but you can
still make a massive difference at a personal level and if enough people start
doing that, there will be a change. It's probably our only shot at it.

~~~
jimrandomh
> You know what these people call themselves? Middle class. They refuse to
> acknowledge that they are wealthy.

No, they've got it right. The distinction between middle class and lower class
is entirely about wealth, but the distinction between middle class and upper
class is not. Wealth is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for being
upper class; the distinguishing features are flexibility and power, not money.
It is possible to convert money into these things, but most middle-class
people who acquire sufficient wealth nevertheless fail to become upper-class
because they lack the mental toolkit, or are embedded in power structures that
won't let them.

~~~
redcircle
I agree: upper class isn't about wealth. So much of it is about culture (in
the sense that culture breeds character traits). And the ambition to obtain
wealth in the middle class breeds character traits that impose a barrier for
entering the upper class.

~~~
youngerdryas
>the ambition to obtain wealth in the middle class breeds character traits
that impose a barrier for entering the upper class.

Care to elaborate on said traits?

~~~
redcircle
One example: the inferiority complex.

~~~
youngerdryas
An ambition to achieve wealth breeds an inferiority complex? Actually quite
the opposite. In the states snobbery of any kind is severely looked down upon,
as it should be.

------
lifeisstillgood
This is not elite entitlement. This is right wing entitlement. The recent
death of Maggie reminded me of what she really changed - she made it ok to be
selfish and disdainful of "undeserving" poor.

India was a hybridised socialist country for a very long time - coming out of
that will look at lot like Britain the in the eighties I suspect - and if you
want to put bets on the next two term incumbent - they will look a lot like
the drivers if the SUVs and will tell then its good to be hard working, it's
what will get us to moonbase alpha

Welcome to running the planet. Beware.

~~~
cynicalkane
Margret Thatcher is responsible for the entrenched class system... in India?

~~~
skore
No, it's pretty clear that that _wasn't_ the point being made.

------
aswanson
_In a recent incident, three poor Dalit boys inadvertently caused a small fire
in a local community centre where they worked._

The fact that children are labelled as anything other than children, that
Indian society calls them "Dalit" at birth, to me, summarizes why the region
will remain retrogressive for a long, long time.

~~~
ruchir
No, Indian society does not label children anything other than children at
birth. It is a label gratuitously applied by the author, likely as a short-
hand to indicate poorer section of society. People from these self-identified
sections have reached the highest post in the country - from writer of the
constitution to president, to various positions in the political spectrum.
There is a problem of equal access to education, yes. But a) this problem
exists all over the world - consider school districts in the US and b) is more
acute in India due to large, distributed population against a largely
agrarian/human labor based economy. Active discrimination is a much smaller
factor.

------
tusharc
There is an implied causality in this article. Being rich -> Lose empathy. I'd
be curious to know if there indeed is causality in either direction (Less
empathetic people get richer) or is it just correlation masquerading as
causality.

~~~
ryanmolden
I have always been a strong believer in the saying "Fortune does not change
men, it unmasks them". Studying this area would be difficult though as you
either need to know ahead of time who would be successful, or study such a
large cross-section that you are statistically likely to snare future
successful people in your population.

~~~
trhtrsh
Well, with modern technology, it's harder for a newly wealthy person to
conceal their past. The days of whitewashing personal history are fading.

------
capex
The poor man whose cart was tipped, can't sue the rich guy. Neither would this
be covered in the news. The police would simply refuse to register a case of
loss against the rich (and probably powerful) guy. There is no insurance of
the cart, of course.

When the poor know that every cog in the society is biased against the poor,
people are quick to dismiss them and their misery. If it was another car
instead of the cart, the SUV guy won't have hit the car, for the person riding
the car would certainly be able to sue/ report to police, and might even have
insurance.

This is about the lack of entitlement of the poor, rather than the ferocious
sense of entitlement of the rich. The rich are just exploiting the absence of
any entitlement to poor.

