Why Isn't India A Superpower Or Global Leader?

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by parijataka, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. parijataka

    parijataka Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,893
    Likes Received:
    3,688
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    "Fortunately for China, Mao’s siblings and most of his children died young or were lost. Unfortunately for India, Nehru’s progeny survived, and the madness continued." Take a look at the accompanying charts in the article, not posted here.


    Why Isn't India A Superpower Or Global Leader?

     
    maomao, Bangalorean and Apollyon like this.
  2.  
  3. Ankit Purohit

    Ankit Purohit Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    616
    Location:
    Mumbai
    Yes India is not super power ,India is a supreme power ,A super duper Power

    Long Live supreme Power India

    Jai Hind
     
    parijataka and mikhail like this.
  4. Bangalorean

    Bangalorean Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,207
    Likes Received:
    6,497
    Because of Nehruvian socialism and the NehruGandhi family's economic policies subsequently. Short and simple answer. That's all there is to it.
     
  5. Singh

    Singh Phat Cat Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    20,305
    Likes Received:
    8,270
    Location:
    011
  6. Bangalorean

    Bangalorean Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,207
    Likes Received:
    6,497
    This is the basic reason. Everything else is just a detail.

    For example, people talk about "population" as a cause. Population is just a detail. If we'd had good economic growth and if we had achieved prosperity early on like other sensible nations in the world, we would have automatically seen increased education and less population. At the end of the day, economic growth is the only thing that matters, everything else begins falling to place then. Institutions improve, government revenues increase and social spending increases, which in turn feeds the cycle.

    A bad economic model is the root cause of all ills, if you trace it to the root. Everything else is a mere detail.
     
    asianobserve, maomao, chase and 3 others like this.
  7. satish007

    satish007 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    202
    Location:
    China
    Neither India nor china is super power becasue most Chinese have smaller eyes can not see further only focus on currently small interest lose friends like India bhai while Most Indian have bigger mouth like talking about future but do nothing
     
  8. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Too many reasons to enumerate.
     
  9. satish007

    satish007 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    202
    Location:
    China
    if you have shits just dump them. keep them in large intestine not good for health
     
  10. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    Actually the incorrectness of this statement is one of the root causes of the problem. Narasimha Rao wasn't a savior by any stretch, he just happened to be the prime minister when India's economy met it's impending doom. The Chinese leaders were truly introspective of their situation, they considered all the options and realized that economic liberation was the best way forward. They then rejected their nonsensical dogmatic policies and changed course. Economic liberalization in India wasn't a planned move, it was the final outcome of a dead end situation. It wasn't foresight, it was desperation. Sadly this phenomenon never changed in India, nothing happens until the shit hits the fan.

    The inability to reason and evaluate problems properly is another reason why India hasn't risen. All of the above mentioned factors which have basically become the official explanation, are for the most part total crap.

    1. India's manufacturing blows because of things like terrible labor laws and a culture of exploitation that has remained intact. Size and natural resources have jack $h!t to do with this.

    2. China had more people in poverty than India till the 80s. Also India never suffered from a disastrous f**k#p like the great leap forward. Unlike China India was the beneficiary of modern Western institutions and the English language as a result of colonization (it's only redeeming feature). China's long isolation on the other hand ensured that all the failed political and economic institutions still remained intact. To conclude that China had a "stronger base" due to the lack of colonization is nonsense.

    3. There is virtually no connection between economic prosperity and things like the UNSC seat and/or the nuclear program. The USSR was a superpower and had more nuclear bombs than loaves of bread. Clearly that didn't do $h!t for them. Japan, South Korea and Germany on the other hand didn't have nuclear programs and still did better than everyone else. If Nehru is to be blamed for anything it's his failed centralized economic model which was hostile to small businesses. His concessions in the UN and engagements with Pakistan and China are relatively minor factors. His geo strategic blunders primarily affected pride, not empirical economics. However the Indian establishment and people have been unable to leave their emotions aside during critical decision making processes.

    4. Again, this obsession with military gains is a total waste of time. And democracy had absolutely nothing to do with the growth of the services sector. That had more to do with availability of certain cheap technologies after the dot com bust and the prevalence of the English language.

    The bottom line is that China capitalized on their strong points and India didn't.
     
    p2prada, aeroblogger and asianobserve like this.
  11. LurkerBaba

    LurkerBaba Staff Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    6,769
    Likes Received:
    3,678
    Location:
    India
    This is false. India actually has more arable land than China.

    Top 3 Countries by arable land:

    United States - 1,650,062 km^2
    India - 1,451,810 km^2
    China - 1,385,905 km^2

    Land use statistics by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
    satish007 likes this.
  12. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    Really, that's all there is to it? China went through the same centralized socialistic economic policies that India did; in fact, Maoist policies were infinitely more hare-brained and counter-productive than any Nehruvian policy. But China somehow managed to get a near 100% literacy rate by the 70s - which played a decisive role in subsequent economic liberalization and industrialization - while India's literacy rate and primary education still lagged behind. The speed and efficiency with which the CCP is able to implement measures and carry out policies is truly remarkable, and is something that few other developing countries are able to do. India with its fumbling-bumbling democracy and ineffective government is certainly not able to compete.

    So no, that's not all that there is to it.
     
    p2prada and Energon like this.
  13. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    Also, why the hell should India become a "superpower"? Will our souls not find peace until we make the rest of the world realize how awesome we are? Should every country in the world aspire to become another America?
     
  14. Bangalorean

    Bangalorean Stars and Ambassadors Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,207
    Likes Received:
    6,497
    It would be completely incorrect to say that China and India went through the "same centralized socialistic policies".

    Real communist countries have always had this characteristic - they deliver good literacy/education, good healthcare and HDI, a large military, but everything else is pathetic. No industrial base (apart from military industrial complex), no consumer goods, and so on.

    NehruGandhi economics however, had the characteristic of picking the worst of both economic models. Neither were we able to speed up on the basics like education and HDI, nor were we able to build a good industrial and services base. All we had were a few islands of education like the IITs which hardly benefited India, if one were to look at it dispassionately. They did help in creating a massive Indian diaspora though.

    India has had the same fumbling-bumbling democracy and ineffective government since the beginning. Yet India does much better today, even though the fumbling-bumbling democracy is much worse today (coalitions etc.) when compared to the NehruGandhi era, when the discourse was always dominated by the Congress party!
     
    parijataka likes this.
  15. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    422
    No, Chinese leaders are not that farsighted. They just tried more experiments, made more mistakes and learned more from 1895.
    Besides, the pressure from Chinese public upon them are far more huge than india's. That gives these leaders more motivation to take risk!


    I believe the bottom line is that the majority of Chinese public is willing to pay the price and indians don't.
     
    parijataka likes this.
  16. opesys

    opesys Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    138
    As an Indian I totally agree! In my opinion people have some sort of fear that things could get much worse if risks are taken...people are trying to make the best out of the worst things that are there...somehow make a living and getting through...
    The hope that I have is for sure a day will come when people will unite and will take risk and set things right once and for all...

    As of today in many areas China is ahead of India but it is with all its best effort...and India is not too much behind China at the same time and the best effort of India is yet to be put...
     
  17. satish007

    satish007 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    202
    Location:
    China
    India still has huge potential on food produce if she depends less on monsoon
     
  18. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    It's possible I'm giving the Chinese leaders more credit than they deserve because I'm an outside observer. But no matter what, if you put the entire picture into perspective, what they achieved is very, very impressive.

    Leaders make mistakes, that is an incontrovertible fact, but IMO what separates good leaders from bad leaders is how they react after a mistake is made. Up until the 80s China's economic policies were terrible, and I have no doubt that the CCP cabal was well aware that if things did not change it would lead to a cataclysmic collapse just like the USSR. But the fact that they went out there took the uncharted path (after carefully studying it of course) and unshackled the chains of dogma is very impressive. We haven't seen anything like this before or certainly not to this scale.

    I agree with you that the pressure upon the Chinese government from its people is far greater than in India, but the more important point is why. Whenever you have a totalitarian system where the state is governed by one undisputed party, there are certain pressures. Now of course the primary tool of a totalitarian system is fear, and there's plenty of that in China. However in addition to fear an authoritarian government cannot sustain itself unless it meets one of two requirements: 1. They either keep the people occupied or 2. keep the people isolated. Propaganda of course is the key to achieve both these things however propaganda only goes so far. Up until the 80s the Chinese establishment operated on the second principle (like most authoritarian states), but then they switched and used economic prosperity to keep the people occupied. This may sound simple but there are very few instances (if any) where this has actually happened. So regardless of what motivates change the fact that it was carried out successfully is a gargantuan task which deserves a lot of credit.


    This is a very broad statement and I don't know what exactly you mean, but the vague answer here would be yes and no. If you're suggesting that the Chinese people are more industrious and willing to work harder than their Indian counterparts then, you're mistaken. Everyone wants to believe that productivity is inherent because this explanation provides the opportunity to either self gratify or deride others. This theory also makes for great propaganda. However in reality this theory is woefully simplistic and inadequate. There is a social/cultural element, but this is not it.

    Evidence shows that productivity is far, far more dependent upon structural/environmental factors than intrinsic qualities; and it all comes down to the ratio between the incentive to work and the reward. What separates China from India is how much more successful the Chinese establishment has been in managing this critical ratio of incentive: reward. And this is what I mean when I say China has played to its strengths and India hasn't. This is also where you can say the Indian people haven't stepped up.

