China and India :The Contest of the century

[Ray]

What difference does it make as to which civilisation was older and which was not.

What is the current situation of that civilisation is what matters!

 

[jatkshatriya]

Aryan Invasion theory is Crap

 

[nimo_cn]

What difference does it make as to which civilisation was older and which was not.

What is the current situation of that civilisation is what matters!

Well said!

Why are people so fond of dwelling on the past?

 

[Patriot]

Spendings stuck, India trails China in firepower

BY: The Indian Express Limited

A year after China paraded its military might to mark 60 years of Communist rule, an internal study by South Block shows that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is way ahead of India in terms of strategic missiles, artillery, development of indigenous military hardware and acquisition. This comparison study has been shared with the UPA government at the highest levels.

China's defence budget, pegged at $77.5 billion, is more than twice that of India's $32-billion but its 2009 military parade has set off alarm bells in Delhi given the shortcomings in indigenous production capability and gaps in acquisition of military hardware — for a few years now, the Defence Ministry has not been able to spend the allocated capital for modernisation of the armed forces.

This is what the internal study found:

The PLA has a clear lead over the Indian Army in terms of infantry weapons, armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and artillery guns.

The Army has no answer to the Chinese QBZ-97 Type 97-2 5.8/5.56 mm anti-riot gun, the AK-74 modified QBZ-95 Type 95 automatic rifle, the M-16 NATO rifle modification Type 95B carbine.

The 9 mm Indian Army sub-machine gun (SMG) is considered inferior to the Chinese Type 5 sound-dampener 9 mm SMG, a modified version of the German Heckler & Koch MP 5 SMG. The original HK MP-5 is used by the Special Protection Group in India.

The Indian 5.56 mm INSAS is considered superior to the Chinese 7.62 mm (Type 85) assault rifles but the PLA QBZ-95 automatic rifle is better than the Indian 7.62 mm standard issue rifle.

Indians and Chinese are even when it comes to armour on display. The Arjun main battle tank is better than the Chinese third-generation ZTZ-99G MBT, a modification of the Russian T-72 battle tank. The Indian T-90 is superior to the Chinese ZTZ-96 A MBT in terms of firepower and accuracy. Even an Indian T-72 is a match.

India has no answer to China's ZRD-05 tracked amphibious assault vehicles, ZBD-03 tracked AB paratroopers combat vehicle and WJ-03B wheeled armed vehicle used by the Snow Leopard Commando units.

China's tracked APCs are superior to Indian APCs as they are copies of the Russian BMP-III — India still uses the Russian BMP-I with a 30 mm cannon and anti-tank guided missile.

On the artillery front, the Indian Army can't match the PLZ-05 155-mm tracked self-propelled (SP) howitzer, PLZ-07 122-mm tracked SP howitzer, PLL-05 120-mm wheeled SP mortar and PTL-02 100-mm wheeled SP howitzer. Both countries use the same Russian 300-mm multiple launch rocket system.

The two armies are evenly matched when it comes to anti-tank guided missiles and anti-aircraft guns. PLA's Red Arrow missile is a notch below the NAG anti-tank missile; the Indian air defence gun ZSU-2S6M1 has an edge over the Chinese PGZ-04A gun.

India is still developing the Sagarika long-range missile as an answer to the Chinese DF-31A ICBM. Indian cruise missiles like Brahmos suffer from range limitations while the Chinese DH-10 land attack cruise missile can strike targets beyond 1,500 km. The YJ-83 anti-ship missile has a 500-km range.

New Delhi has no answer to the YJ-62 A shore-based anti-ship cruise missile with a range of over 300 km. But the Agni series of short range, medium range and intermediate range missiles are more than a match for the Chinese DF-11A SRBM, DF-15A SRBM, DF-21C MRBM.

Chinese fighters J-7, J-8 and J-10 are either equal to or a notch below the IAF MiG-21, MiG-27 and Mirages. The PLA's J-11B fighter has an equal in the IAF SU-30. The Indian Jaguar deep penetration strike aircraft is more than a match for the Chinese JH-7A Flying Leopard. IAF refuellers and AWACS are far superior to the Chinese HY-6 refuellers and KJ-2000 early warning aircraft.

