Now you understand why China will not support....

[CardSharp]

I don't think any of the five permanent council members will support any other country to dilute their powers even more, period.

I think we'll find out over the next year how much of this is talk based on whether any concrete progress gets made.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

The keyword is the next 10 years right? Right now your definition of middle class is those who spend more than 2 dollars a day. I just don't see any profit from that.

I would consider India a player when it is already a important market. For now, it is not.

we have the second largest middle class population in the world. and u say it isnt an important market. cheers to u r knowledge of buissness.

 

[ao333]

1) Do you guys even care if India attends or not? I mean with 1.2 billion ppl, India's economy is still smaller than Canada's... We have like what? 31 milllion?

2) And on the issue of UNSC permanent membership. You can't really become one when you were a cotton-growing colony even after World War II... I think Indians were represented by their masters 5000 miles away at both the Nazi and Japanese surrenders. History hurts, and that's why Indians live in the future.

 

[CardSharp]

we have the second largest middle class population in the world. and u say it isnt an important market. cheers to u r knowledge of buissness.

You've missed his point. He is saying that what is considered middle class in India is an arbitrary BS number set by the Indian government. No where else in the world would $2 a day reconsidered anything resembling middle class considering $1.25 a day is the new poverty line.

 

[CardSharp]

1) Do you guys even care if India attends or not? I mean with over 1.2 billion ppl, India's economy is still smaller than Canada's... We have like what? 31 milllion?

2) And on the issue of the UNSC permanent membership. You can't really be one when you were a cotton-growing colony even after World War II... I think India was represented by their masters 8000 miles away at both the Nazi and Japanese surrenders.

We appealed to everyone who was invited (40 countries) not to attend but since this is the PDF, Indians have chosen think that China's "face" in the international community depends on it going or not going.

 

[CardSharp]

we have the second largest middle class population in the world. and u say it isnt an important market. cheers to u r knowledge of buissness.

Since you're a fan of business knowledge, here's a article from the WSJ.


Much of Indian ‘Middle Class’ Is Almost Poor

India’s middle class—defined as those able to spend between $2 to $20 a day in 2005 purchasing power parity dollars—has expanded to about 420 million, according to an Asian Development Bank report on Asia’s middle class out Thursday.

But compared to China, India has more of its middle class precariously perched just above the poor, a spot from where it is very easy to tumble back into poverty.

These are the people who live on between $2 and $4 a day. That’s about 20 to 40 rupees a day in nominal terms (using an exchange rate of 15.66 rupees to one purchasing power parity dollar) or between 4,700 rupees to 9,400 rupees a month for a family of five.

“Making the middle class stay middle class is very important. In India the majority of the people are still in the lower middle class,” the Asian Development Bank’s chief economist Jong-Wha Lee said as the findings of the report, which looked at Indian data collected between 1993 and 1994 and between 2004 and 2005, were released in Delhi. “These groups are very vulnerable. If they lose their job or if there are major shocks they will go back to poverty.”

The people in the vulnerable lower middle class category number about 244 million, almost 60% of the middle class. India also has approximately 26 million affluent people, those who can spend more than $20 a day.


Figuring out how big the middle class is, is a tricky business. The ADB report notes that by using spending between $2 and $13 a day as the gauge, the World Bank’s Martin Ravallion puts India’s middle class at 264 million. Meanwhile, if you restrict the definition of middle class to the number of people who can spend $10 a day and yet are not in the top 5% of the population by income distribution, economist Nancy Birdsall suggests India would have no middle class at all.

Perhaps one of the most striking charts in the Asian Development Bank report is one that shows the distribution of people in India in absolute numbers by consumption level. What you see is a very bottom-heavy pyramid with a massive base that quickly narrows. Above that massive base, most spending groups seem to have just about doubled in size since the 90s. The affluent appear to have more than doubled. But the size of the base of poor people doesn’t appear to have changed.

China’s “pyramid,” meanwhile is sort of diamond shaped, with less than a 100 million people living on less than $2 a day. More of its population falls in the “mid middle class” category that can spend $5 to $10 a day than into any other category. This group, in absolute numbers, appears to have quadrupled between 1995 and 2007.

While the apparently static block of poor people accounts for a shrinking share of Indians (because of growth in the population) it’s hard not to be discouraged by the fact that even as millions of people have moved into the lower middle class, the absolute number of poor people in India has changed very little.
The report put the number of poor people in India—those living on less than $2 a day—at about 651 million people.

“Population growth has a big impact in India,” said Mr. Lee. “This poor group has much higher fertility and larger household size and that is why you need to constantly focus on moving them to the middle class.”

