India super poor, not superpower, says Shashi Tharoor

[Nirvana]

That title is quite appropriate considering the fact that India has more poor people then the entire people of Africa!!!
BBC News - 'More poor' in India than Africa
Eight Indian states account for more poor people than in the 26 poorest African countries combined, a new measure of global poverty has found.

Thanks for Reminding us with that Link again !!

No one is Saying India as a 'Superpower'

Poverty is an Issue and Needs to be Eradicated to lot of extent before having Such a status , So Long way to go

 

[JAT BALWAN]

This is called desired mentality..... everyone in Asia these days fighting for a name SUPERPOWER...
what will this word do with basic needs of people... 4-5 years of strengthen economy does mean ability of superpower?

regarding to India.. this word is only for mocking purpose for some PDF persons ... none of Indian leader yet said we are superpower or so..
India is reforming it`s military might b`cos of recent hostile activities by our neighbors.
In many thread some members also assume pakistan for a future superpower & nobody takes notice of that..
every country wants development in all sectors & so is India doing ... & no one gonna stop that.. Burn as much as you can..

 

[Drone(PREDATOR)]

That title is quite appropriate considering the fact that India has more poor people then the entire people of Africa!!!
BBC News - 'More poor' in India than Africa
Eight Indian states account for more poor people than in the 26 poorest African countries combined, a new measure of global poverty has found.

India have more poor than Africa but for your information. population of india is more than Africa and south america combine.

If pakistan's poor multiply by 6.5(India have more than 6 times population than pakistan) times than i am sure that pakistan will have more poor than africa and south america combine

 

[RiazHaq]

It is very unfortunate that economically resurgent India still remains home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry and illiterate people. Tragically, hunger remains India's biggest problem, with an estimated 7000 Indians dying of hunger every single day. Over 200 million Indians will go to bed hungry tonight, as they do every night, according to Bhookh.com. Along with chronic hunger, deep poverty and high illiteracy also continue to blight the lives of hundreds of millions of Indians on a daily basis.

Haq's Musings: 63 Years After Independence, India Remains Home to World's Largest Population of Poor, Hungry and Illiterates

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

is this what Second World is supposed to look like .........

Not the entire nation looks like this.

You can even find extreme example of poor people in the first world nations.

So stop being sensational.

 

[JAT BALWAN]

Not the entire nation looks like this.

You can even find extreme example of poor people in the first world nations.

So stop being sensational.

Why something hit under belt???

 

[patna_ke_presley]

It is very unfortunate that economically resurgent India still remains home to the world's largest population of poor, hungry and illiterate people. Tragically, hunger remains India's biggest problem, with an estimated 7000 Indians dying of hunger every single day. Over 200 million Indians will go to bed hungry tonight, as they do every night, according to Bhookh.com. Along with chronic hunger, deep poverty and high illiteracy also continue to blight the lives of hundreds of millions of Indians on a daily basis.

Haq's Musings: 63 Years After Independence, India Remains Home to World's Largest Population of Poor, Hungry and Illiterates

Can't you give some reliable sources other from anti-India stooge Haq's musings. CIA world fact book says poverty in India is 25%. By the it is not increasing like Pakistan but decreasing. Some analyst says it already crossed 40% in Pakistan back in 2009 because of economic chaos and inflation.

 

[Bang Galore]

India super poor, not superpower, says Shashi Tharoor
November 18, 2011 DC

The eminent writer and Congress MP, Mr Shashi Tharoor, on Thursday did some plain talk on India’s global aspirations and said the country was ‘super-poor rather than a superpower’.

Talking to BBC presenter, Ms Anita Anand, on ‘India and China — The New Superpowers,’ Mr Tharoor said he would rather describe the two countries as being on the way of becoming significant powers.

“A superpower is a political, economic and military giant that has global reach,” he said. “The US still holds that position. It can fight a war in East Asia or any other part of the world. But I can’t imagine China or India doing that.”

He added that a large chunk of India’s people did not get three meals a day, had no roof to sleep under and were unable to educate their children. “We still haven’t solved these basic problems,” he said. “So we can’t claim to be a superpower.”

Mr Tharoor, an ace diplomat, added that he would much rather live in a world without superpowers. “In fact, I am penning a book on the theme of a network of countries, a multi-polar world, drawing on the metaphor of the Internet,” he said.

The MP said he felt awful when he heard the Western coinage ‘Chindia’ to refer to the two aspiring superpowers. “Though we are neighbours, we don’t have much in common,” he said. “There is ignorance, indifference and hostility towards India in China.”

There was not much soft diplomacy in terms of people-to-people contact and tourism to create more awareness of each other either, he added.

India super poor, not superpower, says Shashi Tharoor | Deccan Chronicle
.

I agree with Shashi Tharoor. India has quite a long way to go before it can be called a genuine superpower. I'm for one, quite happy to be a normal country rather than go on a silly ego trip about being a superpower. One does not become a superpower by beating the chest & tom-toming oneself as a superpower. When India does become a genuine superpower, the acknowledgement will come by itself. There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of being a normal country.

 

[Nirvana]

It was based on some loose knowledge, since per capita wise China is in the low end spectrum of the second world.

BTW, sometimes per capita is not the best measurement either. A country like Greece during the pre-crisis time also had the first world per capita income. But this country has no productivity, basically its infrastructure is not the true first world nations like US/Japan/Germany/UK/France/Canada/Australia.

Thats What i am Saying Per capita Wont be Enough Measurement to classify them in Three worlds

Developed Countries with Advanced Economy , Good Industrial base ,Very High Human Development Index - standard of Living , Advanced Infrastructure can be Rightly called as 'First World'

 

[Lankan Ranger]

Interesting Development.............

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...-clash-over-foreign-presence-afghanistan.html

 

[aimarraul]

Not the entire nation looks like this.

You can even find extreme example of poor people in the first world nations.

So stop being sensational.

you certainly can't find over 100 million extremely poor people in any first world nations......

 

[harshad]

Interesting Development.............

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...-clash-over-foreign-presence-afghanistan.html

dont troll

 

[ramu]

First World: per capita over 20k USD.

Second World: per capita between 4k to 20k USD.

Third World: per capita less than 4k USD.

Split world from your behind ?

The First, the Second, and the Third World.

When people talk about the poorest countries of the world, they often refer to them with the general term Third World, and they think everybody knows what they are talking about. But when you ask them if there is a Third World, what about a Second or a First World, you almost always get an evasive answer. Other people even try to use the terms as a ranking scheme for the state of development of countries, with the First world on top, followed by the Second world and so on, that's perfect - nonsense.

To close the gap of information you will find here explanations of the terms.

The use of the terms First, the Second, and the Third World is a rough, and it's safe to say, outdated model of the geopolitical world from the time of the cold war.
There is no official definition of the first, second, and the third world. Below OWNO's explanation of the terms.

Four Worlds
After World War II the world split into two large geopolitical blocs and spheres of influence with contrary views on government and the politically correct society:
1 - The bloc of democratic-industrial countries within the American influence sphere, the "First World".
2 - The Eastern bloc of the communist-socialist states, the "Second World".
3 - The remaining three-quarters of the world's population, states not aligned with either bloc were regarded as the "Third World."
4 - The term "Fourth World", coined in the early 1970s by Shuswap Chief George Manuel, refers to widely unknown nations (cultural entities) of indigenous peoples, "First Nations" living within or across national state boundaries.

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

 

[indushek]

People and i mean real people of India living in India will slap you twice if you say we are some kind of power, leave aside super power.

 

[ViXuyen]

I think low, middle, and high income is better classification.

Most countries in the world will be able to move from low income to middle income easily. But most countries will not get to the high-income category; hence the middle income trap . In order to break the middle-income trap, your either need to have a really small population or you would possess extreme high-tech industries to attain the high-income status.

But High-income does not means you're an "industrialized" nation. Singaore for instance is a high-income nation but it is not an industrialized nation; it has nowhere the industrial capabilities near the level of say Russia or South Korea