 

[Ray]

If that is the internal study, then what is the GoI doing to ensure parity?

 

[tony4562]

Spendings stuck, India trails China in firepower

BY: The Indian Express Limited

A year after China paraded its military might to mark 60 years of Communist rule, an internal study by South Block shows that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is way ahead of India in terms of strategic missiles, artillery, development of indigenous military hardware and acquisition. This comparison study has been shared with the UPA government at the highest levels.

China's defence budget, pegged at $77.5 billion, is more than twice that of India's $32-billion but its 2009 military parade has set off alarm bells in Delhi given the shortcomings in indigenous production capability and gaps in acquisition of military hardware — for a few years now, the Defence Ministry has not been able to spend the allocated capital for modernisation of the armed forces.

This is what the internal study found:

The PLA has a clear lead over the Indian Army in terms of infantry weapons, armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and artillery guns.

The Army has no answer to the Chinese QBZ-97 Type 97-2 5.8/5.56 mm anti-riot gun, the AK-74 modified QBZ-95 Type 95 automatic rifle, the M-16 NATO rifle modification Type 95B carbine.

The 9 mm Indian Army sub-machine gun (SMG) is considered inferior to the Chinese Type 5 sound-dampener 9 mm SMG, a modified version of the German Heckler & Koch MP 5 SMG. The original HK MP-5 is used by the Special Protection Group in India.

The Indian 5.56 mm INSAS is considered superior to the Chinese 7.62 mm (Type 85) assault rifles but the PLA QBZ-95 automatic rifle is better than the Indian 7.62 mm standard issue rifle.

Indians and Chinese are even when it comes to armour on display. The Arjun main battle tank is better than the Chinese third-generation ZTZ-99G MBT, a modification of the Russian T-72 battle tank. The Indian T-90 is superior to the Chinese ZTZ-96 A MBT in terms of firepower and accuracy. Even an Indian T-72 is a match.

India has no answer to China's ZRD-05 tracked amphibious assault vehicles, ZBD-03 tracked AB paratroopers combat vehicle and WJ-03B wheeled armed vehicle used by the Snow Leopard Commando units.

China's tracked APCs are superior to Indian APCs as they are copies of the Russian BMP-III — India still uses the Russian BMP-I with a 30 mm cannon and anti-tank guided missile.

On the artillery front, the Indian Army can't match the PLZ-05 155-mm tracked self-propelled (SP) howitzer, PLZ-07 122-mm tracked SP howitzer, PLL-05 120-mm wheeled SP mortar and PTL-02 100-mm wheeled SP howitzer. Both countries use the same Russian 300-mm multiple launch rocket system.

The two armies are evenly matched when it comes to anti-tank guided missiles and anti-aircraft guns. PLA's Red Arrow missile is a notch below the NAG anti-tank missile; the Indian air defence gun ZSU-2S6M1 has an edge over the Chinese PGZ-04A gun.

India is still developing the Sagarika long-range missile as an answer to the Chinese DF-31A ICBM. Indian cruise missiles like Brahmos suffer from range limitations while the Chinese DH-10 land attack cruise missile can strike targets beyond 1,500 km. The YJ-83 anti-ship missile has a 500-km range.

New Delhi has no answer to the YJ-62 A shore-based anti-ship cruise missile with a range of over 300 km. But the Agni series of short range, medium range and intermediate range missiles are more than a match for the Chinese DF-11A SRBM, DF-15A SRBM, DF-21C MRBM.

Chinese fighters J-7, J-8 and J-10 are either equal to or a notch below the IAF MiG-21, MiG-27 and Mirages. The PLA's J-11B fighter has an equal in the IAF SU-30. The Indian Jaguar deep penetration strike aircraft is more than a match for the Chinese JH-7A Flying Leopard. IAF refuellers and AWACS are far superior to the Chinese HY-6 refuellers and KJ-2000 early warning aircraft.

