a view on why india cannot be a superpower anytime soon- open magazine

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Quick thoughts,
Personally, I feel the concept of superpower is redundant in this increasingly globalised and interdependent world. The future will be a multi-overlapping-polar world. Where countries will be considered adversaries on certain issues and allies on others. (Eg India-China are friendly on climate change)

As per Miller:
The basic components of superpower stature may be measured along four axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural.

1. Military - Militarily India is getting stronger and stronger, however it has been able to project itself as peaceful. India due to its co-operation with Israelis, Europeans, Americans and Russians has been able to access cutting edge technology. It has also been accepted as a nuclear power, without having to sign NPT or CTBT.
Issues - Adversaries using Pakistan as a proxy forces India to concentrate on the region.

2. Economic - India's economy is improving y-o-y. It relies on domestic demand rather than exports to drive economic growth, which assures growth but not at break neck speed a la China.
Issues - With globalisation, India's domestic manufacutring can be overwhelmed by cheap Asian exports.

3. Political - India today enjoys a robust democracy, celebrated worldwide. The people have tremendous faith in the institutions and this democracy is a binding glue of India.
Issues - Rise of regional parties, and increasing corruption has the potential for rupturing the faith of the masses.

4. Cultural - THere is no doubt that India has always fascinated people world wide. India has not only captured but fired the imagination of people worldwide. India culturally continues to flourish and generate goodwill.
Issues - India still has not been a major mass trendsetter.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
499
Singhji, I think in the immediate future, world will be multi-polar the way you described. But in longer term say, 50-70yrs, the world will settle down and there will be 1 or 2 or 3 superpowers. The superpowers of that time may not resemble the superpowers of now, but I think right now the world is in a transitional phase and will settle down soon to a new world order. It would be interesting to see whether India figures out on top. My intuition is that it will.
 

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
89
Country flag
SORRY MATE I DONT AGREE WITH UR VIEWPOINT HERE . WITH ECONOMIC POWER COMES MILITRARY POWER ... and for japan they had pact with usa plus their governemnt was pre-occupied with nation building post wwr2
No it doesn't. The nation building was completed decades ago. Don't use that as an excuse today.

PLZ rember that americe became power not because of its military but because of economic and same goes for USSR which lost is power status because it wasnt economically strong
America has the guts to take the most bold decisions to convert all that economic might to Military power. Money alone doesn't make one powerful.
If India becomes the world's most economic powerful nation in the future, and is faced a situation like 1962 Cuban missile crisis, would our dear leader MMS be taking a bold decision to engage the Soviet Warships? He'd say something like "India is the world's leading economic power and we should not fall for war which could damage that and get lot of people killed". America was willing to risk their economy and population for a nuclear war in a simple act of storing missiles which does not break any treaties!!. Infact U.S had the guts to store missiles in Europe facing Soviet Union while threatening nuclear war when Soviet Union does the same. India would never have the guts to do that in a Billion years!

And it's a misconception that economy alone lead Soviet union to it's demise. The economic problems were present throughout the 80's(infact the soviet military budget in 1988(a year before the true process started) was one of the largest, IIRC), but what tipped the balance was spineless leadership under Gorbachev who gave into what he called "democracy" & "people's will". Soviet Union & the Iron curtain was essentially territories got during the Czar's era & WW2. Once you open the pandora's box of "people's desire" over an empire build on military might, your empire was going to disintegrate. Add together the power struggle with Boris Yeltsin, who was keen to see the Union gone so that he could be premiere of Russia. Even during the last minute coup to save the empire, Gorbachev sided with Yeltsin, because he termed it something as "military oppression of voice of people". When the berlin wall was about to be breached, Stasi and KGB were all well prepared with their under cover agents, along with the military, to crush the revolt, and waited for the order to move in. But the order never came from Gorbachev. Be it in Romania, or East Germany.. Soviet union lost the military will to impose it's strength on those client states during that time. Go and ask any Russian historian(not the ones settled in the west) what would have happened- If Khrushchev was in power in the 80's would Soviet union have disintegrated? The Answer would be a resounding- NO!

Indian needs three things to survive the eventual onslaught from its western and eastern neighbors.
1. Strong Military
2. Strong Leadership
3 Strong Economy
You forgot the
4: Resources.

An important super power attribute is the ability to fight prolonged wars. Soviet union(even now Russia) and the U.S have huge resources, including Oil and Gas. Infact, U.S was the largest producer of Oil and Gas before Oil was discovered in the Middle east. In a prolonged war, both Russia and U.S can safely depend on their own resources. India or even China have to risk their sea lanes, not to mention convince the oil producing countries to give them Oil. Or should do what the Germans & Japanese did, conquer territories for Oil & other resources. India conquering territories is like saying- India will become a super power. Both are equally lame statements.
Check out the amount of Military production of Soviet Union and U.S during the Second world war. It would make you lose your mind. It's mind boggling!!!! No wonder these 2 went on to become Super powers.

Tanks(primary)
Soviet Union 105,251
United States 88,410
United Kingdom 27,896
Canada 5,678
Germany 67,429
Japan 2,515
Italy 2,473
Hungary 500

Tanks(secondary)
Soviet Union 92,595
United States 71,067
United Kingdom -
Canada -
Germany 43,920
Japan -
Italy -
Hungary -

Artillery
Soviet Union 516,648
United States 257,390
United Kingdom 124,877
Canada 10,552
Germany 159,147
Japan 13,350
Italy 7,200
Hungary 447


Military Aircrafts
Soviet Union 157,261
United States 324,750
United Kingdom 131,549
Canada 16,431
Germany 119,307 Also 3,172 V-2 rockets and 10,000 V-1
Japan 76,320
Italy 11,122
Hungary 1,046

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II


What this means is:

1: Self sufficiency is important. You should not only be self sufficient in Technology and Knowledge, but you should also be self sufficient in Resources. India lacks that. See Japan & Germany, which had the most intelligent people at that time to build them war machines, but they lacked oil resources.. even the resources in conquered territories of Japan and Germany couldn't match the superpowers.

2: In the above link, the economic GDP of Soviet Union and Germany was the same, but see the production figures is heavily lopsided in favor of Soviet union. Also after the war Soviet Union was in shambles... the U.S GDP was more than 4 Times Larger than Soviet Union(Britain and Soviet Union had the same GDP), but still Soviet Union went on to Challenge not only the U.S but U.K, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, pretty much everybody and earned the Title of Super Power! Amazing!! Just goes to show money ain't everything.

3: The Axis, were at a serious disadvantage. Only Germany had a decent resources & production. Japan although larger in population than Germany, was lacking in natural resources and couldn't even match Germany(which was lucky due to Sweden and conquered territories). Poor Germany had to take on the 2 Monsters all alone. You know, that's really AMAZING, eventhough they were on the Dark Side.

4: "The Soviet Union is richly endowed with almost every major category of natural resource. Drawing upon its vast holdings, it has become the world leader in the production of oil, iron ore, manganese, and asbestos. It has the world's largest proven reserves of natural gas, and it is rapidly catching up to the United States in the production of this increasingly important fuel. It has enormous coal reserves and is in second place in coal production (see fig. 7).

Self-sufficiency has traditionally been a powerful stimulus for exploring and developing the country's huge, yet widely dispersed, resource base. It remains a source of national pride that the Soviet Union, alone among the industrialized countries of the world, can claim the ability to satisfy almost all the requirements of its economy using its own natural resources. "
http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12473.html
 
Last edited:

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
The probability of India becoming a super power in future is ZERO! It will end up like Japan, a militarily passive state but a economic power. To become a super power, you need a lot of balls apart from economic might to back that up. India, or rather Indians in general, are only interested in making money, not becoming world leaders while taking huge risks in such an endeavor... and that is not going to change for the next 1000 years atleast.
dont see any ting wrong about being an economic superpower ...in fact to be a military super is a hell of a burden ...better to be an econ super but uinlike japan india will not be tied down militarily, in other words , econ super but militarily can develop and deploy weapons without being expected to do so ....it's the best deal !
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
Singhji, I think in the immediate future, world will be multi-polar the way you described. But in longer term say, 50-70yrs, the world will settle down and there will be 1 or 2 or 3 superpowers. The superpowers of that time may not resemble the superpowers of now, but I think right now the world is in a transitional phase and will settle down soon to a new world order. It would be interesting to see whether India figures out on top. My intuition is that it will.
interesting ..... my view is that many countries will be able to arm themselves and obtain sufficient deterrent be it nuclear or otherwise , so the main competition will be economic and the the ability to innovate and produce. I think india's cultural heritage which is against militarism but it's talented people who have an innovative slant will show the world. ! i think china will show up as merely a copy-cat and therein the world can see the difference , just my angle
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
And it's a misconception that economy alone lead Soviet union to it's demise. The economic problems were present throughout the 80's(infact the soviet military budget in 1988(a year before the true process started) was one of the largest, IIRC), but what tipped the balance was spineless leadership under Gorbachev who gave into what he called "democracy" & "people's will". Soviet Union & the Iron curtain was essentially territories got during the Czar's era & WW2. Once you open the pandora's box of "people's desire" over an empire build on military might, your empire was going to disintegrate. Add together the power struggle with Boris Yeltsin, who was keen to see the Union gone so that he could be premiere of Russia. Even during the last minute coup to save the empire, Gorbachev sided with Yeltsin, because he termed it something as "military oppression of voice of people". When the berlin wall was about to be breached, Stasi and KGB were all well prepared with their under cover agents, along with the military, to crush the revolt, and waited for the order to move in. But the order never came from Gorbachev. Be it in Romania, or East Germany.. Soviet union lost the military will to impose it's strength on those client states during that time. Go and ask any Russian historian(not the ones settled in the west) what would have happened- If Khrushchev was in power in the 80's would Soviet union have disintegrated? The Answer would be a resounding- NO!

]
fulcrum - tahnks for the article - my reply or ripost is that the russians couldnt stand the higher birthrates of their southers muslim minorities and it was also an wthnic issue besides economic.
what the russians did in giving the former " colonies" independence was to still hold on to the massive resources and strategic territory of the Russian Federation while conveniently gettting rid of a potential ethnic time bomb . the only muslim minority they now have to deal with is chechenya ...imagine if the chechens had internal support from the other khazaks , uzbeks , tajiks within the union , the russians saved themselves all that trouble in one clean move - give them independence.
 

GokuInd

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
174
Likes
41
fulcrum - tahnks for the article - my reply or ripost is that the russians couldnt stand the higher birthrates of their southers muslim minorities and it was also an wthnic issue besides economic.
what the russians did in giving the former " colonies" independence was to still hold on to the massive resources and strategic territory of the Russian Federation while conveniently gettting rid of a potential ethnic time bomb . the only muslim minority they now have to deal with is chechenya ...imagine if the chechens had internal support from the other khazaks , uzbeks , tajiks within the union , the russians saved themselves all that trouble in one clean move - give them independence.

I think it wasn't solely the demographic factor to decide the outcome of the late U.S.S.R. I think lack of political devolution for such a huge mass of territory that had to be governed accounted for the inevitable downfall of the Soviet Union.
 

fulcrum

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
191
Likes
89
Country flag
dont see any ting wrong about being an economic superpower ...in fact to be a military super is a hell of a burden ...better to be an econ super but uinlike japan india will not be tied down militarily, in other words , econ super but militarily can develop and deploy weapons without being expected to do so ....it's the best deal !
Except you can't use the word "Super Power" anymore. A Super Power is mainly military powered state with a reasonable Economy. You can be a Super Power with a 'ok' economy, but you definitely need to have a Earth Shattering military if you are earning for the Super power title. Military is the key.

India will become an economic power in future, and that's it. We lack several key attributes to become a super power. Too soft, inept leadership, Lack of Resources, Over population, our Society's Mindset atlarge etc.. etc.

fulcrum - tahnks for the article - my reply or ripost is that the russians couldnt stand the higher birthrates of their southers muslim minorities and it was also an wthnic issue besides economic.
what the russians did in giving the former " colonies" independence was to still hold on to the massive resources and strategic territory of the Russian Federation while conveniently gettting rid of a potential ethnic time bomb . the only muslim minority they now have to deal with is chechenya ...imagine if the chechens had internal support from the other khazaks , uzbeks , tajiks within the union , the russians saved themselves all that trouble in one clean move - give them independence.
I think it wasn't solely the demographic factor to decide the outcome of the late U.S.S.R. I think lack of political devolution for such a huge mass of territory that had to be governed accounted for the inevitable downfall of the Soviet Union.
Nah.. those prime resources & land is not something you can let go. Here's an example of a prime resource -Uranium- for countries. What is a Super power without Nukes right? While India(which was begging NSG to allow re-process the waste), even china imports Uranium, while these states have them in plenty.

# 1 Australia: 1,074,000 tonnes
# 2 Kazakhstan: 622,000 tonnes
# 3 Canada: 439,000 tonnes
# 4 South Africa: 298,000 tonnes
# 5 Namibia: 213,000 tonnes
# 6 Russia: 158,000 tonnes
# 7 Brazil: 143,000 tonnes
# 8 United States: 102,000 tonnes
# 9 Uzbekistan: 93,000 tonnes

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ura_pro_res-energy-uranium-proved-reserves

Although split up, Kazakhstan, Uzbek is still firmly within Russia's palms. Same can be said About Australia and U.S.


OTOH, you can list many causes, but the main, Key factor which tipped the balance and lead to disintegration was the leadership.
 
Last edited:

vinit

New Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
1
Likes
0
The truth however hard to swallow is we are not ready to be a superpower yet

We still do not have a viable military industrial complex
We still have little influence in our own neighborhood(leave out Bhutan)
We still do not have a coherent national geopolitical strategy(at least none that's inherently visible)
We have not suppressed our internal militancies completely yet
We still are not financially, politically and militarily capable and secure enough to take the mantle of policeman for the entire region

In the spiderman story Peter parker learns that "with great power comes great responsibility" the question is are we ready to assume that responsibility yet?
.................yes india is not a superpower now and we are working on the way to become a super power. yes you all points are true if it would have been flase we would have already be a super power according to you.

i dont understant why ppl think only military power will make us super power and going into some war and wining it will make us super power. england was from wining side of WW2 but it lost it position as a super power.If we want to be a great nation we have to educate aur ppl,we have 2 remove poverty ,end corruption ,bring social equality. flexing musle wont make us super power ,china is becoming gaint economic and military power but they execute there own ppl for voicing thr opinion ....do you want to become same?
 

tiranga

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
251
Likes
73
Just serch for potential superpowers in wiki, India is there, that type of list are not created by some drunks like the writer of this article is, remember goldman sachs?? it predicted something similar about 15 years ago, about India, many laughed,many discussed and many criticized it, but ultimately it came out to be true, the goal of becoming superpower is not to lead a few neighbouring states but the entire world, and no nothing is a dream, infact we are on the way to become one, ppl. mostly make up such shit bcoz of external factors in which we are heavily paralyzed like infra,power,security ,but thats changing and infra is one of the main goals of this 5 year term, as far as loosers and haters are concerned, let them cry and scream, India already is an influential power, it doesnt beat drums like China and as most of the western media is busy showing the might of China that India is left out, and thats how a few jokers conclude such articles, anyways, time will tell.. we are still in a situation where china used to be in mid 1990s, infra change,political change and a hope for a bright future. Something similar would happen here, I think its the extreme hatered and years of brainwashing of "India is poor" image that doesnt let anyine to believe that... as far as bengalraider is concerned, well played my friend I really liked your jokes.. keep them coming
 

JAISWAL

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
1,527
Likes
1,027
why this two year old thread had been opened to discuss some which is discussed here before in detail.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Fine.

Since it has been revived, let it roll!
 

balai_c

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
420
Likes
462
The open magazine article in my opinion is a typical case of self flagellation. Granted we also have many problems,but the fact is , so does all developing countries. Western countries are not exactly an exception to this rule. We are ignoring the path of development taken by major world powers of today. Lets take japan for an example, we all saw how japan turned around as a nation after the second world war. But what did not observe was that japan already had a highly trained and literate population, something India did not have during early days of independance.
I do admit that we need a corruption free, prosperous India. But there is something to ponder over here-British Empire did not establish in one day. Thomas Row came to India in 1604, but the Brits struck us in 1757,a full 153 years later. Thats how superpowers are formed, we must keep improving silently, without boasting. Infact a little selfdeprication is ok. Japan made the mistake of rushing to form the empire. Thats why they got defeated. They fought against the entire brotherhood of west.
 

addiction

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
137
Likes
44
we have already become a superpower....who else in this world has exposed scandals like we Indians in last five years? ...seems ours is the only efficient system that exists today!
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Is India really ready to be a superpower?

If so, how?
 

NSG_Blackcats

Member of The Month OCTOBER 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
3,489
Likes
1,559
We are not a Super Power and should not behave like one. It's a phrase created mostly by media. If anyone believes in this super power concept he needs a reality check.

I will put India as a regional power which will have a considerable influence on events affecting the whole World
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top