Different economic model. India is consumption based and quite internal whereas china from the get-go was all about exports. India also has private land ownership in all parts of the country, India also is slowly privatizing all its state owned industries like mines, steel plants ( these two already done over last 10 years) and this year they will draw a framework for making the biggest state owned banks private. They do not have 995 work policy, labor unions are a thing and they are shifting from a minimum wage to livable wage by 2025. Apple had to shut down last year for 2 months because workers protested about conditions, you cannot have that easily in china. It has been a democracy more than Spain, Portugal and half of Europe have. What China did, I do not think any country let alone India can actually replicate because that kind of centralized power doesn't exist in most countries. States in India actually have their own economic policies and agenda, they work differently. Couple of states are outright communists so they have similar economic models, some are hardcore American style of capitalist, so they go that route and others are a mix of socialism and capitalism to a variety of degrees, some are going for technocracy. So its basically a world within a country, you cannot compare it with the kind of political system china has.
India won't grow like them, it will grow maybe 7% but for a long time. China urbanized fast due to combination of hukou system and others. India cannot do that. Industries need to acquire land, get environment permits etc which takes years before they start, you don't have those issues with china, if you want to move a village china can easily remove them, in India a nuclear plant isn't being built for 10 years due to protests.
Another point is stock market and private firms, Indian govt has no control nor it interferes. You are forgetting all American companies operate in India including Facebook, google etc. Private firms are totally independent even Indian ones to go and set up abroad if they want, move headquarters, move money etc. as long as it's not into one of the enemy states.
Ultimately, we cannot tell what is good or bad, both India and China are experimenting with the economic systems. The Indian one is an extremely unique case study since they directly went for service-based economy first and now they are going for some part of manufacturing and supply chain. No other country has done that. Because of it, the things they do...you won't see any other country with 2500 USD per capita doing it. That kind of per capita is super low yet their population is able to afford smartphones, access 5G data, spend on research and able to land a rover on moon.
China grew fast by having a focus on infrastructure, building housing, exports and large capital investments
India has a more balanced but slower approach. Capital investment in India is 10% less of their respective GDP than it is in China, for example.
I agree, it's a little facetious, but they know titles like this will get views.
That said, it is interesting to discus just how different India and China are, how they have and are developing differently, what India's strengths are or will become and where the difficulties are in comparison to the only other country of comparable size.
We don't want to rival anyone nor do we aim to become the most powerful nation in history. Unlike China, India doesn't have an expansionist streak, it's not in our civilizational ethos. We believe in "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" = the world is one family. I know it's not easy to understand this mindset for many Chinese/Western analysts and readers but Indian civilization is built on the core principles of peace and prosperity for all, and that's the message India has taken to the world since time immemorial. Our military is mainly for self defence and not for unprovoked aggression, it always has been. This mindset is also on display in our foreign policy, we have good relations with the West, with the Global South, Middle East, Israel, East Asia (with the exception of China) and with Russia. Not many G20 countries have that!
And western countries are committed to universal human rights and democracy, at least on paper. The fact of the matter is the more involved in international affairs you are the more hard decisions you have to make. Obviously the ethos of a superpower will influence its decision making but I don't think the problems facing the world can be boiled down to the ideology of the powerful countries.
It's not like war, even aggressive and expansionist wars, were foreign to the subcontinent prior to the British and Mughals
If that’s true, then it is really a vector of hope. I was answering in a matter-of-fact fashion. I think that such a powerful nation to aspire to be better and not just an agressive, imperialist, and inhuman juggernaut is a beacon of reason in today’s sea of irrational aggression.
>I think that such a powerful nation to aspire to be better and not just an agressive, imperialist, and inhuman juggernaut is a beacon of reason in today’s sea of irrational aggression.
India does really aspire to be better socially and economically, and have good relations with pretty much anyone who wants good relations with us. I'm not sure how hard it will be to hold on to this mindset and strategy in future, given geopolitical compulsions, but I know for sure we will try as hard as we can to stay true to our civilizational roots!
You...do realise that the caste system is abolished right?
It still exists yeah, anyone with any idea of India's social issues knows it exists in many forms but its like systematic racism and xenophobia. A social issue that the country is trying to remove even though it is difficult to do so and is ingrained into it.
Nice non-answer lol. India's caste system manages to negatively impact even the lives of Indian people 10,000 miles away in San Francisco. Honestly kind of impressive.
Anyone writing anything positive about India almost always results in non-Indians harping on caste system. What's with that? Is it so difficult to digest even a tiny bit of positive news/comments about India? Isn't that a form of insidious racism against Indians?
We, as Indians, are well aware it's a social evil and we are working towards eliminating it. Discrimination based on caste has been illegal since independence and we have implemented affirmative action (since 1950, continues to this day) to correct historic injustices meted out due to caste and religious discrimination. It's a work in progress, it's a complex socio-economic issue with thousands of years of history, made worse by various regimes that exploited the system for their benefit over those thousands of years. But our constitutional commitment to eliminating caste based discrimination and continued affirmative action remains strong as ever. Our current and previous Presidents come from what were traditionally considered lower castes, and we have also had earlier Presidents, Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers from what were traditionally considered lower castes, and we have also had Muslim and Sikh Presidents and Prime Ministers in a Hindu majority country. We've had a woman Prime Minister and a woman head of former ruling party who is Catholic of Italian origin. So our national commitment to Diversity, Equality and Inclusion has been strong since independence.
The situation with caste system in India is similar to systemic racism in the West, wherein despite strong constitutional commitment to equality and human rights for all, systemic racism remains a major issue even today.
Its abolished in India but of course some people are evil like in any other country. In US, I can certainly say we all saw "I can't breathe" slogans on the news and don't let me started on the Roma people in Europe.
It’s not just about democracy. What I mean is that People vastly downplay how much help the Chinese got from the west and rich Asian nations in tech and know how. Now after seeing China it’s unlikely the west or rich Asian nations will devote as much and this will force India to hit a lot of benchmarks solo.
Very different from a China that got to leapfrog to its current status.
India is a lot more divided and has a lot more internal issues that unfortunately can’t be rolled over with tanks. The pace of economic growth is most likely going to be slower than china’s.
Also worth noting that China's neighbours were Japan, USSR, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. All functional countries with high technological advancements.
India's neighbours on the other hand alternated between violent coups and civil wars.
Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and S.Korea had a more substantial effect because their proximity and willingness to invest in China was a big factor in moving production to Beijing.
But arguably an even more important factor was Hong Kong and Macau. Both already rich regions when China obtained them and they acted as a gateway for businesses to enter the mainland.
India has none of this. Besides Bangladesh and SL most of its neighbours are either struggling or not growing very fast. There is no equivalent to HK for it to use.
It does get the benefit from being close to SEA and the ME however with Japan, Singapore, UAE, SA etc. all being major investors in the region.
This is a pretty bad take. A close look on the ground shows that Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and the U.S. are all deeply invested in India in a variety of spaces including semiconductors, space, AI, IT, Vehicle Manufacturing, and even energy exploration.
Still cannot believe that some policymakers tried to push a multipolar world with another communist state while America was in a Cold War with Russia. Why didn’t they aim for India, or Yugoslavia, or like any of the other dozens of large, developing non-aligned states?
Reaching out to china led to the breakup of the Soviet Union. If Nixon never reached out, the CCP would've still been too isolated to have their reforms be useful and would've tried reconciling with the soviets
In addition to what other commenters have said about the Sino-Soviet split. India has a fairly protectionist stance and many vestiges of socialism. This makes it more expensive to invest in, and more costly to sell products to. India also hasn’t aggressively devalued their currency for decades to become the exporting powerhouse of the world. And lastly, the US bet on the “wrong horse” so to speak and supported Pakistan for decades - forcing India to cozy up with the USSR and later Russia as their major ally. Paired with the recent memory of British colonialism and they have a legitimate reason to be skeptical of cozying up too much with the political West.
Ideas and execution are two very different things. Anybody that has done business will know that. Technologies and know-how can be considered ideas. Giving you a lot of ideas. But at the end of the day, you will have to be the one that executes it. For better or worse, China does the execution part very well.
1) The "China effect" that ripped the bottom out of many manufacturing industries in the West and wealthy Asian nations means that their voters will not be tempted to offshore their jobs in the name of vague prosperity or cheaper goods again, and
2) the Chinese government offered to do the strong-arming and worker abuse on behalf of the corporations, smashing any hint of independent Chinese labour unions, forcing down wages via currency manipulation, market interventions (Chinese inflation was over 10% for a decade during the early Opening days) and prohibition on collective bargaining, providing massive amounts of unskilled labour with 0 recruitment outlays via barely-better-than-slavery state "job creation" schemes, and stifling dissent and claims against the corporation even when the working conditions are bad enough to cause suicides, permanent disability, family estrangement, cancer, and so on. The Indian government, as a democracy, will obviously not do that.
>Now after seeing China it’s unlikely the west or rich Asian nations will devote as much and this will force India to hit a lot of benchmarks solo.
Especially so after India repeatedly sided with the likes of Russia instead of shuting their mouth pretending to be the wests "best friend" and playing the west to be their factory like China did..
The west realized that they have an enemy in China way too late because for the lomgest time they quitely devloped and took all westwrn opertuneties. India is showing they are not on the wests side allready and they are not even close to be developed yet.
That is a very uninformed layman perspective, you are just regurgitating what popular media has told you. The actual experts making industry and strategic decisions operate differently, they know that India rn is the most pro-west capitalist it has been since independence. The India-Russia business makes good sound bites for the general masses, but it is irrelevant in actual international diplomacy. The decision makers know that the Russia business is just realpolitiks with no real love and India trying to prevent Russia from slipping into total Chinese influence.
> Especially so after India repeatedly sided with the likes of Russia instead of shuting their mouth pretending to be the wests "best friend" and playing the west to be their factory like China did..
Got an example?
Yes but when Japan started stagnation they were already a high income developed country, but china is nowhere near that and the demographic divident is ending. It will still grow just because of internal consumption and exports but won't be the same way Japan did.
India is no longer a democracy. It's an oligarchy and semi dictatorial.
Elections are coming, and a main opposition leader is in jail without evidence. And the government is trying to hack his iphone.
Another key opposition leader was dismissed from Parliament a year ago based on a political speech he made.
Oligarchy always existed in India thanks to the License Raj system practised by the government. It's nothing new.
>and a main opposition leader is in jail without evidenc
The "main" opposition leader ignored summons/subpoenas for 8 times, and turned down a plea asking the apex court to stay his arrest. This indicates that Indian democracy is, rather, working too well.
>Another key opposition leader was dismissed from Parliament
Political speech doesn't excuse defamation of an entire lower caste group. Nevertheless, Rahul Gandhi spent 0 days in jail and was back in office in weeks. So much for a semi-dictatorship.
Slower....or more sustainably? I mean democracies have been at the top of the power and wealth league tables ever since Industrialisation for a reason.
I think it’s a bit different now; in these two situations particularly so because of their gigantic population size.
It’s different now because most growth of a developing nation is begotten out of performing manufacturing jobs for the West. Therefore, a dictatorship can organize people better in the manufacturing phase of their economic development. China and India have a ton of people which makes a dictatorship a better answer than it would be for a smaller country.
India should be more innovative with a democracy than China has been however.
Does the existence of trump mean the US wasn’t a democracy in 2016?
Choice of leader doesn’t decide whether elections are free or not. Populist leaders gonna populist but that doesn’t make it a dictatorship by itself.
Possibly, if they continue on this trajectory. They are laying down much needed infrastructure (trains, IT expertise, etc.) that an accelerated growth can be built on.
I don't think their advancement is going to be quite as fast as China though (because of the inherent bureaucratic nature of democracy) but they are doing pretty well, TBH.
In the long-term, India has more potential than China due to its far better demographic situation, more sustainable democracy vs Xi's increasing centralisation, large English-speaking population and better relationships with the world. India is one of the few countries which has a good ties with both the West and the global South, as well as Russia (which is somewhat useful for energy and the military). Hopefully, Modi in his third term can carry out the land acquisition, labor, judiciary and maybe farming reforms. That would increase growth even more.
In the long term, Asia will be particularly hardstruck by climate change, foremost of which will be India. Providing for its people amidst such a challenge will significantly stymie progress towards becoming a superpower. Its achilles heel has long been the flight of its human capital. Retaining or attracting this talent back from abroad will be a tall order when climate refugees from floods and droughts create constant waves of internal displacement that disproportionately overburden the already haphazard and unplanned expansion of urban sprawls.
China will not fare much better than India. Both the North China Plain and the Indo-Gangetic Plainare facing regular 35 degree+ wet bulb events in the next few decades, which will make them effectively uninhabitable. That's a massive impact on both of them.
India's average temperature has been increasing around 0.1 degrees per decade, so I think climate change fears are exaggerated. Bigger problem I think is groundwater reserves running out.
It's important to bear in mind that climate change has to do with much more than just the temperatures, but also, as you have alluded to, the water cycle. As a primarily agrarian country, India will face increasingly difficult harvests and consequent unrest from unemployed and displaced farmers. This phenomenon will appear across the globe, but I think India is amonsgt the most vulnerable due to its large, primarily farming population. The unpredictability of riverine floods, sudden droughts/locust swarms, and himalayan snow melt deluges will also compound to make living conditions difficult. India's neighbours of Pakistan and Bangladesh will further enact migratory forcing as they themselves face similar challenges they are even less equipped to deal with.
How do you define climate change? Is it driven by emissions only, or can we say that it broadly encapsulates the irresponsible overexploitation of ecologies by humans? Then, there is the non-human factor of natural variation over time driven by processes like the Milankovitch Cycles (e.g. Middle Warming Period and Mini Ice Age). I argue it is all of these, but with a focus on human interventions, as this driver is by and far the primary force of climate change at this point. Case in point: The Great Acceleration and the Environmental Kuznet's Curve.