Much of Indian ‘Middle Class’ Is Almost Poor - India Real Time - WSJ

 

[ao333]

We appealed to everyone who was invited (40 countries) not to attend but since this is the PDF, Indians have chosen think that China's "face" in the international community depends on it going or not going.

This is simply a show of you guys' political clout as an independent power. It really isn't about India.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

1) Do you guys even care if India attends or not? I mean with 1.2 billion ppl, India's economy is still smaller than Canada's... We have like what? 31 milllion?

2) And on the issue of the UNSC permanent membership. You can't really be one when you were a cotton-growing colony even after World War II... I think India was represented by their masters 5000 miles away at both the Nazi and Japanese surrenders. History hurts, and that's why Indians live in the future.

dont worry mate surely we will catch up. its been hardly 20 yrs since economic reforms and yes we could have done much better but hey we havent done that bad.

a brief lesson in history for esp u. india was offered permanent security council seat immidiately after independent and we refused it (plain naive wrong move by our idealistic politicians at that time.)

frankly speaking personally i dont care much abt security council seat. i would rather like to see india to be properous and powerull.

u can be sure of one thing mate. we surely catch up with u in next few years. (yes u will give me arguements about hunger poverty infrastructure per capita income and prosperity. i agree with u on that front).

 

[CardSharp]

This is simply a show of you guys' political clout as an independent power. It really isn't about India.

Precisely. It is a nascent demonstration of world opinion behind China.

 

[CardSharp]

a brief lesson in history for esp u. india was offered permanent security council seat immidiately after independent and we refused it (plain naive wrong move by our idealistic politicians at that time.)

If I have to hear this stupid internet rumour one more time... India was never offered a UNSC council seat.

 

[Areesh]

Why not support them and take them all the way through. After all can't mighty China do even this much for its all-weather ally?

Why don't you just cut the crap and stop spewing BS. Or this is something all weather for you.

 

[great]

1) Do you guys even care if India attends or not? I mean with 1.2 billion ppl, India's economy is still smaller than Canada's... We have like what? 31 milllion?

2) And on the issue of the UNSC permanent membership. You can't really be one when you were a cotton-growing colony even after World War II... I think Indians were represented by their masters 5000 miles away at both the Nazi and Japanese surrenders. History hurts, and that's why Indians live in the future.

Thank you for that lesson. Now Huush..

P.S Canada cannot even get a non-permanent seat. Talking of importance. Now this time seriously huuush..

 

[Ganguly]

Not so much for the evil.

India is simply too small and insignificant economically to be a major player yet. When India is bigger we can talk. Google "India" and 90% of the articles are from Indian sources. The hyped up Indian significance drum beating is mostly self boast. For now India accounts for 2% of global trade and its economy is smaller than Brazil.

Do you know how search engines works? Now if you search India in google.co.uk (select radio button for pages from the UK) or google.co.xx (domain of some other country), you will find 100% articles from other sources. Hope now you understand how it works. If you want advanced knowledge about crawlers, spiders & search engine optimization, please let me know. I will be happy to teach you.

 

[ao333]

dont worry mate surely we will catch up. its been hardly 20 yrs since economic reforms and yes we could have done much better but hey we havent done that bad.

a brief lesson in history for esp u. india was offered permanent security council seat immidiately after independent and we refused it (plain naive wrong move by our idealistic politicians at that time.)

frankly speaking personally i dont care much abt security council seat. i would rather like to see india to be properous and powerull.

u can be sure of one thing mate. we surely catch up with u in next few years. (yes u will give me arguements about hunger poverty infrastructure per capita income and prosperity. i agree with u on that front).

Here's a lesson for you:

India wasn't a founder but an invitee of the United Nations. The founders were the United States, Soviet Russia, Republic of China, United Kingdom and France, which ostensibly were both the major victors (except France) of WWII and the permanent members of the UNSC.

Permanent membership isn't solely about politics but also about history. Take Germany for example, they today wield as much power in the UN as the UK or France but it cannot be a permanent member because it was neither a victor nor a founder of the UN. The same applies for India.

 

[great]

Here's a lesson for you:

India wasn't a founder but an invitee of the United Nations. The founders were the United States, Soviet Russia, Republic of China, United Kingdom and France, which ostensibly were both the victors of WWII and the permanent members of the UNSC.

Permanent membership isn't solely about politics but also about history. Take Germany for example, they today wield as much power in the UN as the UK or France but it cannot be a permanent member because it was neither a victor nor a founder of the UN. The same applies for India.

We'll see about that in few years from now. Why jump the gun early and then regret..Keep your patience. Unless you are trying to take high ground with your idiotic rants.