What's new

India still no rival to China's super powers

INDIAPOSITIVE

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
9,318
Reaction score
-28
Country
India
Location
India
Julie Bishop last week surprised a high-calibre audience of Indians by telling them that their country was "taking its rightful position as a world leader, as a superpower".

When she sat down to lunch after giving her speech, an Indian woman asked the Australian Foreign Affairs Minister how she justified the superpower title.

Bishop turned the question back on her interlocutor: "You don't think a country with 1.3 billion people is a superpower?"

One sixth of the human race lives in India, the second most populous nation. In a decade its population is projected to reach 1.6 billion, overtaking China.

Yet the shocking truth is that a country with 56 times Australia's population generates national income only 1.3 times Australia's.

This is the key reason that Indians are incredulous to hear their country described as a superpower. National income per person of just $US1600 a year is about the same as that of the most impoverished country in the Middle East, Yemen. It puts a grim limit on the quality of life for most Indians.

Bishop's comment reflects the expectations that now surround India, expectations that rest squarely on a single man, Narendra Modi, elected prime minister 11 months ago.

The expectations are so giddy that, improbably, no less a figure than the United States president, Barack Obama, has written a gushing tribute to the man inTime magazine, under the headline "India's Reformer-in-Chief".

He says Modi's vision will allow India to realise its enormous potential. The immense frustration of modern India is that its vast potential always remains just that. It wasn't always so.

The people of India had world-class water and sewerage systems 5000 years ago as part of the Harappan civilisation in the Bronze Age. Today more than 100 million Indians have no clean water and more than 800 million have no access to a sewerage system.

The lack of proper toilets is central to India's modern failure. One telling effect. Girls drop out of education at the end of primary school at three times the rate of boys. Not because they don't want to learn but because most schools have no proper toilets. Boys can cope but many girls are unwilling to squat in an open field.

There was a time when India was the most prosperous place on earth. "In the beginning, there were two nations," writes Alex von Tunzelmann in her account of Britain's retreat from its Indian empire,Indian Summer.

"One was a vast, mighty and magnificent empire, brilliantly organised and culturally unified." The other was "an underdeveloped, semi-feudal realm, driven by religious factionalism and barely able to feed its illiterate, diseased and stinking masses. The first nation was India. The second was England."

She was describing the India unified under the Mogul emperor, Akbar the Great, in 1577. India's tragedy is that its people have never recovered the relative prosperity they enjoyed in that era. The Mogul Empire collapsed and India fractured.

And it was a surging Britain, powered by the Industrial Revolution, that occupied India and plundered it systematically for 200 years.

The first prime minister of independent India, Jawaharlal Nehru, thought India was destined to become one of the two or three greatest powers on earth. But he guaranteed that he could not by imposing system of socialist autarky.

Fleetingly, India in 1991 embraced pro-market reforms which immediately yielded a surge of economic growth. Yet a quasi-socialist system persisted.

Quasi-socialist economics was strangulation enough. But modern India has also suffered a failure of its state apparatus. The public service has been overburdened to the point of paralysis. Politicians and officials have paid little heed to the people or the nation and feasted on every available morsel to feed a chronic corruption.

The author Gurcharan Das cites a saying among Indians: " 'India grows at night while the government sleeps,' meaning that India may well be rising despite the state."

India's great success in information technology is exhibit A. It flourished because, as a new sector, there was no existing government restraint on its development.

But Das says that India's private sector has hit a limit of what it can do without the state.

For instance, a senior executive at the giant Mahindra corporation, Hemant Luthra, says that "we have pockets full of money to invest, but we can't invest without power". What sort of power? Electricity. In most of India, the power is on for only a few hours a day.

Modi became the first leader in 30 years to win an absolute majority in the lower house because he has promised development above all. "We need toilets more than temples," is one of his themes. An ambitious "make in India" campaign to boost manufacturing is another.

He has made a solid start to the daunting task of reforming India. The big political story today is his land bill to make it easier for companies to acquire land.

"If Modi can get the land bill through the upper house, he will have passed all the things that international investors think of as being important," says James Crabtree, theFinancial Timescorrespondent in Mumbai.

He has liberalised pensions, insurance, cleaned up the corrupt grants of mining leases, opened mining to competition. Next he promises a big bang tax reform – streamlining a messy tax system and introducing a GST.

"Eighteen months ago it looked like India might have to call in the IMF, but it's recovered well and it's the only major developing nation that has a prospect of doing even better" in the short term. But Crabtree, who once worked in the British prime minister's office, is not naive: "The complexity of governing India is jaw-droppingly difficult."