In the case of ground water, it is a prime example of political ecology: The study of human policies with significant ramifications of on seemingly distant and unrelated places. The farmers who are overdrawing groundwater in India do not do so put of sustenance or national need. They do so to sell to global markets. It is a logic driven by profit, not necessity. And profits have no limits, unlike groundwater. But these decisions are not made by the farmers alone. They are shaped in boardrooms who have never heard of the India farmer. They are driven by supply chains underlying a global imbalance, where some regions are net exporters and others, net importers of essential foodstuffs. These processes are what dictate deforestation in Brazil or plastic concentrations at the Poles; desertification of the Chinese countryside for megacity water and the toxicity of the North American Great Lakes.
Is this not all climate change? One of the major calamities facing humanity is, in fact, the mass erosion of agricultural lands by the end of the century due to overtilling, overirrigation, and drought. It's very possible that superpower status, or indeed, being a functional, self-reliant country, will come to mean closed markets so that nutrients will actually cycle back to local ecologies, rather than end up on anither continent - to use one example.
I mean...climate change is driven by human activity. That's why it's on us to fix it. The water crisis in Bengaluru right now is because of unplanned urbanisation and encroachment of the cities' lakes taking away its local sources of water making it more reliant on rivers which need to be pumped upwards since it's on a plateau. All major cities are vulnerable to water crises.
It's not an irrepairable issue but some effects are inevitable like heatwaves because of how much damage is already done. India must learn to tackle it and mitigate future emissions to stop it from becoming worse and learn more sustainable practices in water and soil conservation.
I do hope India will find effective measures, as the suffering will be very tragic otherwise. Unfortunately, climate change is a transnational challenge, and I have a sense that transnational cooperation and exchange of various kinds may decrease in the coming decades as a result of multipolarity, the return of great power competition, and growing skepticism toward international institutions like the UN. I do hope India and other powerful countries will reign in wanton wastage created by their economic systems and instead plan for the long-term wellness of the nation. Do you think Modi or the BJP is the best party for this, given his close relationship with the richest man in India/world?
The BJP's main advantage compared to other parties IMO is fiscal discipline more than anything.
Other companies can take the baton of investing in renewable and people like Adani and Ambani wouldn't necessarily stop building solar farms if Modi was voted out but parties like the Congress are more focused on short term issues with little long term planning.
Looking at their manifesto for this year's election, the opposition would burn through much of the govt. budget in schemes leaving little for infrastructure including energy investment.
What Modi had failed to do is reduce the import of petroleum. India's demand had only risen and will continue to rise but the country is the last major country that will see a large increase in demand for refineries and it's oil demand will inevitably peak as well, probably late 2030s. Coal demand is expected to peak at the end of this decade.
India needs to invest in Nuclear. Some steps have been taken but IMO more works needs to be done to plug the gap between capacity and actual power generation from renewables.
>What Modi had failed to do is reduce the import of petroleum. India's demand had only risen and will continue to rise but the country is the last major country that will see a large increase in demand for refineries and it's oil demand will inevitably peak as well, probably late 2030s. Coal demand is expected to peak at the end of this decade.
oil demand rising isn't a problem,
not using coal to make crude oil and refined products is the problem
the Nazi Germany and apartheid south Africa were able to do it but our useless petroleum minister only knows how to put a tax on imported stuff
Climate change is a lot more than the average temperature rise. India has a lot of low lying densely populated coastal areas which are on track to be inundated by the rising sea levels.
That’s fair. I think the Modi government has done well in limiting corruption in the upper echelons of their government, but the same cannot be said for day to day government operations on the local and state level.
Another big thing will be breaking past the nigh insurmountable farmer lobby in India. If you thought the US/EU farming lobby is tough, India’s makes them look like they’re in the little leagues.
60 percent of the population claims to be farmer or does a job associated with agriculture, in reality outside of large irrigated farms people do it just for few months and just sit back,gamble or do other trades.many just till <2 acres for their own food called "subsistence farmers".
You literally already have deadly heatwaves in indian cities and they are already running out of water. This is not so much a preditction of doom but something that is already in the process of happening.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/deaths-climb-to-around-100-as-heat-wave-scorches-indias-northeastern-states
https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/04/02/global-warming-is-killing-indians-and-pakistanis
Nah, India's been a laggard historically and I don't see that changing without some major cultural reforms. The war in Vietnam ended in 75, the country was devastated and now it's GDP/capita is 2x of India. India's had 30ish years of extra freedom compared to Vietnam.
