Reuters 14/2/11 report

The UK will continue to send more than £1 billion to India over the next four years, despite huge cuts to government spending under London’s Conservative-led coalition government and soaring economic growth in the Asian giant.

Andrew Mitchell, the UK’s international development secretary, told the Financial Times on Monday that Britain’s annual £280 million aid payments to India would not be reduced, in spite of the country’s space ambitions, nuclear energy development, soaring numbers of billionaires and its own aid program to many African nations.

Mitchell’s comments, a day before an official announcement, are likely to infuriate some UK MPs who have seen spending slashed in their constituencies, and those who have called for a reduction in overseas payments as British taxpayers brace for a period of tough austerity measures.

In September, suggestions from Westminster that aid may be reduced sparked a terse response from New Delhi, as Indian officials reportedly mulled rejecting UK support rather than waiting for London to decide whether its slice of the pie would shrink.

British newspapers have questioned financial assistance for a country whose economy is growing at over 8.5 percent with a $31.5 billion defence budget and ambitions to join the U.N. Security Council. Permanent Security Council members Russia and China were told by London last year that continuing to supply aid to them was “not justifiable”.

Yet despite its booming economy and global power aspirations, India still accounts for a large proportion of the world’s poorest people, presenting international donors with a quandary.

“India has more poor people in it than the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. If you’re going to achieve the [UN] millennium development goals, you have to make big progress in India,” Mitchell told the Financial Times.

But should India need cash from British taxpayers to protect the poorest in its society, and could the UK’s overseas aid be better spent elsewhere?

No. Glad this was raised. India is doing very well for itself and if the wealth is not equally spread, then it's up to india to do something about this. Not the UK.

The UK donates a disproportionate overly generous amount of aid to India, which as you pointed out, has one of the fastest growing economies after China.

Obviously, India is constantly in dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir region, but what irked me was that we gave earthquake ravaged Pakistan 3 x what India gave in aid and 4x what US - the world's biggest economy - donated.

If the prime motivator for providing aid was to help others, then there may be a case for sending aid elsewhere (I say may because there are areas in India where there are huge disparaties between the well off and the poor. Its an interesting but largely irrelevant question as to how much good it would be sending aid to a country which has some semblance of governance and infrastructure like India, as opposed to an alternate country which may have a much more corrupt environment/etc).

However, the reality is that modern foreign aid programs are less about helping, and more about political influence and leverage. Presumably the UK Government has arrived at the conclusion that its geopolitical/strategic interests are better served by sending "aid funds" to India than redirecting it to another country. Given India's strategic importance I'm really not all that surprised.

You forgot to mention that well over 1 million high-paid white collar and tech jobs have been outsourced to India from the US (and western Europe?) leaving many of our own unemployed.

I think I have to agree with this. Overseas aid is a lot more than just helping the poor, and considering how powerful India is becoming, it's most likely in our interests to continue the aid.

I remember seeing a documentary a while ago about how British aid was spent in some places in West Africa, and while a lot of it was spent on the poor, the strings that came with it were British influence over the over the governments in all areas that related to the aid.

I would like to say a blanket "no" but it's not as simple as that, as has been outlined above. It's all about alliances and political strategy and I doubt the aid will discontinue any time soon.

From a moral standpoint I definitely think no, if India can't look after it's own poor then I don't see why we should be expected to. We have enough of our own poor people here.

I did hear yesterday (although I can't remember where) that India had said they didn't even want our aid, but reading the article above I see why. It's an emotive story and I imagine there will be many bandwagons to be leaped on.

This is not a straight forward question.
I think it could potentially be (in the long run) a case of, if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
Yes, a lot of UK jobs have gone to India (e.g. techy or call centre jobs). I wouldn't blame india for this, it’s the greedy(?) companies who save bazillions not employing people here, they take advantage of the cheap labour. But hey that’s business for you.

I'm really proud (speaking as an ethic minority) that Britain is nation that always gives other less off countries generously. Perhaps it’s due to the guilt of yester-years (at times dodgy)"British empire" rule that seeps through or Britain is setting an example and secretly has enough cash to give. I don’t know what the answer is.

On a side note - the point about, "well the poor here should be helped first". I agree with that, but I have to say (and I work for a LA myself). No one has to live on the streets over here; there is an infrastructure to help people off the streets. The government will eventually give you shelter. It won’t be a palace, but it will be ok. If you have no money, the government will pay your rent. The trouble is some people are just hopeless at finding help for whatever reason and dare I say SOME can't be bothered. Don’t get me wrong the system isn’t perfect!

I believe the government does give a lot of help, but sometimes feel certain section of the public do not utilise this and suffer. I think the issue is, people need more education that help is available; you just have to deal with the paperwork to get it. Which I think puts some people off?

Give it to Nepal, they need it more.

UK 'to end direct aid to 16 countries'

The UK is to stop direct aid to 16 countries, including Russia, China and Iraq, papers seen by the BBC suggest.

A draft copy of the government's review of its overseas aid budget - due to be published this week - also reveals aid to India will be frozen.

Resources will be focused on the 27 countries that account for three-quarters of the world's maternal mortality and malaria deaths, such as Ghana and Afghanistan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12589626

The article omitted to mention India's nuclear weapons development programme, its nuclear weapons arsenal, as well as it's large army, and expensively equipted airforce and navy.

Foreign aid is the same as taking tax money by force from poor people in rich countries, and giving it to corrupt rich people in poor countries.

UK government should work for UK people, plenty of problems here.

And besides, British people are some of the most generous and well informed people and don't need some hypocrit politician patronizing them about aid and spending the PEOPLE'S MONEY for them. Politicians don't care about poor Indians. Give me a break.

Government should focus on UK, let the people keep that tax money and let the British people donate to causes they want on their own.

Judging from your post I suspect not everyone is that well informed.

Do you care to explain?

I think I already have...

If the govt don't send it as aid, they will find something else to spend it on, and I doubt the average worker will benefit from the savings.

Your post was very interesting. However two questions pertaining to the quoted paragraphs: Firstly how long does a person get to stay at a shelter? Secondly, are there enough shelters out there (especially now with staffing/spending cuts)? Given that homeless charities are always crying out for money, I suspect not enough... I do take your point that help for such people in UK is better than some countries

However charity does begin at home, and if you've looked at the UN's Human Development Index over the years, the UK's standard of living has been incrementally sinking in recent years.