Development and Underdevelopment are the sides of the same coin?

Every nation wants to develop; there is a lot of concern for the Underdeveloped sectors, while the Super five too along with their development are being considerate enough in thinking about the other nations that need to develop as a matter of global concern, but to me this looks more like a pity or charity that the developed nations do for the underdeveloped powerless nations. The Chinese saying, “give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man how to fish and he you will feed him forever” is apt to define this.
Yes Development and Underdevelopment are the sides of the same coin, while Development invites the devastation and inappropriate distribution causing underdevelopment of the resources. While economists have been trying to solve the problems of the rich becoming richer, while the poor become poorer and there have been a lot of efforts to eradicate this issue since ages, some how I don’t think we’ll ever come to a conclusion with the kind of principles we follow. The rich invest and their money multiplies while the poor work, they do not invest, thus working for a day and all that money goes in that day’s expenses, and how is their problem solved? Providing them free food, free homes, but I strongly believe Development comes only when there are changes and rather than giving money, they should be taught to “grow” money and help “themselves.”
We have noticed that development has succeeded after a breakdown, turmoil and shock. While Afghanistan is working on its weapons to combat the US, and Japan showed unity after the devastation caused nuclear bombs, that now Japan has its own identity like never before. But let us not forget the exploitation Development causes that ignores the other areas that thus become underdeveloped. When Changes happen, the place develops, but when there are no changes and it is stagnant, there is no Development happening- this is the basic mantra to develop. In accordance to Frank - defined as a ‘development theorist’, development and underdevelopment are essentially two sides of the same coin. This is because underdevelopment results from a development that occurs through exploitation and suppression: which are a necessary component of the West's wealth accumulation and development. Frank’s project is to look the limitations of capitalism and how the demands to industrialise and develop lead to continued under-development of satellite nations. To do this, he looks at the ‘so-called’ inefficient and poor Brazilian Agricultural economy and argues that it is caused by international capitalist flows that place demands on poorer nations. the under-development is driven by structural cause everywhere.
Tracing back the history it is believed by many economists that capitalism brings inevitably creates under-development. Let us look at a very simple concept of exporting coffee beans from Coorg. While the best quality beans are sorted and exported, we who grow the beans are left with the lower quality beans. Thus US continue to be a developed country, where is India developing considerably? And are we not underdeveloped that we can not afford the high grade products, while the developed nations are utilizing our resources? Thinking in terms of Colonialism, it also gave rise to a structure that benefited a specific landed class. This resulted in a concentration of income to a few individuals and families. In this way, ‘development’ leads to a loss of land for many. Farmers, therefore, move from tenants to agricultural wage earners – which ultimately leads to a fall in the quality of life
“We have powerful, wealthy nations in the centre (US and Europe), and smaller nations on the semi-periphery (such as Australia) and poor nations as satellites on the periphery. It is the exploitation of the satellite states that allows the wealthy to stay wealthy. Technology continues to be expensive and continues to keep the periphery reliant on the core. This has changed somewhat, but access to technology that is both affordable and appropriate continues to be a problem since ages.”
It would be counterfactual that the world economy is the same. And while development keeps happening more and more in the Developed Nations who have the finances and power, which utilize each and everything till the last drop is squeezed of the other nations, while the underdeveloped nations having lack of education are happy with the little that they get, even when countries like USA are ready to dump their wastes in the underdeveloped nations by paying them some minimal amount. So while they are taking care of their environmental issues, who are paying the real price? This cycle goes from one end of the coin to the other while there is more and more of developments in few areas, the rest are paying to actually hold that little portion at the cost of demolishing themselves!
*Let us look at the surprising facts that income poverty in countries such as China has fallen dramatically, 1.2bn people - a fifth of the world's population - are living on less than $1 (66p) a day!!. According to UN although the number of conflicts fell during the 90s, the cost to the international community of the seven main wars (not including Kosovo) was $200bn - four times the development aid in any one year. "Not too surprising then that the volume of development aid went down substantially in the 1990s. The shift of resources away from development may even be contributing to future conflicts - as assistance is withdrawn just when needed to prevent escalation,"