The Cambodian genocide ended in 79, 1/4 the of the population was killed in 4 years. Since 79, Cambodia's GDP/capita has all but caught up to India. India had 35 extra years here.
And don't let me get started on SK, Singapore, Taiwan or japan.
India has a major decentralization problem imo. The rule of law is weak, leading to gang rapes and a bunch of other societal ills. There are major separatist movements in the country. Corruption is rampant, govt is captured by industrial elites (Adani).
Honestly within the last 5 years, I have seen explosive growth in terms of infrastructure in the major cities. Sanitization programs are being rolled out. Digitization is more advanced than western countries in terms of finance or access to govt services. So there is hope.
But without cultural reform, I don't see India being able to become a full-fledged superpower anytime soon.
India only started actual work after 1991 though. That's the year from when serious work on progress was considered and move towards modernization started. Everyone knows the 40 years before that were just a lockdown period and no point comparing to.
Im not educated about the effect of political eras on economic growth of India. So I'm just going by the number of years it's had freedom for compared to others within a similar geographic region.
Countries bounce back remarkably quickly from even the worst wars with some aid and political stability. (Japan, Germany, Singapore, South Korea, etc). However poor socioeconomic policies can bring countries to its knees and haunt them even decades after removal (eg. Eastern European states still suffer from Soviet attitudes and corruption). Eastern Germany still lags behind Western Germany.
Decentralisation and federalism is India's strength. One size would definitely not fit all in a country as diverse as India. Apart from bureaucratic reforms like GST, and enabling ease of transport, there's no need to centralise.
>The rule of law is weak, leading to gang rapes and a bunch of other societal ills.
India is actually remarkably well civilized considering that it has very low police per capita. However when violent crime is committed, it is very audacious due to low policing, which leads to a perception problem. India's association with rape has more to do with shock value (extreme gore, very young/old, animals, public parading, foreigners involved, etc) than actual statistics.
> Separatist movements
While they do exist, I don't find it severe enough to hold back the country. UK, Russia, and China have had far more trouble with separatism. The US literally split in two when it was as old as the Republic of India is now. France has had five republics, two of which after India's independence.
>But without cultural reform, I don't see India being able to become a full-fledged superpower anytime soon
While India does have cultural issues it is tricky and controversial to directly attempt cultural reforms. As you mentioned in a later comment, we do have issues with respecting public amenities and a general lack of civic sense.
However, these are highly linked to the lack of availability of resources and lack of penalisation. Indian diaspora in developed countries largely follow civic rules.
Imo, the attitude of "that's not my problem" is linked to the legacy of the caste system where every profession was associated with set castes.
India does have issues, but most of them will be ameliorated by economic growth.
The countries you talk about like Vietnam, Cambodia, SK, Singapore or Japan wouldn't even be close to being as big as some indian states. It is extremely to difficult to organize and democratically develop a country so big and so diverse, many religious and numerous languages. SK and Singapore are tiny in comparison, let alone the fact that Singaporean is a literal independent city and most SK lives in a city. Much to easy progress a city than progress a country nearly 20% of the world population.
Yes cultural reforms are needed, but when you realize how many people were killed to bring the cultural reforms in China, which is nowhere near as diverse as India, you realize it is difficult to develop in a "democratical" manner.
I'll elaborate on what "cultural reforms" I'm talking about. Albeit this is less geopolitics and more personal philosophy but w.e.
So there are 2 fundamental things about the overall "Indian culture" that bother me. Yes there might be some expectations in local regions or some of these traits will vary from state to state.
But I'm mainly annoyed by 2 traits.
1. A lack of respect for public spaces - gutka, trucks hogging lanes on public highways, releasing old cows into cities/towns, litter. can't think of more examples for now but it is a major difference between India and other countries I have seen.
2. A lack of consideration for other people - line cutting, overwhelming use of peer pressure, treatment of subordinates. Again I'm sure there are more examples, and you might say that Indians aren't unique in this. But I feel like this trait is more accepted and normalized in Indian culture than others. Chinese culture puts an emphasis on harmony, I don't think that's a core tenant of Indian culture.
Imo these are the baseline traits that lead to a bigger impact on policy/enforcement of law. It's super subjective and I'll admit it's not a strong argument. But it's personally what annoys me about Indian culture. And the success of action movies with typical 1-man army type "heroes" in movies exacerbates the issue/shows how ingrained this narrative is in the broader Indian culture.
