Global perspective #2

Write and post a comparison on what food insecurity means to countries like USA and the UK against countries like India and Pakistan.

Identify the Bias, purpose (informative, persuasive, etc), main contention of the writer (what is their argument), evidence and discrepancies between ‘A further attack on the PDS’ and ‘fighting for food security’. Post these ideas and either bring a computer into class with you on Monday or print out your analysis so we can work on these in class.

The two articles pretty much have the same argument. They both criticize the corruption and failure of the Indian government to reduce food insecurity in India. The bias of the second (UK) article was against the Indian government, stating that the "debate has shifted from starvation and subsistence to dignity and justice." It describes the "scandal of the country bursting at the seams with 60m tonnes of stored food grains as starvation, death and migration afflicted six states." The article from the Frontline suggests similar, stating that "while more than 500 million people are undernourished and many more are vulnerable to food insecurity, 45.5 million tonnes of foodgrains are being held by the Government of India." However, being a magazine produced from the publishers of The Hindu, it stands more on the local citizen's side and fights from the local perspective. The Guardian only revolves around the government of India, not the individual residents. The Guardian states the problems, the solutions, and the improvements made over the past years, whereas Frontline gives massive statistics and numbers, and also unfamiliar terms such as APL, BPL, TPDS, etc. Both of them are pretty informative, as they state the facts and give information on this issue, but also somewhat persuasive on their indirect attack on India's corruption. Both of the writers are Indians, who obviously would be concerned about their own country's conflicts and which portray their contention to publicize this topic, give spotlight on this topic, draw people's attention, and educate everyone of the problems and corruptions that are taking place in India. Since the first article was written in 2001, which is when the scandal happened according to the second article that was written in 2012, the second article mention the actions taken, and the progress, not failing to include more improvements to be made. The first article just states the situation and criticizes faults in the system of public distribution. The first article is very obscure. Not only there are many errors in the article, but the English is poor with continuous repetition of the same words and a not very smooth flow of the sentences.