"Good days are coming" is Modi's refrain. Can he pull it off? "The jury is still out," Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, founder and chair of the Biocon pharmaceuticals firm, tells me.

India today teeters on the brink. It has the prospect of greatness on one side. On the other is relapse to the status of a country that cannot provide toilets to its schools. And even Modi's toughest critics concede that if he fails, there is no other hope in sight.

Peter Hartcher is the international editor. He travelled to India courtesy of the Walkley Media Exchange, funded by the Australia India Council.


India still no rival to China's super powers
 
.
We don't aspire to be a superpower....But it is true that we are decades behind China.......:(
 
.
Don't need an op-ed piece to tell us that. India is eons behind China. I don't think either India or China can claim to be "superpowers". China is well on its way but it certainly doesn't eyeball the USA like USSR did in its pomp. There is not much of an ideological chasm either. China has embraced capitalism. Honestly, I'd rather have my country provide a high standard of living to its people and provide them education and healthcare than have nukes and tanks.
 
.
Very nice article. Indeed we are decades behinds China but we are aspired and we have the aspirations of becoming a great great developed country which will lead the world in many ways. The peace but not by fighting, growth but not on the cost of others are few of them.
We were prosperous once...we will be there again but this time more powerful and stronger
 
.
We don't aspire to be a superpower....But it is true that we are decades behind China.......:(

The problem is big bang reforms are not possible in India as there are multiple veto centres, multiple decision making centres and it is very difficult to pass through a decisive change. In India, big-bang dramatic reforms happen around crisis like the one we had in 1991 and if you look at India at this juncture, we are not in a crisis.

There's been a remarkable turnaround in the Indian growth story very recently, not so much because of what the new government has done, but because of what the new government is expected to do in the next 4-4.5 years. If you look at where India was in April 2013, we were coming out from the edge of macro-economic crisis, but since then, inflation has come down, current account deficit improved, stock prices have gone up.

For the first time in 30 years, we have a government that has no coalition pressures. It is assured of five years in office - lets hope for the best.
 
.
Don't need an op-ed piece to tell us that. India is eons behind China. I don't think either India or China can claim to be "superpowers". China is well on its way but it certainly doesn't eyeball the USA like USSR did in its pomp. There is not much of an ideological chasm either. China has embraced capitalism. Honestly, I'd rather have my country provide a high standard of living to its people and provide them education and healthcare than have nukes and tanks.
What China did was not less then a miracle, it's very difficult to achieve 10% economic growth but they did it for continuous 20-25 years and that's why we Indians admire them for this because we know they are hardworking and it been an advantage to them.

The problem is big bang reforms are not possible in India as there are multiple veto centres, multiple decision making centres and it is very difficult to pass through a decisive change. In India, big-bang dramatic reforms happen around crisis like the one we had in 1991 and if you look at India at this juncture, we are not in a crisis.

There's been a remarkable turnaround in the Indian growth story very recently, not so much because of what the new government has done, but because of what the new government is expected to do in the next 4-4.5 years. If you look at where India was in April 2013, we were coming out from the edge of macro-economic crisis, but since then, inflation has come down, current account deficit improved, stock prices have gone up.

For the first time in 30 years, we have a government that has no coalition pressures. It is assured of five years in office - lets hope for the best.
you are right there are multiple power axis in India and that may be our disadvantage of being the world largest democracy and also the most diversified democracy of the world. what we need is a power in the center that can act on strong reforms simultaneously coping with anger and opposition of the old bozos who want to distribute everything for free.
 
.
What China did was not less then a miracle, it's very difficult to achieve 10% economic growth but they did it for continuous 20-25 years and that's why we Indians admire them for this because we know they are hardworking and it been an advantage to them.

Hmm. There is also a major cultural difference. China has always had someone tells its people what to do - and the population has pretty much always toed the line. Emperors, the Japanese or the Communist Party. In India everyone thinks he knows more than the next guy. I guess - the difference is - "The Chinese people believe that they exist for the state. The Indians believe the state exists for them."
 
.
The problem is big bang reforms are not possible in India as there are multiple veto centres, multiple decision making centres and it is very difficult to pass through a decisive change. In India, big-bang dramatic reforms happen around crisis like the one we had in 1991 and if you look at India at this juncture, we are not in a crisis.

There's been a remarkable turnaround in the Indian growth story very recently, not so much because of what the new government has done, but because of what the new government is expected to do in the next 4-4.5 years. If you look at where India was in April 2013, we were coming out from the edge of macro-economic crisis, but since then, inflation has come down, current account deficit improved, stock prices have gone up.