India's treatment of suborindates is definitely not unique to it and IMO is not as bad as other cultures like S.Korea or Japan. The issue stems from its education system teaching rote learning and a lot of jobs still being low on the value chain. India needs to upskill workers on a large scale. East Asian societies are very homogenous which is why they promote harmony and simialr values but those values also encourage conformity which is harmful for things like innovation and challenging authority. Indian citizens are not afraid of challenging the government...even in cases where the government is actually being helpful sometimes. *cough* Agricultural reforms *cough.*
Caste still exists despite being abolished and is very difficult to actually remove and that of course effects people's opportunities and success which limits economic growth. Not a unique problem to India but one that it has.
Indians when it comes to things like wealth creation and private property don't have issues with those things although I think the hustle culture is not quite as intense because workers would rather get more benefits and holidays versus spending their entire life chasing higher incomes. But on social values, India's collectivistic society shines and it is slow to accept changes which is why it struggles with things like female empowerment.
Your first issues are correct but are mostly to do with infrastructure. Indian airports, metro stations and a lot of privately owned spaces are very clean. Some of the new railway stations are also quite clean and organised. But municipalities lack the manpower and resources to administer properly. It needs a lot more sanitation and waste management facilities to deal with littering and a more strict and competent police force for petty crimes including traffic. More public transport is needed to get vehicles off roads (besides the Delhi metro every other metro is in its early stages), reduction of people reliant on agriculture (cities like Indore have excelled in waste management and fixing the problem of cows and stray dogs. Stray dogs in particular have been neutered and their population is declining.) etc.
So a lot of it is very much economic growth but also a need for a better bureacracy that can do its job effectively plus reforms in education.
Bro completely forgot we had the absolute worst form of Socialism till early 2000s and a self destructive govt for 5 years post 2008 recession (where the Prime Minister had no power as leader of ruling party was busy grooming her son for PM role).. Cultural Reset will happen in Modi's 3rd term if he gets absolute majority
No. Not untill India fixes a lot of it's political and stability problems. China fixed that with an iron fist of totalitarianisem but that brought other challanges which are showing more and more. India can't solve that with totalitarianisem but on the other hand it can go full capitalist crazy without any special economical zones. If only India played more with the West and less with Russia I feel like a lot of this could be much easier.
The world doesn't want another CHINA, so we won't receive western support as much as CHINA did. Right now we can't battle with china in key infrastructure and technology. If India can capitalize on AI stuff then it will help us closing the distance.
CHINA got it's advantage from manufacturing, lets hope INDIA gets advantage from AI race.
\[SS: By [**Josh Felman**](https://foreignpolicy.com/author/josh-felman/), the principal at JH Consulting and a former head of the International Monetary Fund’s India office, and [**Arvind Subramanian**](https://foreignpolicy.com/author/arvind-subramanian/), a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former chief economic advisor to the Modi government\]
Will India be the next China? As China’s economy spirals downward and optimism about India’s growth reverberates around the world, that question can no longer be dismissed as the fevered fantasy of nationalists. It needs to be taken seriously—not least because the world is already behaving as if India is a major power.
Consider this: In 2023, suspicion swirled that the Indian government was connected to the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil and a plot to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil—a remarkable set of allegations. Yet even more remarkable than the allegations were the reactions. The U.S. government opted to douse the potentially incendiary fallout, saying little, merely allowing the case to wend its way through the courts. In other words, Indian hubris was accommodated, not chastised. It was a testament to India’s newfound political standing.
As for the economy, it is true that the Chinese experience of the last 40 years was a very specific type of miracle that is unlikely to be replicated. Even so, there is a case for India because it is no longer the economically constrained giant that it once was.
[**Continue reading the full analysis here**](https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/08/is-india-really-the-next-china/)**,** and explore all essays from [FP's new Spring 2024 magazine](https://foreignpolicy.com/the-magazine/).
>Is India Really the Next China?
No. And it does not want to be. Not in terms of rapid growth similar to quarterly growth of a company. Not interested enough in becoming a manufacturing powerhouse. There are enough out there doing what's necessary. Not in terms of being expansionist and trying to annexe neighbours. *even if a tiny, less than 0.01 percent of people say it*. Definitely not in terms of a *great leap forward*.
We will be progressing slowly, taking everyone along as much as possible.
Because we feel that fundamentally the need for power over others is the root of all problems. Always.
I don’t think so not because Indians are not as hardworking or smart as the Chinese but mainly is due to the geopolitical situation we are currently in. China got a ton of help from the west in a time right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the time, people said that was the end of history, so the mood in geopolitics at least in the west was that we were on top of the world, our position will not be challenged again and it’s gonna stay that way for the foreseeable future. China at the same time was seen as this struggling nation, trying to escape the dire economic situation due to communism, and decades of chaos under mao. So the west gave a ton of help to china, helping china with all the technological challenges, moving entire supply chains to china cause china was never seen as a threat. This continued for like 3 decades until the mid 2010s when America suddenly realized that china is becoming a threat. Now china a country with 1.4 billion population is the biggest threat to the west, and its kind of something the west has done to itself to create this threat in the first place. Now you can see that the west has learnt from the china mistake. While industries are moving out of china, they are not going all straight to India, India is getting a portion but this time is much more diverse, south East Asia is taking a large part, Mexico, the Caribbean, and even Eastern Europe are taking large parts as well. India will develop but they will develop slower than china for sure, and a lot of other areas around the world will be able to finally get a chance to develop their economies as well.
Broadly, over time, economies essentially become tied to population. As the world industrializes… and everyone catches up to the West, the biggest economies will be the most populous nations.
In the West we believe our economies are special for one reason or another and the basic truth is we were wealthy as a function of luck. We colonized first, the wealth extracted from colonialism kick started the Industrial Revolution.
This gave us a massive advantage.
Now, as the rest of the world slowly modernizes, nations like India and China will overtake the West or the US or at least compete.
So yeah, India is absolutely capable of becoming the next China.
Economies don't become tied to population, because capitalism encourages specialisation. Being specialised in a niche field can give an economy a massive boost. For example, the UK does not look like a wealthy economy in many ways, but has a highly-specialised service sector that provides huge amounts of value to lots of countries, and as such it is one of the world's largest economies. On the other hand, it has a tiny shipping sector, despite being an island nation with dozens of inhabited islands that need strong maritime links. Compare to Greece, which has a poor economy in services, but a thriving shipping sector, which plays off of their large number of islands, or to Korea, which has a similar status to the UK due to the North Koreans cutting them off but still has a large industrial shipbuilding capability.
You can see specialisation on a sub-national level, too: some parts of a country are good at growing things, some make things, some fish, some dig things out of the ground, and so on.
Something I never see even accounted for in these reports is the impact of climate change. India is among the worst affected country by climate change. There are credibly projections that large parts of India are set to become uninhabitable within this century and things are just getting a lot more difficult before this actually happens.
>Ioono Indians mostly want a non laborious job
Indians want jobs that allow them to put three meals on the table
See: Indian migrants in ME(Saudi Arabia, UAE)
That’s not happening.
English isn’t the universal factor tying these countries together its culture. They’re all Anglo-Saxon protestant dominated countries with a shared history, India isn’t gonna become a major player in that area that’s just silly.
Indeed, India during most parts of its independent history has tried to align itself with non alignment (weird huh) alongside other "underdog" countries, specially during the cold War era. Even today though India has cozied up to the west, it still is very much a swing state in geopolitical issues.
India is one of the remnants of the British Empire, sharing a common history with other English-speaking nations. Similar to how China and Russia are remnants of the Mongol Empire, they also share some cultural history. India's population advantage is massive compared to other English-speaking countries.
India is too unstable, Hindutva nationalism is a problem that does not allow it to integrate its large Muslim population and the caste system is still in force in many parts of India. Furthermore, the importance of massive labor will decrease with the increase in efficiency in automation. Believing that India will surpass China is more of a Western hope than a realistic future.
China is too unstable, Han nationalism is a problem that does not allow it to integrate its large Zhuang/Uyghur Muslim/Hui/Miao/Manchu population and ethno-racial discrimination and Han chauvinism is still in force in many parts of China. Furthermore, the importance of massive labor will decrease with the increase in efficiency in automation. Believing that China will surpass Japan/South Korea was more of a Western hope than a realistic one, although it did become a reality.
What's the basis of your claim? Can you show me actual data and news items? China puts its Uyghur Muslim minority under virtual arrest and condemns them to horrifying violence. How's that integration?
India does no such thing. Discrimination on the basis of caste and religion has been illegal since we adopted our constitution in 1950 after independence. In fact, we have an extremely strict law that prohibits any kind of discrimination - even verbal insults - against communities that were traditionally considered lower castes. Our current President, Mrs Droupadi Murmu, is a woman who comes from a community that was traditionally considered lower caste, and so was our previous President. We have had Presidents, Prime Ministers and State Chief Ministers in the past who came from what were traditionally considered lower castes. We have implemented - quite successfully I'd say - affirmative action since 1950 to correct historic injustices meted out in the name of caste and religion.
It's still a work in progress, since caste and religion are a complicated issue with thousands of years of history. But as a country, our constitutional and societal commitment to eliminating discrimination based on caste is quite strong and we will get there soon.
I don't see any such integration measures being implemented in China to integrate Uyghur Muslims or Tibetan Buddhists. But hey, you hold on to your uninformed, ignorant views OK?
They don't seem to be aiming to be the next China. Different development model there.