If india's crusade to match China in everything includes firepower of a hand gun, then I think it is clearly a form of obsession.

 

[Patriot]

China-in-Pakistan to hinder India’s growth and power - Opinion - DNA


As tensions mount in East Asia between China and Japan and Beijing makes it clear that it intends to defy international opinion to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, something seems to be changing in New Delhi too.

Our sage-like prime minister who has previously described China as India's greatest neighbour has now been suggesting that Beijing could be tempted to use India's "soft underbelly," Kashmir, and Pakistan, "to keep India in low-level equilibrium".

Our ultra-cautious defence minister has admitted that "there has been an increasing assertiveness on the part of China". After trying to push significant divergences with China under the carpet for years, Indian decision-makers are being forced to acknowledge that relationship with China is becoming increasingly contentious. The challenge now is to understand China and its motivations clearly.

Divisions within China about the future course of its foreign policy are starker than before. It is now being suggested that much like young Japanese officers in the 1930s, young Chinese military officers are increasingly taking charge of strategy with the result that rapid military growth is shaping broader foreign policy objectives. Civil-military relations are under stress with the PLA asserting its pride more forcefully and demanding respect from other states. "A country needs respect, and a military also needs respect," wrote a major-general recently in the PLA's paper.

It is also possible that China's aggression is a symbol of its weaknesses, a result of its sense of internal vulnerabilities. The clampdown on media and internal dissent is stronger than ever before. Troubled regions of Tibet and Xinjiang are being tightly controlled. And in that context the very success of India poses a challenge.

While the Chinese Communist Party can continue to self-righteously claim that the western model of political and economic governance is not an ideal one, it is more difficult to counter the Indian model which offers a different pattern of development, and in a democratic framework. In that sense, it's a battle of ideas between China and India as much as anything else.

Though China overtook Japan as the world's second-largest economy as far back as 2001 in purchasing power parity terms, it was last month that China bypassed Japan in terms of nominal GDP measured in current exchange rate terms. By 2020 China is expected to be the largest economic partner of every single country in the Asia-Pacific. Measured against this standard, Chinese policy makers, by and large, don't consider Japan and India as competitors.

India is not very important in China's foreign policy calculus and there is a general perception that India can be easily pushed around. The chaos of Indian democracy is seen as reason for India's vacillating foreign policy. New Delhi's actions have strengthened that impression. The Chinese believe that a strong reaction to Indian foreign policy overtures would be enough to
deter New Delhi from countering China's moves.

It is not clear if China has well-defined external policy objectives, though her means, both economic and military, to pursue them, are greater now than at any time in the recent past. Pakistan, of course, has always been a crucial foreign policy asset for China but with India's rise and US-India rapprochement, its role in China's grand strategy is bound to grow.

There is no need for India to counter China by matching weapon for weapon or bluster for bluster. India will have to look inwards to prepare for the China challenge. After all, China has not prevented India from pursing economic reforms and decisive governance, developing its infrastructure and border areas, and from intelligently investing in military capabilities. If India could deal with the China challenge in 1987, when there was a real border standoff between the two, there should be less need for alarm today when India is a much stronger nation, economically and militarily.

A resurgent India of 2010 needs new reference points to manage its complex relationship with the superpower-in-waiting China. A start can be made by making the Henderson-Brooks Commission report public so that an honest debate can commence on China and the challenge it poses.

India will also have to work more purposefully with other powers, most notably the US, in countering China. After the initial hoopla about a G2, China's relationship with the US has also soured. The recent Chinese bluster on the issue of South China Sea too provides an opening for New Delhi to cultivate security ties with countries in East Asia. Given the legitimate interests that all regional states have in such an undertaking, cooperation in this realm will be easier to achieve.

China's Global Times had warned last year that "India needs to consider whether or not it can afford the consequences of a potential confrontation with China." India should raise the stakes high enough so that instead of New Delhi, it's Beijing that is forced to consider seriously the consequences of a potential confrontation.

 

[ajtr]

Race to the Top: What Sets China and India Apart?​

Published: September 23, 2010 in India Knowledge@Wharton

Despite their challenges, China and India are winning more important roles on the global stage. However, according to management professors Nandani Lynton of CEIBS in Shanghai and Jitendra V. Singh of the Wharton School, India is outperforming China in the number of senior executives at leading multinational corporations. In this opinion piece, they identify five possible explanations for this disparity. China is already addressing some of them, such as gaps in the use of English. Others, like China's inability to work with outsiders, are less susceptible to change. Depending on which factors prove most important, India may have the advantage for some time to come, but it may not take long for China to catch up.

The rise of China and India on the global economic stage in recent years has been nothing short of remarkable. Recent revisions to the original BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India and China) report from Goldman Sachs indicate that both countries will likely reach the ranks of the largest economies in the world faster than originally predicted. In fact, China has already arrived, edging past Japan in the second quarter of this year in terms of GDP to become the second-largest economy, although Japan was still bigger for the first half as a whole. Of course, much could go wrong in the years ahead, and each country faces daunting challenges. Yet, the economic trajectories of both countries seem clearly upward. Indeed, in the recent dramatic downturn that hit most developed countries, China and India continued to grow at respectable rates.

The two countries have some similarities, of course, but their histories, cultures, demographics, and economies are, in fact, quite different. We wondered, then, just how those differences might play out and affect the emergence of China and India on the global economic and cultural scene.

We think a useful place to start is by studying how Indians and Chinese have fared in rising to senior levels in leading multinational corporations. We believe this could hold some important clues to how companies from these two countries may globalize in the future.

We gathered data from the top 50 firms of the Global 500 listed by Fortune magazine for 2009. We excluded Chinese (Sinopec, China National Petroleum, and State Grid) and Indian (ArcelorMittal) companies from the list, since they would quite naturally have many Chinese and Indian senior executives, and our focus is more on foreign multinationals. This left us with 46 firms. By reading their annual reports, corporate governance reports, and other leadership information disclosed on company Web sites, we compiled full lists of "executive committee/senior management" and "board members/board of management" for each firm. We examined the profiles of each person on these lists to determine the number of Chinese and Indians in the group. The results: out of a total of 788 C-suite executives, there were 2 mainland Chinese, 2 North American Chinese, and 13 Indians. Of the 590 board members, 4 were Chinese and 6 were Indian.

While the numbers for both countries are still small in percentage terms, it appears that Indians are more frequently represented at senior levels in multinational firms than Chinese.

We asked why this might be the case, and we have developed some plausible arguments to account for the imbalance. In all, we have identified five key differences that may have a bearing on the global roles that China and India may play in the years ahead.

English Proficiency

One obvious difference relates to English language ability, since that is the language of global business. Until recently, relatively few Chinese spoke English, and business in China is largely conducted in Chinese, although both these factors are changing fast. In contrast, the dominant language of Indian business is English, and the prevalence of English speakers is often cited as one of India's distinctive competencies for international business. This has been amply demonstrated in the swift growth of Indian firms in software services and in business process outsourcing in recent years.

But this pattern is changing. While it is true that India has a longer history than China of the widespread English medium education, the level of English spoken by many graduates in China today is excellent, even for those who have never left the country or worked with non-Chinese. Chinese parents often sacrifice one salary to afford bilingual kindergarten and schools for their child. English language classes for adults in China have spawned such corporate success stories as the New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. and the Wall Street Institute School of English.

Management Education

A second difference is India's longer history of institutions for higher education in management. India is home to the elite Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), which are now well known internationally. Indeed, IIM Ahmedabad was developed through a collaboration with Harvard Business School during the 1960's, and IIM Calcutta commenced in the 1950s with help from the Sloan School of Management at MIT. Consequently, India has been producing professionally trained managers for more than 50 years.

In comparison, while leading Chinese business schools like Qinghua University's School of Economics and Management, Guanghua School of Management at Beijing University, and Antai School of Management at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, to name a few, have long and distinguished histories dating back more than 100 years in some cases, China began establishing modern management education only in the late 1980's. That was when the State University of New York at Buffalo started a joint venture program with Dalian and the European Union entered a joint venture with the Chinese to establish CEMI (the China Europe Management Institute), which then moved to Shanghai and went on to become CEIBS (China Europe International Business School), one of Asia's leading business schools.

