As far as living conditions go, I'd say India is fairly good, given the sheer complexities to be managed. The institutions that have been built over the last 60 odd years are decently robust, if not always functional. But as L pointed out over a conversation, India is hell when things aren't going right. This is true of any "emerging" or "under-developed" country I suppose, but I wonder if there are many countries where a decent,stable income affords a lifestyle which can be considered "smooth sailing" by any standards while the whole system can turn hostile when things go slightly wrong.
The parameters to measure this hostility should be income,food,health,crime,corruption and political violence. Considering a middle class demographic set, I'd imagine income and food can be considered stable at all points, assuming a reasonably well-educated household which will not find it difficult to hold a job. The other factors, however, are beyond the control of even the middle to upper-middle class households.
Health is a particularly tricky route to negotiate given the absence of credible accreditation or awareness thereof. Even if you have the money, finding a doctor you can trust is largely a matter of providence. My anecdotal view of this issue has led me to believe that most hospitals retain patients even when fully aware that they're not equipped to treat the disease, just so that they can run up a bill and refer them to a "better" hospital at a later date. This, then, has an effect on people being amenable to seeking medical opinion given the amount of distrust generated.
Crime and corruption are, again, debilitating when encountered. Crime needs to be addressed by the state machinery and given the state of the reactive law and order situation, is reliably unreliable. Filing a police complaint is a largely an exercise in futility. This is something that police reforms can certainly address. Corruption, well, who can escape that anywhere in the world?
Given all these, I'm inclined to believe chance plays a very important role in leading a peaceful life here and the aim of the governance should be to help its citizens cope in the event of a black swan.
The parameters to measure this hostility should be income,food,health,crime,corruption and political violence. Considering a middle class demographic set, I'd imagine income and food can be considered stable at all points, assuming a reasonably well-educated household which will not find it difficult to hold a job. The other factors, however, are beyond the control of even the middle to upper-middle class households.
Health is a particularly tricky route to negotiate given the absence of credible accreditation or awareness thereof. Even if you have the money, finding a doctor you can trust is largely a matter of providence. My anecdotal view of this issue has led me to believe that most hospitals retain patients even when fully aware that they're not equipped to treat the disease, just so that they can run up a bill and refer them to a "better" hospital at a later date. This, then, has an effect on people being amenable to seeking medical opinion given the amount of distrust generated.
Crime and corruption are, again, debilitating when encountered. Crime needs to be addressed by the state machinery and given the state of the reactive law and order situation, is reliably unreliable. Filing a police complaint is a largely an exercise in futility. This is something that police reforms can certainly address. Corruption, well, who can escape that anywhere in the world?
Given all these, I'm inclined to believe chance plays a very important role in leading a peaceful life here and the aim of the governance should be to help its citizens cope in the event of a black swan.