    China's topography and its long periods of isolation has shaped a culture of great conformity which in turn means better mass action. However these attributes are useless in the absence of a responsible authoritative entity that can channel this advantage. The Chinese government has been excellent in fulfilling their role and they've managed to successfully unleash the potential of their society. They have also realized that unless they provide some (albeit heavily regulated) freedom to the people the incentive to work will be low. In the West there is a tendency to perceive the dynamic between the Chinese workers, their employers and the government as being dystopic and a form of cruel slavery. But what people don't realize here is that authoritarianism has existed in the Chinese culture for a long time and although the Chinese government is autocratic they work hard to manage this delicate balance of freedom and conformity in order to get the best out of their society without hurting the people or being overly hostile towards them. Mind you things may change, there's no guarantee that the subsequent generations will be willing to tolerate a paternalistic government, but so far the CCP has been very wise in their approach.

    India's topography and history has negated uniformity. However the heterogeneity has spawned a culture of symbiosis among smaller groups that is more dependent upon market forces than government. Obviously what India needs is an economic model that promotes entrepreneurship and small businesses with the government's role limited to infrastructure, law and order (including regulation in certain economic sectors) and defense. However unlike in China where the primary responsibility lies with the all encompassing government to direct its people, in India's case the responsibility rests with the people to direct their government and ensure that it works properly. This is where the Indian people have fallen short. Their complacency has given rise to a ruling class that has way too much control and where they work only to enrich themselves. Also instead of adopting the appropriate economic model to optimize productivity they have taken precisely the opposite approach that suppresses the inherent advantages of the society.

    Eventually it comes down to self awareness. The Chinese society is more aware of its identity and they have adopted all the things that work for them. In their model the responsibility lies with the government, and clearly the government has delivered and the people in turn have made the best of it. In India the responsibility primarily rests with the people but the people have not fulfilled their role and instead the government has made the best of it, but not in a good way. Even with these so called reforms things are still half assed which is why there are pockets of heavy growth but overall there's no real fundamental change. This is why this talk of the "dragon and the elephant" is laughable. The dragon is truly awake, the elephant isn't.

    I often find myself labeled as someone who is overly optimistic about China and someone who obsesses over the good parts and glosses over the bad. This may be true up to a certain extent, and I admit that there are some serious problems that were exposed in the Bo Xilai debacle. But overall my money is on China and I'm pretty confident that China will be a superpower in the next 2 decades.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2012
    p2prada likes this.
  19. Energon

    Energon DFI stars Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,199
    Likes Received:
    760
    damn, that post is way too long
     
  20. opesys

    opesys Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2012
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    138
    very well thought reply...

    I totally agree...As I pointed out in of the other posts, people in India somehow fear things could get much worse if they try to reform things now. If there is small opportunity people are happy and sort of content with that small opportunity and are leading their life just with that...somehow this mentality should change... People should be made aware that their life can be much better if they take some risks and set things right...

    looking at the today's forecast it's wise to put your money on China for now but only time will tell what will happen... Somehow I am not a big fan of Chinese govt (I am not talking about the people). They are simply too arrogant and ruthless...
     
  21. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    A bit OT, but I don't fully buy the 'topography' argument for explaining why China is so homogeneous and India is not. The topography of China and India are actually quite similar, with a large, heavily-populated northern plain (Indo-Gangetic plain and North China plain), more hilly and less-populated southern regions, and an arid/mountainous frontier in the north and northwest which was often a route for invasions. The topography argument would better explain why Europe was never unified like China and instead developed into a system of independent nation-states, but IMO it doesn't suffice in India's case.

    A few maps. Look at India compared to China. Several regions of India are actually flatter and more accessible than their Chinese counterparts:
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    In order to understand India's lack of homogeneity, we need to look at historic socio-cultural factors rather than rely on geographic determinism. Indian kings were historically restricted in their ability to exercise power by the concept of raj dharma, while no similar restrictions existed for Chinese rulers. This was further exacerbated by the caste system/chaturvarna, which placed brahmins above kshatriyas (kings) and made the brahmins the ultimate source of legitimacy for the kings, while in the Chinese case the Emperor was the ultimate sovereign with no one above him. These factors allowed Chinese rulers to centralize power to a great degree, while Indian rulers traditionally did the opposite and devolved power to local units. The consequence of this was that the Chinese were able to build a monolithic state capable of carrying out great projects (like the Great Wall) and mobilizing vast amounts of resources, which Indian polities could not do. The lack of a historical precedent for a strong Indian state has consequences even today, as we can see by comparing the performance of China (which has a long tradition of centralized governance and the carrying out of massive state projects) with India (which has no comparable tradition).

    This is a highly simplified comparison but the general picture is correct.
     
    LETHALFORCE, Energon and W.G.Ewald like this.

Share This Page