------
LarryMade2
You can find examples anywhere, even in the US; years ago I read articles of
affluent seaside communities erecting no trespassing signs fences and such
blocking off access to public beaches.. I'm sure there are more examples of
it, but here is one interesting site about the US entitled rich problem.

<http://www.cityprojectca.org/ourwork/beachaccess.html>

------
scscsc
It's not the rich. It's the "nouveaux riches"... Happens all over the world.
Little education + fast money does that.

~~~
potatolicious
This... doesn't make sense at all, and is also simultaneous a True Scotsman
fallacy.

For one thing, the vieux riche inspired _entire revolutions_ with their
compassionless, ridiculous, indefensible behavior. The wealthy nobility is a
primary reason why so many countries are now democratic.

Clearly "being a complete dick" is not the exclusive purview of the nouveau
riche. The notion that people who inherit their wealth are less likely to
abuse it over people who earn it quickly also doesn't pass a lot of mental
muster.

The distinction between "nouveau riche" and "vieux riche" smells like (and is)
a classi No True Scotsman.

------
denzil_correa
There may be a lot of misconceptions on the poor and class divide in India. I
would like to answer some of them by posting some numbers and providing
context.

 _Who are the 'poor' in India?_

The poor in India, according to the Planning Commission, are people who live
on 32 Indian Rupees/59cents per day.

 _How many people are poor in India?_

The Planning Commission of India reports that there are 29.8% of the
population who are 'poor' [0,1]. This roughly equates to 360 Million people
who live below the poverty line.

 _Are the numbers for poor accurate?_

May be, may be not. Some believe these numbers could be as high as 77%
specially considering the inflation rate and other factors.

 _Is it possible to live on 59 cents per day?_

No but that's not even the main problem. Here is a comment from Jean Dréze, an
economist and former member of the National Advisory Council India [2],

    
    
       “What is really shocking is not that the official poverty line is abysmally low, but that even with that abysmal 
       benchmark, so many people are below it.The belated discovery that it is impossible to have a dignified 
       life on the official poverty line draws our attention to the appalling living conditions of the Indian poor.” Taking a 
       position diametrically opposed to Mr. Bhalla and Mr. Panagariya, Mr. Drèze argues, “The message about the terrifying 
       nature of 'hidden poverty’ in India has been somewhat lost in the din of the recent debate.”
    

Even with such a low price point the number of poor in India are staggering.

 _Is there a class divide in India (in particular Delhi) and possess a sense
of entitlement?_

Yes. I would recommend reading on how the elite tried to stifle Delhi's first
Bus Rapid Transit system by filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the
Delhi HC [3]. Here is the reason from the petitioner's (a car owner in Delhi)
on why he decided to file the petition

    
    
        "Car owners are the creators of wealth. Do you realise that they get exhausted sitting in their cars due to traffic 
        jams and they reach office completely tired? It affects their efficiency. Do you want them to perform less?" asks the 
        main petitioner BB Sharan.You cannot keep a commander-in-chief waiting in traffic while his army is waiting for his 
        orders. How does it matter if a peon reaches office five minute before time?"
    

This is the attitude of the "rich" in India. The society doesn't matter as
long as their work gets done.

[0] <http://planningcommission.nic.in/news/press_pov1903.pdf>

[1] <http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_pov.pdf>

[2] [http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/what-does-
indias-p...](http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/what-does-indias-
poverty-line-actually-measure/)

[3] <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19572583>

~~~
baali
This link might be a good read related to income per day context and an
attempt to manage in that much amount:
[http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Harsh_Mander/barefoo...](http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/Harsh_Mander/barefoot-
the-other-side-of-life/article2882340.ece)

~~~
denzil_correa
TFS. I was trying to find this article but I couldn't.

------
Sharma
Inter related things.Ferociousness here is due to frustration of too many
people around.

Too many people means: Too much inequality,inability of governing people
properly,lack of regulations and so on.....

India is 3 times more populated than USA but 1/3 in land size of USA!

Population does matter. Nothing about riches only in India. Put these
conditions in any other country and you will see same behavior.

------
LAMike
I'm not from India but my parents are from Sri Lanka and when I went back
there I was surprised to find what seemed to be middle class families having
maids and butlers (they call them servants). Maybe some rich people in India
must feel like they have the right to do it because they grow up having those
people cater to their every need

~~~
dalke
You may not know this but you are touching a very sensitive issue.

