The rise of India’s neo middle class

[Dungeness]

It certainly does not. We desperately need an industrialisation, and, more than that, the industrial culture that alone can make industrialisation a success. A few corners of the country had it; mainly the four metro cities. That is not enough. We need to create structured gainful occupation for 13 million people EVERY YEAR. Further increases in government strength, and militarisation, will not relieve the stress. Militarisation, at best, can allow more flexibility in making foreign police and international relations choices, along with all the complications that it brings; government employment actually needs drastic pruning, in the opinions of many.

You have pointed out correctly the seminal role of the overseas Chinese population in HK and in Taiwan. Unfortunately, we have no equivalent. For cultural reasons, perhaps, the overseas Indian population, in Singapore, or Malaysia,or Hong Kong, or Mauritius, or East Africa, mainly Kenya and Uganda, or Gibraltar, or even Great Britain, have had little or nothing to do with manufacture. There have been groups in Uganda who have had exposure to industry, but their models tended to be the twins of what would be done in India; not small manufacturers who could readily shift their production and transfer their technology back to India.

This is with reference to the diaspora under the British Empire; if you look at the places listed, the key will become clear. The second diaspora, of the professional middle class, rather than either the trading classes or the labourers taken to work as indentured labourers of the earlier wave, were professionals. They have adapted very successfully, but there is little that they could have contributed other than services, and they have done that to the fullest.

If there is a hint of desperation in Modi's constant refrain of 'Make in India', it is for this reason.

This is what I have long been curious. I have been wondering why overseas Indians, with the population not less than Chinese equivalent, could not bring business back to India and help India in a meaningful way like overseas Chinese did in 80's and 90's. When we take into consideration of one of greatest social divides in India, we may come up with a reasonable doubt, those who can afford to immigration to overseas are the ones who despite manual work and those who are doing manual work in India can't afford immigration. This is in great contrast to Chinese.

Besides, India has lost crucial 20 years in manufacturing, the policy of "Made in India" is a little too late. While a few hundred million Chinese were doing "lowly" manufacturing jobs for the rest of world, Indians were proud of bypassing the manufacturing stage and going directly into the "Office of the World". As far as I am concerned, it is a strategic blunder in nation building. "Made in India" will never be as successful as "Made in China", as time is very different now, and India has lots of competitors in the regions where India doesn't have any particular advantage. "Made in India" will be a success nevertheless, provided a fully open India market.

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is what I have long been curious. I have been wondering why overseas Indians, with the population not less than Chinese equivalent, could not bring business back to India and help India in a meaningful way like overseas Chinese did in 80's and 90's. When we take into consideration of one of greatest social divides in India, we may come up with a reasonable doubt, those who can afford to immigration to overseas are the ones who despite manual work and those who are doing manual work in India can't afford immigration. This is in great contrast to Chinese.

Besides, India has lost crucial 20 years in manufacturing, the policy of "Made in India" is a little too late. While a few hundred million Chinese were doing "lowly" manufacturing jobs for the rest of world, Indians were proud of bypassing the manufacturing stage and going directly into the "Office of the World". As far as I am concerned, it is a strategic blunder in nation building. "Made in India" will never be as successful as "Made in China", as time is very different now, and India has lots of competitors in the regions where India doesn't have any particular advantage. "Made in India" will be a success nevertheless, provided a fully open India market.

There is, as a matter of fact, a strategic gap.

Since the meat-and-potatoes manufacturing has already been taken over by China, only those parts of it for which Chinese costs are getting to be too high will move away, but the first moves will be to Vietnam and Thailand and Malaysia, perhaps, unlikely but possible, Indonesia. Only a small fraction will come to India, attracted by low costs but repelled by low productivity.

The opportunity is - and this is a long shot - in those areas not comprehensively covered by China, namely, automated production systems. Possibly, if there is sufficient and innovation and indigenous entrepreneurs see the point, it may be an option to combine the relatively large pool of highly skilled engineers, largely idle, with the huge mass of unskilled labour also available.

Let us see what government decides to do.

 

[Soumitra]

The driver is professional employment. The emphasis is on engineering, on medicine, on accountancy, and we no longer educate our tertiary education segment: we train them. The loss is of the humanities, and the loss is made up on the Internet.

Humanities is a dead end discipline. You cant earn bread by learning the arts or what some philosopher taught 1000 years ago.

If I had my way humanities will be a small part of the overall curriculum. It does nothing but breeds the Kanhaiya Kumar's of the world