[randallsquared]

Note that "increased the economic divide" sounds bad, but there's no way from that statement alone to know whether people are better off or worse off, on the whole. If the "economic divide" was broadened merely by making some people better off faster than others, as is usually the case in a freer market, then there's no problem. It's only when people actually get poorer in terms of what they can do and have that "increasing the economic divide" is a problem, but that's much less common than nearly everyone getting poorer, which would have the effect of narrowing the gap by at least some measures.

[confusedcitizen]

I agree to what you say, but by economic divide in India, I meant, the rich get richer, the poor, frankly cannot get any poorer there and are untouched, maybe even adversely affected by the economic boom.

For the sake of free-market policies and rampant industrialization, people are displaced without their consent. For example, dams alone have displaced more than 30 million people in India.

Successive governments like to publicize decreasing poverty figures, which are constantly rebutted by independent agencies.

A 2007 report by the state-run National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS) found that 77% of Indians, or 836 million people, lived on less than 20 rupees per day (USD 0.50 nominal, USD 2.0 in PPP), with most working in "informal labour sector with no job or social security, living in abject poverty." [http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSDEL218894]

[randallsquared]

For the sake of free-market policies and rampant industrialization, people are displaced without their consent.

If people are losing their land without their consent, then the market isn't free. I guess we're losing the original meaning of "free market", here, which is just the latest in a list of such redefinitions to suit whatever the politicians want to do, while saying nice things. The euphemism treadmill strikes again! :)

[foldr]

> If the "economic divide" was broadened merely by making some people better off faster than others, as is usually the case in a freer market, then there's no problem.

This seems a little optimistic. Having a large gap between the rich and the poor does in fact cause problems (e.g. social unrest).

[randallsquared]

It's unclear to me if this is human nature, or just cultural.

[foldr]

Either way, it still causes problems. And one can certainly point to historical examples of it causing unrest in culturally quite different societies.