Which is better for the country: asking people to employ domestic workers, or
have higher unemployment?

Let's take South Africa, which I know better than any place in Asia. There's
high unemployment. The government encourages people to hire domestic workers.
Checking now the rates are about US$ 1/hour. These are maids/domestics,
gardeners, childminders, caretakers for the sick and elderly, and so on.

I grew up on the US, and from my family learned a strong moral principle that
it's best to do everything yourself, rather than have 'people cater to my
every need' at home. As an adult, I followed that same moral principle.

Then I bought a house. With a garden. A quite beautiful garden that I wanted
to keep. I couldn't do it myself. More importantly, my rates as a software
developer were more than 8x that of a gardener. I fought that moral training
and realized that it's little different than regularly going to a mechanic to
maintain my car.

The position of the South African government is similar. If you have the
money, then why not use it to hire people to help around the house? Living in
South Africa for a short time, I learned about some of the advantages of
having someone who would do laundry, including ironing, sweeping, or mowing
the lawn. None are tasks I enjoy.

As you (and the essayist) point out, that's fraught with difficulties. At what
point does that turn into a sense of entitlement? How can abuses in the
workplace (that is, the home) be monitored and reduced?

You can read some of the difficulties and different viewpoints at
<http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/473.1> .

~~~
trhtrsh
The solution of course is higher taxation or philanthropy. The gardener should
be paid to build a public garden, not private garden.

You should be paying someone who is more efficient than you at those tasks, so
you can write software to solve problems more efficiently than your customers
do otherwise. That is wealth creation across a community.

You should not be paying someone (x N) to work at a much lower hourly wage
than you simply because you have accumulated more wealth.

Now, some dose of income inequality is healthy, to motivate individuals to
better themselves and be valuable (education, skill, physical execise), but
extreme inequality is to be remedied by rebalancing the income, not just
making someone work _for you_.

~~~
dalke
"The solution of course is higher taxation or philanthropy."

I don't see the "of course." Using that argument, it sounds like I shouldn't
hire a carpenter to work on my house but should instead pay more taxes so that
the carpenter can work on improving the public buildings, and only use my own
skills and time to improve my house.

I shouldn't ever hire a mechanic to fix my car but rather I should always pay
more taxes in order to fund the mass transit system.

I shouldn't ever hire a gardener but should rather let the existing garden in
my yard fall into disrepair - or learn the skills myself - in preference for a
neighborhood garden.

"You should not be paying someone (x N) to work at a much lower hourly wage
than you simply because you have accumulated more wealth."

I never held that position, and I don't know how you inferred that that I had
that assumption in mind.

There is some boundary on where it's better for myself and/or the community
that I do something myself, and better sometimes for others with more time
and/or better skills to do it. My argument is that one of the reasons that
people don't hire domestic help is because of moral qualms. Sometimes those
qualms are unfounded, and in that case, an educational campaign to change
attitudes may be an appropriate means to mollify those qualms and improve
wealth creation across a community.

In your words, they are doing something less efficiently than they could, and
need a reminder backed by a good argument for why they should hire someone
else to handle those jobs.

"simply because you have accumulated more wealth"

That is part of a different argument. The mathematics I outlined are based on
differential income, not wealth accumulation. That is, had I spent every penny
of income or contributed it through taxes, such that I had less wealth
accumulation than my gardener, it would still make economic sense for me to
hire a gardener instead of tending to the garden myself. As you said, your
goal is 'wealth creation across a community'. The scenarios I described are
not incompatible with that goal. I can outline others if you wish.