For the first time in 30 years, we have a government that has no coalition pressures. It is assured of five years in office - lets hope for the best.

Depends on how you look at it. Deng was under house arrest and was close to death when Mao died. He was rescued and he took out the guy that did that, the then supreme leader. He took decisive action to change a closed off communist state AGAINST essentially everyone in the party, and he certainly was close to losing power in 1989 after Tiananmen. That was very close to China reversing course on reforms.

However, he took a trip to the South and rallied the army and he essentially forced the other leaders, including his successor Jiang to continue his reforms.

Today, Xi is launching massive reforms, but he's taking out anyone that stands in his way.


China may be authoritarian, but we are still people, and disagreements still happen. It depends on how deeply does the leader believe in his own vision and how far he's willing to go.
 
.
Hmm. There is also a major cultural difference. China has always had someone tells its people what to do - and the population has pretty much always toed the line. Emperors, the Japanese or the Communist Party. In India everyone thinks he knows more than the next guy. I guess - the difference is - "The Chinese people believe that they exist for the state. The Indians believe the state exists for them."
The communism isn't good for any country nor is socialism in today's world govt's cannot decide for the people rather the people decides about the govt.. The Chinese communism has done what Indian socialism could never do.

Depends on how you look at it. Deng was under house arrest and was close to death when Mao died. He was rescued and he took out the guy that did that, the then supreme leader. He took decisive action to change a closed off communist state AGAINST essentially everyone in the party, and he certainly was close to losing power in 1989 after Tiananmen. That was very close to China reversing course on reforms.

However, he took a trip to the South and rallied the army and he essentially forced the other leaders, including his successor Jiang to continue his reforms.

Today, Xi is launching massive reforms, but he's taking out anyone that stands in his way.


China may be authoritarian, but we are still people, and disagreements still happen. It depends on how deeply does the leader believe in his own vision and how far he's willing to go.
It's interesting to see a leader like deng rising in China against Mao the founder of PRC. There are leaders like deng in every country who goes against the popular beliefs and bring revolutionary changes. India is hoping Modi to be one.
I gotta ask you - what are the view of an average Chinese individual for Mao and also for Deng beacuse i happen to recall a show in discovery network where a foreign traveler asked the Chinese people about the greatness of Deng over Mao and the people ignored him saying that he is disrespecting there great leader
 
.
China is still no rival to USA's superpowers.

Still nowhere close to be.

In the distant future too.

So, what are we discussing here ?

Popcorn trolling ?

Hi people !
 
.
The era of super-powers is gone and unlikely to return in the foreseeable future. Even US today cannot really claim to be so considering the disparity has shrunk and other smaller factors such as improved communication make it less possible to ram through by sheer force.

There are many dimensions to being a superpower. China is a super-power wannabe, and is unlikely to attain that status comparable to even the current US simply because even if achieves the economic clout, it is far from achieving the military one and even further from the political and financial one.

As far as geo-political scenario is concerned, US has Europe to do its bidding, two of whose members are part of P5 and another Germany, is the economic engine of Europe. China has nothing remotely close. Thus, its comical to suppose China would ever have comparable geo-political clout.

Next aspect is financial, as much as China and to a lesser extent, India whine, they are never going to get a 'fair' say in IMF or WB and no matter what other little organizations they start, it will be decades, if ever, before they even begin to supplant these two financial organization through which the west, US in particular, control the world and weaker countries.

As a side note, being a superpower comes with its own headaches that most countries would be better off without. The need for the hour, at least concerning India is to grow strong enough to fend off most pressures and build credible deterrence across all dimensions. For that, we at the minimum need this or a similar government for the next 10-15 fifteen years. If 2014 was to stave off an economic and potentially security collapse, 2019 will be to see if India wants to continue progressing or her people want another lost decade.

If China wants to play superpower game, they are welcome to it. We will enjoy from afar and play our tiny role in poking them where its fun and working together where its in our interest.
 
.
The problem is big bang reforms are not possible in India as there are multiple veto centres, multiple decision making centres and it is very difficult to pass through a decisive change. In India, big-bang dramatic reforms happen around crisis like the one we had in 1991 and if you look at India at this juncture, we are not in a crisis.

There's been a remarkable turnaround in the Indian growth story very recently, not so much because of what the new government has done, but because of what the new government is expected to do in the next 4-4.5 years. If you look at where India was in April 2013, we were coming out from the edge of macro-economic crisis, but since then, inflation has come down, current account deficit improved, stock prices have gone up.

For the first time in 30 years, we have a government that has no coalition pressures. It is assured of five years in office - lets hope for the best.
Thanks Sir.......:-)
 
. . .

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom