Is India a truly powerful country?

[Tuahaa]

Thanks to me or my ancestors?

Your ancestors, I guess.

 

[Markus]

How do we exactly define a powerful country?

Just because there are problems with CWG, does that mean India is not powerful, or is it because India faces Maoists problem?

Surely, this purpose generalization does not make any sense.

India may be weak in some parts but that does not mean its weaker in everything.

The sports covered by CWG does not create much interest in India and hence explains lack of government and corporate involvement.

India can hold cricket and hockey world cups just like or even better than any other country can ever do.

One in a while, Bangladesh may be able to thrash India on a cricket field but that certainly ain't happening in a military field.

So what's the purpose of such nonsensical topics?

 

[TATA]

Foreign Policy is asking the right questions.

We don't need to comment on some silly blog.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

A country should at least be internally stable before it can call itself powerful. A country cannot effectively convey power outwardly unless it is secure internally. Such internal destabilization can easily be exploited by enemies.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

We don't need to comment on some silly blog.

Whatever the nature of the blog it asks a very pertinent question that deserves a sensible answer.

 

[Markus]

A country should at least be internally stable before it can call itself powerful. A country cannot effectively convey power outwardly unless it is secure internally. Such internal destabilization can easily be exploited by enemies.

I agree with the thing in bold.

But the theory of generalization is wrong. Just because you are not able to properly host a sporting event or you face some internal problem dosen't mean, you are not a capable country.

Again, as I asked above, how do we define a country as "powerful".

The ppl who have written the above article do not answer the above question of mine.

 

[RajmaChawal]

Whatever the nature of the blog it asks a very pertinent question that deserves a sensible answer.

Munshi Saab, is Bangladesh a truly powerful country?

 

[BanglaBhoot]

According to Paul Kennedy wealth and military strength are indicative of power. While India may have some military prowess due to its internal weaknesses (insurgency, corruption, poverty etc) it cannot be a truly powerful country. Because of its internal problem it can never commend respect from its neighbors until it resolves its internal deficiencies.

 

[Jackdaws]

Well, even if the intention has been to start a flame thread - there is no doubt that the blog entry itself is quite accurate. There are some serious flaws in the Indian state. Internal security and lack of competence of the govt. are legendary. No point denying it - it's not going to go away.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Munshi Saab, is Bangladesh a truly powerful country?

No BD is not a powerful country.

 

[Markus]

According to Paul Kennedy wealth and military strength are indicative of power. While India may have some military prowess due to its internal weaknesses (insurgency, corruption, poverty etc) it cannot be a truly powerful country. Because of its internal problem it can never commend respect from its neighbors until it resolves its internal deficiencies.

How does resolving internal deficiencies help in commanding respect from one's neighbors ?

How many so called "powerful" countries in the world exist who do not have internal problems ?

If "recession" can be termed as an internal problem, man, US commanded zero respect for atleast one and half years.

 

[InPhilTraitor]

@MBI Munshi,

you have the answer in mind, if you have enough open-mind while posing the question, there is a point for me to answer the question and explain it.

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

Even if Munshi's original idea was to troll, it must be accepted that India has a lot of internal problems. No one can honestly deny that.

But frankly, before we embark on such discussions, we need to define what we mean by power. Is it purely military? Economic? Standard of living? Infrastructure? Or a combination of all the above? If it is a combination of all the above, the definition becomes very subjective. It just cannot be answered in a YES or NO fashion.

At the end of the day, there is an American/EU body of some repute which thinks that India is the third most powerful, based on a combination of some factors. We can argue till the crack of doom about the validity of the report, but we won't get anywhere till we pin down the definition of 'powerful'.

 

[desiman]

Seriously... never in my life had I thought I would be feeding a troll, but you sir, have given an idiotic reply!

When India can wipe out Pakistan completely through one invasion, then it is powerful.

But it can't.

So go trolololol elsewhere!

First of all calm down before you talk. Secondly power is not only the military but financial and economical strength. Pakistan is no where even close in terms of economies where India is the 4th in the world. We have a stable government and a rigid civilian infrastructure both of which Pakistan lacks. In terms of all out military victory, we have done it once in 1971 but as Pakistan's posses nuclear weapons now, its not as simple as before but dont be so confident about war. In short there is no comparison between India and Pakistan, so dont put us in the same group as you.

 

[RajmaChawal]

According to Paul Kennedy wealth and military strength are indicative of power. While India may have some military prowess due to its internal weaknesses (insurgency, corruption, poverty etc) it cannot be a truly powerful country. Because of its internal problem it can never commend respect from its neighbors until it resolves its internal deficiencies.

Sorry I do not get this logic. What have internal problems got to do with external issues?

China also has a lot of internal problems(Uighur, Tibet etc.) still it commands some respect in the world (although not from many of its neighbours like Japan, South Korea etc. )