Also, at that time my work was very bursty. I would sometimes visit a client
site for a month or two, then not work for a few months. Her work was
relatively constant, so she could maintain my garden while I was away. Even if
I maintained the garden myself, I don't think it would be morally or
economically objectionable to hire someone for that case. It can be even be
worthwhile to hire someone on a continual basis, in order to ensure
availability during odd times.

------
Xcelerate
You know, it's really interesting how people can become oblivious to the
concerns of others. It's not necessarily wealth that does it either. It can be
a job promotion, parents that always bend to the will of their child, or a
variety of other factors.

The most shocking thing is that I don't think these people realize they are
doing it either. Now certainly there are some who realize it and just don't
care (psychopaths or sociopaths), but I think it is more common that people
lose the ability to think about the consequences of their actions.

Evaluation of my actions is something I try hard to do with myself. It is
very, _very_ difficult to objectively evaluate yourself and how you come
across to others. Something you may not even think twice about can have a
lasting, negative effect on someone else. You don't know what that person is
going through; maybe they just got laid off or lost a relative -- who knows
what really.

------
dpmehta02
Entitlement is a problem amongst many people who experience success,
regardless of class or nationality.

Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky have shown this in numerous studies, but here's
an easily relatable example of theirs: Financial advisors.[1]

Predicting markets is an inherently random game. We often point to those who
have been successful for a long period of time as an example that it is
possible to beat the system, but that analysis fails to account for the other
end of the probability distribution: those who have failed for a long period
of time (or failed so hard early that they had to get out of the game).

In other words, for every big winner, there is a big loser. The fact that some
people win or lose can (mostly) be explained by randomness (or cheating).

But Kahneman & Tversky's stunning finding with Financial Advisors, and humans
in general, is that those who are successful attribute their success mostly to
skill, hard work, etc, while failing to adequately acknowledge how large a
role chance played. For the humble, this is not a problem, but for the
arrogant or uninformed, this can easily turn into entitlement.

(BTW I definitely believe that, in most fields, a person needs to meet certain
thresholds of hard work, energy, intelligence, etc. to be successful, but the
level of success after reaching those thresholds is largely a function of
chance.)

We humans are very good at drawing false conclusions from random data. Have
you watched a basketball game recently? If a good shooter misses a couple free
throws, commentators seem obligated to explain that the reason for this is
fatigue, or poor form, or this, or that. How about the fact that it just
randomly happens sometimes?

Applying this thinking to Indian elites: they have a lot of money, probably
through their families or their own success. They believe their status is well
deserved and earned, either because of superior genetics or superior skills
(or any other number of reasons), and as a result, the uninformed feel
entitled (and act accordingly). The author's anecdotal examples aside, this is
no different than how many (but not all!) people behave on Wall Street, in
athletics, at the high levels of corporations, etc. This is not an Indian
problem, or an elite problem; it's a human problem.

Fooled by Randomness[2]. Again.

[1][http://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-kahneman-on-wealth-
man...](http://www.businessinsider.com/daniel-kahneman-on-wealth-
management-2012-12) [2][http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-
Market...](http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-
Markets/dp/0812975219)

------
anuraj
India is a banana republic in every sense of the word; where the mighty have
their way and even basic amenities are denied to the poorer 80% of population.
But do stay tuned - the Indian class war is yet to play out.

------
PAULHANNA84
India has many wonderful things to offer but my biggest issue in that country
would be the cast system. The untouchables! I think it's awful that any human
is deemed less than human at the point of birth. Awful!

~~~
yarou
Actually, the caste system isn't that much of a problem anymore. Because of
various affirmative action programs, many former Dalits have risen to high
governmental posts and industry titans.

~~~
PAULHANNA84
That's good to hear. My friend was recently in India some months ago and when
visiting he was delegated a servant which he didn't even ask for or want. The
kid was not even allowed to sit on the couches! Sad.

------
renanbirck
Only in India? I'd be inclined to think that elites everywhere have the same
sense of entitlement.

