What's new

India may never be a super power: LSE study

We dont want this title, what can a country with that status do, bomb other countries like Afgan, Iraq. we dont want that.
as far as INDIANs are considered, lets work and do what is good for our people and our country.
 
Instead of being super power,we need 0% poverty and 100% literacy rate or 100% educated people...that is all we need

Iran is the top example for the will of a nation to progress, there is a big difference between wishing and doing & having,
Although I wish what you are saying for India will be realised one day as this represents the nec-plus-ultra of human society.
But rest assured that Islam plays an essential role in this Ideal, and all nations and individuals fighting against Islam should be considered as enemies of humanity.
 
Interestingly the same report also calls for a Permanent Seat for India in the UN Security Council. I am guessing everyone who agreed with the subject of this thread won't have any issues with that?

More than sixty years ago, in the summer of 1948, the Indian nation, then newly-born, was struggling for its very survival. It was pierced from the left by the Communists, and pinched from the right by Hindu extremists. And there were other problems aplenty. Eight million refugees had to be resettled; provided with land, homes, employment and a sense of citizenship. Five hundred princely states had to be integrated, one by one, a process that involved much massaging of egos (for the Maharajas tended to think very highly of themselves), and just a little coercion.

Few Indians now alive know how uncertain our future looked in the summer of 1948. The question then being asked everywhere was ‘Will India Survive?’. Now, sixty-four years down the road, that fearful query has been replaced by a far more hopeful one, namely, ‘Will India Become a Superpower?’.

This new, anticipatory, expectant question has been prompted by the extraordinary resilience, in the long term, of India’s democratic institutions. When the fi rst General Elections were held, in 1952, they were dubbed the ‘BiggestGamble in History’. Never before had universal adult franchise been tried in a poor, divided, and largely illiterate society. Evidently, it is a gamble that has worked. The country has successfully held fi fteen General Elections to the national Parliament, as well as countless polls to different state assemblies. Rates of voter participation are often higher than in Western democracies.

And after what happened in Florida in 2000, we can add that the conduct of polls is at least as fair. Back in 1948, doubts were also being cast about the Indian experiment with nationhood. Never before had a new nation not based its unity on a single language, religion, or common enemy. As an inclusive, plural, and non-adversarial model of nationalism, the idea of India had no precedent or imitator.

In the words of the political theorist Sunil Khilnani, India has been ‘a substantial bridgehead of effervescent liberty on the Asian continent’.:) As such, it inspires hope that the largely poor, still divided, and formerly colonised countries of Africa and the Middle East can likewise move towards a more democratic political system.

Meanwhile, through its collective co-existence of different faiths, languages, cultures, and cuisines, India is a better model for world governance than more homogeneous countries such as China, Japan, or the United States. Once, the heterogeneity of India was seen as its greatest fl aw; now, it may justly be celebrated as its greatest strength.

India was not expected to survive as a democracy nor hold together as a single nation; but it has. These manifest successes, achieved against the odds and against the logic of human history, have compelled worldwide admiration. If calls are now being heard that India must be made a Permanent Member of the Security Council of the United Nations, then these demands are not just legitimate, but also overdue. It is India’s long-term record as a stable, multicultural democracy that lies behind its claims for a place at the High Table of Global Affairs. But if politics were all, then we would not be asking whether India will become a superpower. :cheers:

That question is prompted also by the spectacular success, in the short-term, of the Indian economy, the impressive growth rates of the past decade, the entrepreneurial drive manifest in such crucial, cutting-edge sectors such as information technology, and the creation of an ever larger and ever more confident middle class.

For those who are interested the report can be found here,

India: The Next Superpower? - IDEAS Reports - Publications - IDEAS - Home
 
India is a unique country that has the most ethnically, religious, linguistically and culturally diverse populations on this planet. The laws and unique models of governance and inclusiveness that India develops in the next century will be because of this very important. It will proove or show how such a diverse people can not only live together but thrive together.

One of the reasons why a german who had settled in Calcutta in the 1960s said that if there ever will be a world government which will solve all the worlds problem, it will be based on the Indian model. That alone would be unique identiy as compared to the super power status.
 
Interestingly the same report also calls for a Permanent Seat for India in the UN Security Council. I have am guessing everyone who agreed with the subject of this thread won't have any issues with that?

That is impossible anyway, since India would need the unanimous consent of every single P5 member for that to happen. If even one P5 member "abstains", the resolution will not pass.

China vetoed the Syria resolution, even when the ENTIRE world was against us. So it will take no effort at all, to "abstain" (no veto is required) and deny India a permanent seat for as long as it is required.

Find another dream, this one isn't going to work. And apparently the "India superpower" dream was premature as well.
 
I don't know, I think India is ranked #4 militarily.

There should also be criteria for "short burst" militaries ("sprinters") vs. "long haul" militaries ("marathon runners").

