Bush blaming Indians for food shortage takes the cake

American Burger

Indian Capati

Chinese Dim Sum

Malaysian Nasi Lemak

The New Straits Times
12/05/2008

Bush blaming Indians for food shortage takes the cake
By : Mahendra Ved

To be asked what to eat and what not is disconcerting, but to be told that one is eating too much is downright insulting.

This human trait is universal.

US President George W. Bush probably did not mean to insult the Indians and the Chinese. When he said the rising prosperity of the two Asian giants meant there was demand for more and better food, he was explaining the global price rise to his own people.

Bush talked of India's 350 million-strong middle class. "That's bigger than America. Their middle class is larger than our entire population. And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food, and so demand is high, and that causes the prices to go up," he said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, several American and European lawmakers and economists have also talked in the same vein about China and India. But none has implied that the two countries should eat less or go hungry.

The Chinese reaction, if at all, would be political and diplomatic. But Bush's comments touched a raw Indian nerve. Its politicos cemented the ideological divide and political differences to engage in Bush-bashing.

This was the second snub to the United States within a fortnight of asking Washington not to tell Delhi how to deal with visiting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If one is preachy, the other is prickly.

Defence Minister A.K. Antony called it "a cruel joke". Junior Commerce Minister Jairam Ramesh, an MIT-trained economist, declared: "George W. Bush has never been known for his knowledge of economics. And he has just proved once again how comprehensively wrong he is.

"Communist Brinda Karat predictably called it a "reflection of an imperialist mentality".

If Bush needs to explain food price rises to his people, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is combating 7.57 per cent inflation. So, everyone is defending his turf.

Sensing this, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) conveniently attacked Manmohan and not Bush.

"His (Bush's) statement is aimed at serving his own constituency ahead of the US presidential elections," said BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar.

Indians have a reputation for being sensitive and, like most Third World nations, anti-American.

This is, of course, despite thousands of American visas being cornered by Indian techies, adding to a 2.6-million presence in the land of prosperity. While the storm in the Indian dhal bowl blew over, the global food crisis persists.

The Indian angst is not without reason. For one, India is largely self-sufficient and even a net exporter of food after years of effort.

It could face a food crisis again with one or more bad monsoons. But it will be managed. There has been no starvation death in many years. India's problem is not shortage, but one of management and distribution.

Even globally, the population doubled from three billion in the early 1960s to six billion by the end of the 20th century, but episodes of mass starvation were the exception rather than the rule.

If people didn't have enough to eat it was usually because of war, pestilence or other (usually man-made) calamity, not because there wasn't enough food to go around.

Bush's contention that people eat more and eat better as prosperity comes is a universal phenomenon. One learnt this while studying world economic history that, as elsewhere, Indians switched from coarse millet to fine rice and wheat.

So what is new? For one, India, even if self-reliant, cannot and does not live in isolation.

It dug into its limited rice reserves meant for the poor to sell cyclone-hit Bangladesh 500,000 tonnes of rice.

Food was also on top of the relief material the Indian navy rushed to cyclone-hit Myanmar last week.

The other new development is in the US and Europe: excessive emphasis on biofuels leading to diversion of arable land and food crops to produce energy.

Bush has defended this policy, calling himself "an ethanol person". The US says ethanol causes only 1.5 per cent of the shortage. For the rest, again, China and India are the culprits.

An American consumes five times more food than an Indian, three times more than a Chinese and twice as much as an European.

According to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007 as quoted in the Times of India: "An Indian eats about 178kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046kg.

"It's not just grains. The Times of India report goes on to state:

"Milk consumption, in fluid form, is 78kg per year for each American, compared with 36kg in India and 11kg in China.

"Vegetable oils consumption per person is 41kg per year in US, while Indians are making do with just 11kg per year. These are figures for liquid milk, not for cheese, butter, yogurt and milk powders, which are consumed in huge proportions in the more advanced countries.

"As far as meat consumption is concerned, the US leads the world in per capita consumption by a wide margin. Beef consumption, for example, is 42.6kg per person per year, compared with a mere 1.6kg in India and 5.9kg in China. In case you are thinking that perhaps Indians might be going in for chicken, think again. In the US, 45.4kg of poultry meat is consumed every year by each person, compared with 1.9kg in India.

"Pork consumption is negligible in India, while it is a major item elsewhere. In the European Union, 42.6kg of pork is consumed per person every year, while in the US, 29.7kg is consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so more than 35kg are consumed per person per year. And, we are not talking about various other types of meat, like turkey.

"But the story would not be complete without mentioning the plight of Africa, where foodgrain consumption last year was a mere 162kg per year for each person, or about 445g per day."

In blaming India and China, the few gluttons of the world are missing the wood for the trees.