During the 1990s, many Chinese universities also established business schools, most with one or more Western partners. The Party School is also an important institution for management and administrative development but is still ideologically and politically based.

So we see a clear difference in the histories of management education: more than 50 years compared with about 20 years. One reflection of that difference may be seen in the leadership of major global business schools outside China and India. Two Indians are deans at such institutions -- Nitin Nohria is the new dean at Harvard Business School and Sushil Kumar was recently named to lead Chicago Booth -- and a third, Dipak Jain, is headed to lead INSEAD after several years as Dean of Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. By contrast, there are no Chinese in similar positions at the very top business schools.

Political and Economic Differences

Thirdly, the lag in the management education timeline may also reflect the differing political-economic realities of China and India. After 1947, the leaders of newly independent India chose a mixed economy as the model for development. While state-controlled firms were ceded certain sectors of the economy, about half the economy was still in the private sector, with profit-driven companies competing in the marketplace. This created demand for the management graduates from the newly formed IIMs, and fostered the spread of management education in India. Management as a favored career choice for young people began gathering steam in the 1970s and has been growing ever since.

By way of contrast, in 1949, at the establishment of the People's Republic of China, the country had been laid waste by invasion and civil war. The Communist Party came to power with an egalitarian ideology and began to rebuild Chinese society. From 1958 to 1962, the unintended effects of Mao's "Great Leap Forward" forced untrained peasants to lead the country into, as it turned out, a rather unsuccessful new industrial and agricultural revolution that resulted in lowered productivity and even famine in many areas. This period was followed by the Cultural Revolution, which interrupted schooling for a decade from 1966 to 1976 while denouncing business and property ownership. In these decades, being a manager or holding a management degree was clearly not an advantage.

Cultural Diversity

Fourthly, we believe culture also played a key role as the social context in each country influenced management development. Indian culture is rather diverse, with a multitude of different linguistic, ethnic, regional, religious, even racial groups that have had to learn to cooperate and coexist in India's noisy democracy. Historically, India received waves of conquerors and colonists who were over time assimilated into Indian society, and there is a long tradition of Indians studying and working overseas. While Indian society can be elitist with influential in-group networks, the workplace, like the society, has become quite inclusive in recent years. In the last decade, the growing services sector, which needed more and more young employees, has served as another leveler across traditional social barriers.

By comparison and rather differently, the Chinese have a relatively more homogeneous, less diverse culture. The country's more monolithic culture, growing from a predominantly Han-Chinese tradition and a deep tendency toward strong hierarchies, does not encourage thinking in new ways or including outsiders. This makes it more difficult to understand new markets, to think creatively, or to accept people who may appear to be eccentrics.The Chinese have a strong in-group focus, meaning that they prefer to work, communicate, and share information with people they know and trust. Outsiders -- who can include people from another department or division even within the same organization, much less from outside the organization or country -- can establish trust only over time. These cultural patterns slow down the appreciation of different ways of thinking and being and thereby also slow the kind of cross-fertilization and cooperation that multinationals tap to boost innovation.

Demographics

Finally, perhaps plain differences in demographics can explain the lower frequency of senior Chinese executives at multinational firms. Given the dearth of Chinese managers who can also speak English, any multinational lucky enough to have them likely wants to keep them in China. A much-quoted McKinsey report from 2005, "Addressing China's Looming Talent Shortage," claimed that China was short some 750,000 managers. The report estimated that China and India have a similar number of college and advanced-degree graduates but in India, 25% of engineering graduates have the level of training that qualifies them to work for an MNC, whereas the number in China was just 10%.

India has plenty of experienced and high-potential managers who can work in English.

Companies send them out easily -- even to China (Dinesh Paliwal, who was head of ABB's pulp and papers division in China in the late 1990's, is one such example). And Indian companies like Hindustan Unilever have long served as an important source of global talent for their parent firm.

