No More Bin Laden

[Lissa]

I think it is a gender equality and social security problem. My observation of the culture is that they build their families security by having many boys who, get the best education they can, become successful, then take care of the parents and the other siblings.

But why, then, does this appear to be well-supported in the statistics for Punjab (relatively rich, Northern) and Uttar Pradesh (dirt poor, Northern) but not for Kerala (rich, Southern) or Bihar (poor, Eastern)?

It's not just social security, since that's pretty wretched all over India. It could certainly be culture, but then, what part of culture? The culture of where? Why do we not observe it everywhere in India?

This is one of those topics with a lot of enitrely plausible explanations, but I'm not sure they all survive contact with the empirical enemy.

-Jester

Part of that has to do with how much influence the British had. Northern India did not have as much British influence as the south as the south had the trade ports and the like and ease of bringing in forces where as the north did not. Also, the Punjab area has a lot of Sikh's (as a good friend that is a Sikh puts it, not all Punjabis are Sikhs, but alll Sikhs are Punjabi) which are reknown for their militancy which would have made things more difficult for the British to control. As such, Northern India is still see a lot of the caste system and a lot of hold over to the old ways where as the south was more Britishized (or maybe Angelicanized might fit better as most of the Indian Christians are in the south).