Why is India so unhygienic?
I know India is pretty poor on the individual level, but I have never seen another country so abscessed with making their streets look like an open sewer. In Varanasi, people bathe in the same river they dump their half-burned corpses. You have rabid cows shitting on the streets. I do not mean this question as an insult - I am genuinely wondering. Pakistan is no richer than India, and the people living there are basically the same - even speaking the same language, but it is not as dirty as India is.
I know perfectly well what "rabid" means. "Rabid" means infected with rabies.
Regardless of whether the cow is rabid or not, it has no place on the cities streets.
- 2 months ago
India has a huge populations of around 130+ crore people. You can't say India is unhygienic, it is because of huge population and low education ratio problem occurs.
- 2 months ago
For its population.
- 3 months ago
India has a huge populations. It is difficult to maintain 135 crore people. That's why
- Anonymous3 months ago
A confined pocket of pus that collects in tissues, organs, or spaces inside the body.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- 3 months ago
Because india have a huge population
- Anonymous4 months ago
Neighborhoods who are filled with Pakistanis in Athens are smelly, stinky, unhygienic and everyone avoids them
- 4 months ago
The Bhagavad Gita states that cleanliness or purity is a divine quality, and that uncleanliness is a demoniac quality, but since the majority of Indians are less religious so they view cleanliness as a waste of time, since you don't need to be clean for survival.
- FLv 74 months ago
Because their government would rather have a space program than sewage systems in their cities.
- NYC_GUYLv 44 months ago
Because they are not American. They don’t have our values..... Seems like all these immigrants into the USA is trying to make AMERICA an open sewer!
- Anonymous4 months ago
First, it's "obsessed," not "abscessed." Second, you clearly don't understand what "rabid" means because there aren't "rabid cows." If there were, the first thing you'd mention wouldn't be where they defecate but how they stampede around completely mad and foaming at the mouth, biting and killing people. Third, India has the highest population density in the world, 50% higher than Pakistan, and India has 1.4 billion people, 660% higher population than Pakistan, but less than 4 times the land mass, so comparing it to Pakistan isn't a fair or apt comparison, but it does provide an answer to your question. Also, keep in mind that Pakistan has plentiful oil reserves, producing and exporting 70% more oil than it uses, oil being a commodity that uniquely generates extraordinary economy, wealth, and GDP as it requires virtually no labor, investment, or infrastructure to produce, whereas India is not so blessed with such enormous oil reserves to have a 70% surplus but instead must import north of 200 million metric tons of crude a year, making it the third largest oil importer in the world, in order to meet its energy needs, energy that's required to further industrialization and to continue creating that infrastructure you fault India for not having.
India has the fastest growing economy in the world and by 2050 will have the largest economy in the world. This it has achieved in a shocking short time, only about 70 years because of being under the oppressive thumb of colonial rule that actively blocked its economic development, as opposed to the almost 200 years most of the rest of the world economic leaders have had to do so since the dawn of industrialization. It's that economic development that's required to build from scratch infrastructure like running water, sewers, electricity, roads, transit systems, adequate housing, etc., which is especially problematic for a country that has had to build all that from scratch for a population of 1.4 billion people, a population far larger than any other country ever in history of the world has had to build that infrastructure for. And while India's had 70 years, it's only been the 20 or so that it has finally gained enough economic traction to really start building that infrastructure, which, again, it's had to build from scratch, and not over hundreds of years but only over a couple of decades, so give it a minute. MOREOVER, India has the unique problem of not actually being able to go full-bore into industrialization because it must remain an agrarian economy as well, countries with agrarian economies being the poorest in the world. Nevertheless, India's economy must remain at least 60% agrarian because if it didn't, India's people would starve and die of mass famine. It takes a lot to feed 1.4 billion people, more than it can afford to buy and even more than is available on the world market, and while in the future, its economic growth may get to the point that it can start importing more food instead of producing so much of it and thus become proportionally more industrialized, thus richer and thus able to faster afford all that expensive infrastructure that they're having to build from scratch, that isn't something that can be realized and start paying off in a short enough amount of time that India wouldn't fall into famine, which would result in its entire economy collapsing and the destruction of all the progress it's made.