India, North Korea and Israel all have "sprinter" militaries. Because of either old weapons or high tech, but imported, weapons, they must defeat the opponent very quickly before logistics, maintainence and spare part shortages catch up to them. They usually have more "bang for the buck" but the problem is once each "bang" is used, it will never come back.

China, Russia and USA in 1940's-1980's have "marathon" militaries due to being able to manufacture every important system independently. While it takes a while for their war machines to get fully mobilized, once fully mobilized they can turn out tanks, aircraft, ships, missiles, etc. like bicycles. Against weak enemies, they can crush them fast just like "sprinters" but against other strong enemies, they can go for the long haul and fight wars of logistics and attrition.

USA after 1980's is in a league of its own. Its a sprinting marathon runner.

The distinction between marathon and sprinter armies is an important one to make, but I think you divide them in the wrong way.

Following the civil war we saw that the number of trained soldiers was slowly being replaced in importance by the size of the industrially manufactured equipment. This trend was fully complete by World War II. During World War II, certainly the ability to continue to conscript more soldiers was useful, but significantly more useful was the ability to continuously manufacture equipment for the war. However, following World War II, we saw weapons become increasingly sophisticated, and at the same time it became much easier to destroy factories. Thus, one now needs to maintain a fully equipped standing army and if and when war breaks out, would be heavily reliant on existing equipment. This is not to say that ammunition, fuel, food, and to a lesser extent spare parts aren't still important logistical considerations. But most nations have the capability to more or less manufacture these or acquire them in the black market.

Where I make the distinction between sprinter and marathon armies is wether they rely completely on technology or have the capability to commit large numbers of soldiers in a long war of attrition. For example, the Israeli army is armed to the teeth with tanks and aircraft, but is miniscule in terms of personnel. Thus, the longer a war lasts the weaker Israel gets compared to its opponents, and this is why it always relies on decisive attacks. North Korea on the other hand is actually quite the opposite, and does not have access to high tech weaponry but has the personnel and the manufacturing base to fight a long term war of attrition. India, like modern day Russia and China, falls somewhere in between sprinter and marathon. America is more sprinter oriented, but the military is so big it's fully capable of marathon warfare too.
 
That is impossible anyway, since India would need the unanimous consent of every single P5 member for that to happen. If even one P5 member "abstains", the resolution will not pass.

China vetoed the Syria resolution, even when the ENTIRE world was against us. So it will take no effort at all, to "abstain" (no veto is required) and deny India a permanent seat for as long as it is required.

Find another dream, this one isn't going to work. And apparently the "India superpower" dream was premature as well.

China also vetoed against the formation of Bangladesh that dream certainly came true :)
 
China also vetoed against the formation of Bangladesh that dream certainly came true :)

That had no downside for us, and today Bangladesh is one of our most valuable partners. :lol:

Diluting our veto power on the security council though, we actually stand to lose something there.

And in any case, India has by far the smallest economy out of all the G4 members (Germany/Japan/Brazil/India) and due to having an active territorial dispute with a P5 member, will have almost no chance of getting in.

No country that has an active territorial dispute with a P5 member will get in, since all the P5 members have to do is "abstain" to shut them down. Veto is not even required. :azn:
 
That had no downside for us, and today Bangladesh is one of our most valuable partners. :lol:

Diluting our veto power on the security council though, we actually stand to lose something there.

And in any case, India has by far the smallest economy out of all the G4 members (Germany/Japan/Brazil/India) and due to having an active territorial dispute with a P5 member, will have almost no chance of getting in.

No country that has an active territorial dispute with a P5 member will get in, since all the P5 members have to do is "abstain" to shut them down. Veto is not even required. :azn:

The author wasn't talking about the technicalities. He was just stating that India deserves a permanent security council seat.
 
That had no downside for us, and today Bangladesh is one of our most valuable partners. :lol

The context here was China's veto power.

And in any case, India has by far the smallest economy out of all the G4 members (Germany/Japan/Brazil/India) and due to having an active territorial dispute with a P5 member, will have almost no chance of getting in.

No country that has an active territorial dispute with a P5 member will get in, since all the P5 members have to do is "abstain" to shut them down. Veto is not even required. :azn:

Is there a rule as such in the UN charter.
 
I never got the whole UN thing, do people actually follow the UN orders. Countries do what they want and the UN sits there and just puts condemnation after condemnation. The only thing we need is a good relation with Russia and the US, Russia has so far supported us in matters of international politics.
 
The author wasn't talking about the technicalities. He was just stating that India deserves a permanent security council seat.

Deserves it for what? For having the largest number of starving people in the world?

"Deserving it" is not relevant. The current P5, got their seats just because they were the major independent powers on the victorious side of WW2. That's it.... it had nothing to do with "deserving it" at all.

And in any case, India most certainly does not deserve it either. Germany and Brazil are the real contenders, but even they won't get veto power unless every single P5 member voluntarily decides to give it up (unlikely).
 
i am seeing IC-814 hijack documentary in nat-geo...........very detailed documentry..........but also shows the incompetance of indian response in Amritsar!!!:hitwall:
 
Back
Top Bottom