------
bonchibuji
Change is already happening. One of the best examples I can cite is the
Madurai based chef-turned social worker, Narayanan Krishnan. He quit his
5-star hotel chef job to feed the poor. He was one of the CNN Heroes in 2010.

[http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/archive10/naryana...](http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cnn.heroes/archive10/naryanan.krishnan.html)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narayanan_Krishnan>

------
snambi
Wow... very nice. While the rich are really mean and ferocious, the poor
(normal) people are very generous and giving. That is the reason the country
is still functioning. Fortunately there are millions of normal ( poor by
western standards ) people in India, especially outside of the big cities.
Still most people live in villages which is a very good thing, they are not
yet corrupted by the greediness. I hope they don't.

------
kang
Any solutions? I have mostly given up being beaten down by the scale and
inherited mentality of 100s or years.

------
forgottenpaswrd
My experience in Delhi is that there is too much people in a very small place.

You see chaos everywhere, in the roads, children playing around electricity
cables(non insulated, working cables), so much people living in trash...

If I were to live there for extended periods of time, I will get crazy. It is
like living in a beehive.

------
pavs
See also: Delhi Boys

~~~
lquist
Don't know if those outside India will find it funny, but:
<http://www.quickmeme.com/Rich-Delhi-Boy/?upcoming>.

~~~
trhtrsh
Ugh is there really such a problem of rich kids shooting people? That's
horrible

------
Attocs
I'm a NZer living in India and I see the themes described in this post on a
daily basis. One example: <http://lostinmumbai.org/2013/04/14/a-man-called-
bunty/>

------
redwood
I'd suggest that the elites from all societies have a ferocious sense of
entitlement. However, some are better at hiding it and coming across as
harmonious members of society.

------
newyork
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Pj8QKTvRTQ>

"this car can buy your whole﻿ family" - same attitude everywhere mate!!

------
donatj
Call me crazy but "taking"? The man scratching the mans car with his cart was
Taking. The people in the street who wouldn't get out the way were taking.

~~~
Pwnguinz
Do you mean how the man in the SUV threw over someone else's cart full of
produce (likely his only source of income/livelihood), and then throwing a
large heavy metallic object at him in a effort to physically harm him is NOT
"Taking" (with a Capital T)?

~~~
donatj
As opposed to charging the man for repairs and the man likely ending up in
jail? I say the man got off easy. If the man had to pay for the damage to the
SUV he would have been much worse off.

~~~
Pwnguinz
It doesn't matter if he got off easy or not. Two wrongs does not make a right.

If you wrong someone, and s/he tries to then injure you with a heavy blunt
object but fails, it doesn't mean "you got off easy". You can then counter sue
for attempted murder.

So now who got off "easy"?

------
intended
Why is this article here on HN?

It takes a single incident and extrapolates from their to the authors biases.

How is this at all worthy of discussion for intellectually curious people?

------
hcarvalhoalves
Just one of the many side effects of private property.

------
chaostheory
Well they did have a religious caste system that pervaded everything in life
for hundreds if not thousands of years. Is this a surprise?

------
gary4gar
The reason is __Population __

there are just too many people fighting for same resources. hence it gets
messy

------
jjacobson
Calvanism

------
seivan
This happen to be a very Chinese and Indian thing. You don't see this in say
countries like Sweden or Germany.

~~~
PeterisP
You don't see this in stable societies with more income/class equality, but it
shows up in any place with large social inequality. Russia/ex-USSR after the
'wild capitalism' of 1990'ies is also a great example with similar situations
as described in the original article.

------
yarou
Unfortunately, this is quite an accurate article. I've only been to Delhi
once, but in my parents' home city of Hyderabad, this behavior is commonplace.
That being said, this article is being written from a feminist and classist
perspective, so one should be careful when making generalizations about India.
It's important to keep in mind everyone has an agenda, and this author has
clearly delivered one.

------
goggles99
_India’s elites have a ferocious sense of entitlement_

That is better than here in America. Here its our lazy freeloaders whom have a
ferocious sense of entitlement.