The path to the C-suite today emphasizes international experience. Indians have been studying and working abroad prior to independence. That has gathered pace in the last two or three decades. The Chinese were constrained from going abroad from 1949 until the late 1970s and even then Chinese students going overseas were only a trickle until the 1990s. Capable Chinese managers were likely kept in China where they were badly needed and so were done out of many of the international opportunities needed for advancement in global careers.

Fluid Situation

Summarizing, we have identified several plausible explanations for the larger number of Indians compared with Chinese in senior positions at leading global corporations. While we believe these explanations are consistent with the data, we are unable to assert which factors are more influential than others. To make that determination, more research is needed.

It is important to remember, however, that the picture is changing, perhaps rapidly. The longer-term prognosis for how Chinese and Indian firms will globalize will likely depend on which underlying factors have more influence. If the ability to embrace diversity is critical, for instance, then that may shift only slowly since it is based in deep cultural patterns of trusting sameness in China. In this case, India will hold the better cards for some time to come.

If, however, language ability is central, then the pattern will change sooner because the advantage of India's comfort with the English language is being overtaken fast by the Chinese. China today has more people learning English than the total number of English speakers in the United States. Similarly, with the issue of management education, China is catching up fast, with large numbers having already graduated from MBA and EMBA programs.

China and India are both on successful economic trajectories. The data seem to suggest that as of last year, Indians may have had more success in navigating careers at leading global firms. It is possible that this is a pattern that might last for some more time. Yet, depending on the relative influence of specific factors that underlie this pattern, it may not take long for the Chinese to catch up.

 

[john70]

RACE OF THE CENTURY: Is India Or China The Next Economic Superpower?

China's spectacular sweep of rise as an economic power is all so well known, and India's relatively slow and mild rise could very well mean an easy answer that china has already one the race..... but history unfolds over a time and winner cannot always be predicted. lets put some thoughts here and debate in a healthy way with proper references. No TROLLING Please.

Lets start with a little old article by Mamta Badker :

Economic growth is fast turning to the East and the biggest bets are on China and India, both of which share an uneasy relationship since the Sino-India war of 1962.
China is growing fast but with its dependence on foreign investment could it survive if other economies lose steam? India is more self-sustained but is tackling rampant corruption and soaring inflation.
If the two face-off though, who would you bet on?

Infrastructure: China trumps India. In fact, so does The Ivory Coast.


China: 11% of China's GDP is spent developing infrastructure and a centralized government makes policy overhauls easier, according to Bloomberg.
India: Only 6.5% of India's GDP is spent on infrastructure, the country's commitment to infrastructure has been disappointing so far as the CommonWealth Games displayed. India expects to spend $1 trillion in infrastructure investments between 2012 and 2017 though, according to Livemin

Housing bubble : in China is for real ?

China: Nomura predict that housing prices in China are going to drop 20% by December 2011 according to Bloomberg. While increased lending has been pushing property rates to bubble territory, newer reports suggest that prices will be balanced by rising household incomes. Combine that with property taxes and new down payment requirements on second and third homes, and China has a serious problem.
India: Though property prices in Mumbai and Delhi have doubled since mid 2009, Indian banks have taken on a more conventional stance keeping credit growth, lower than 2008 levels and staving off a bubble, at least for now.

 

[john70]

Domestic consumption: China's reliance on exports makes it more vulnerable to a global slowdown than India.


China: China derives 35% of its GDP through exports, according to Time. The country has been accused of anchoring the yuan to the dollar to remain competitive. According to IBTimes, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said:
"Our second objective is to promote reforms that will reduce China's reliance on export led growth and encourages a shift to domestic consumption and investment. As part of this, China's exchange rate needs to strengthen in response to market forces"
India: In contrast, the Indian economy is more insulated from a global economic crisis, since domestic consumption accounts for 57% of GDP.

 

[john70]

Corruption: India's corruption problem is definitely worse than China's.

China: The country's Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) has taken many measures to check how officials spend public funds. Of 1.43 million complaints filed against officials China charged 146,517, according to Bloomberg.
India: Misappropriation of government funds has been on the rise in India. Corruption during the Commonwealth Games cost the government $1.8 billion, and a telecom scam set it back another $39 billion. Activists in the country are pushing for an anti-corruption bill.

 

[john70]

Anybody read a real marvel ? Super Power By Raghav Bahl : The Amazing race between china's hare and India's tortoise. its worth reading. its brilliantly written, superbly documented and rich and comprehensive account of the race to dominance between these two neighbours.

 

[kickok1975]

Here is my take

China is and will be economic super power in this decade. India is a heavy weight player for now but not super power yet.

China's economic super power status depends on continuous political and economic reform. Without them Chinese economy could be fragile and face major crisis soon.

India, on the other hand, is still struggling with rampant corruption, exploding population and poor infrastructures. Until majority of Indian people can find decent manufacturing job, India will remain a major economic power but not super power

 

[john70]

India, on the other hand, is still struggling with rampant corruption, exploding population and poor infrastructures. Until majority of Indian people can find decent manufacturing job, India will remain a major economic power but not super power

Agreed on some points yes... but not on population.
The real game changer in time to come is population.
China's one child policy is severely hampering its demography.
By 2050, there will be around 9.1 billion people on earth, up from 6.5 today. India will stabilize at a population of 1.6 billion and China at 1.4 billion.
Our world will grow older : by 2050 the number of sixty five year olds would increase from 560 million to over 1.5 billion. over 300 million will be in china.
By 2050, china could have 90 million people in the eighty five year plus bracket. china is will be growing old in few decades.
In 2050 india would still be a "young" country.
china is trying to reverse its one child policy in many areas but not yet so successful.

 

[no smoking]

Agreed on some points yes... but not on population.
The real game changer in time to come is population.
China's one child policy is severely hampering its demography.
By 2050, there will be around 9.1 billion people on earth, up from 6.5 today. India will stabilize at a population of 1.6 billion and China at 1.4 billion.
Our world will grow older : by 2050 the number of sixty five year olds would increase from 560 million to over 1.5 billion. over 300 million will be in china.
By 2050, china could have 90 million people in the eighty five year plus bracket. china is will be growing old in few decades.
In 2050 india would still be a "young" country.
china is trying to reverse its one child policy in many areas but not yet so successful.

Have a huge young population is good thing only if you have enough decent jobs for them.
From 1980 to 2000, there was always a big nightmare for every CCP senior officer: how to provide employment for 20millions new work force EVERY YEAR.
As I remembered, CCP almost went nuts for that: they did try to find job for those youths at any cost--enviroment, working safty, work right and even law.
So, my question is how india is gonna to find enough employment for those coming work forces? Obviously, considering india's political situation, majority of low-end industries won't fit india. Ironically, these low-end industries can provide hugh oppotunities.

 

[LurkerBaba]

All China-India contest threads merged

 

[john70]

Have a huge young population is good thing only if you have enough decent jobs for them.
From 1980 to 2000, there was always a big nightmare for every CCP senior officer: how to provide employment for 20millions new work force EVERY YEAR.
As I remembered, CCP almost went nuts for that: they did try to find job for those youths at any cost--enviroment, working safty, work right and even law.
So, my question is how india is gonna to find enough employment for those coming work forces? Obviously, considering india's political situation, majority of low-end industries won't fit india. Ironically, these low-end industries can provide hugh oppotunities.

Actually, its otherway round. Few government data may show unemployment..... But situation on groundlevel is VERY different. People are very difficult too find to work.... Allmy INDIAN friends would jump in with YES with this. U see any industry... Service or manufacturing, people are diff to find.
Further indian economic figures are still more than on paper as we never consider CASH money which flows at a parellel rate to the legitimate money.

 

[john70]

Thanks Lukerbaba.
Actually i was searching for a similar thread before posting this but somehow could'nt find this.
And btw, can this thread b transfferred to country watch... CHINA, as actually its concerning china and India, and can it b made sticky as this issue is going to come up again and again as time goes by when india inches closer.