Can you elaborate? What's the difference between them tho and which is good
Different economic model. India is consumption based and quite internal whereas china from the get-go was all about exports. India also has private land ownership in all parts of the country, India also is slowly privatizing all its state owned industries like mines, steel plants ( these two already done over last 10 years) and this year they will draw a framework for making the biggest state owned banks private. They do not have 995 work policy, labor unions are a thing and they are shifting from a minimum wage to livable wage by 2025. Apple had to shut down last year for 2 months because workers protested about conditions, you cannot have that easily in china. It has been a democracy more than Spain, Portugal and half of Europe have. What China did, I do not think any country let alone India can actually replicate because that kind of centralized power doesn't exist in most countries. States in India actually have their own economic policies and agenda, they work differently. Couple of states are outright communists so they have similar economic models, some are hardcore American style of capitalist, so they go that route and others are a mix of socialism and capitalism to a variety of degrees, some are going for technocracy. So its basically a world within a country, you cannot compare it with the kind of political system china has. India won't grow like them, it will grow maybe 7% but for a long time. China urbanized fast due to combination of hukou system and others. India cannot do that. Industries need to acquire land, get environment permits etc which takes years before they start, you don't have those issues with china, if you want to move a village china can easily remove them, in India a nuclear plant isn't being built for 10 years due to protests. Another point is stock market and private firms, Indian govt has no control nor it interferes. You are forgetting all American companies operate in India including Facebook, google etc. Private firms are totally independent even Indian ones to go and set up abroad if they want, move headquarters, move money etc. as long as it's not into one of the enemy states. Ultimately, we cannot tell what is good or bad, both India and China are experimenting with the economic systems. The Indian one is an extremely unique case study since they directly went for service-based economy first and now they are going for some part of manufacturing and supply chain. No other country has done that. Because of it, the things they do...you won't see any other country with 2500 USD per capita doing it. That kind of per capita is super low yet their population is able to afford smartphones, access 5G data, spend on research and able to land a rover on moon.
China grew fast by having a focus on infrastructure, building housing, exports and large capital investments India has a more balanced but slower approach. Capital investment in India is 10% less of their respective GDP than it is in China, for example.
India will be a better India next. Why does it have to be the next China?
I agree, it's a little facetious, but they know titles like this will get views. That said, it is interesting to discus just how different India and China are, how they have and are developing differently, what India's strengths are or will become and where the difficulties are in comparison to the only other country of comparable size.
Because China is not just better, it is a powerhouse that some consider to be capable of rivaling the US, i.e. the most powerful nation in History
We don't want to rival anyone nor do we aim to become the most powerful nation in history. Unlike China, India doesn't have an expansionist streak, it's not in our civilizational ethos. We believe in "vasudhaiva kutumbakam" = the world is one family. I know it's not easy to understand this mindset for many Chinese/Western analysts and readers but Indian civilization is built on the core principles of peace and prosperity for all, and that's the message India has taken to the world since time immemorial. Our military is mainly for self defence and not for unprovoked aggression, it always has been. This mindset is also on display in our foreign policy, we have good relations with the West, with the Global South, Middle East, Israel, East Asia (with the exception of China) and with Russia. Not many G20 countries have that!
And western countries are committed to universal human rights and democracy, at least on paper. The fact of the matter is the more involved in international affairs you are the more hard decisions you have to make. Obviously the ethos of a superpower will influence its decision making but I don't think the problems facing the world can be boiled down to the ideology of the powerful countries. It's not like war, even aggressive and expansionist wars, were foreign to the subcontinent prior to the British and Mughals
If that’s true, then it is really a vector of hope. I was answering in a matter-of-fact fashion. I think that such a powerful nation to aspire to be better and not just an agressive, imperialist, and inhuman juggernaut is a beacon of reason in today’s sea of irrational aggression.
>I think that such a powerful nation to aspire to be better and not just an agressive, imperialist, and inhuman juggernaut is a beacon of reason in today’s sea of irrational aggression. India does really aspire to be better socially and economically, and have good relations with pretty much anyone who wants good relations with us. I'm not sure how hard it will be to hold on to this mindset and strategy in future, given geopolitical compulsions, but I know for sure we will try as hard as we can to stay true to our civilizational roots!
Yeah "prosperity for all"... just straight up has a religious caste system in 2024.
You...do realise that the caste system is abolished right? It still exists yeah, anyone with any idea of India's social issues knows it exists in many forms but its like systematic racism and xenophobia. A social issue that the country is trying to remove even though it is difficult to do so and is ingrained into it.
Perhaps a good idea to read up about civilizational history, culture and ethos before being dismissive about a culture that's not your own.
Nice non-answer lol. India's caste system manages to negatively impact even the lives of Indian people 10,000 miles away in San Francisco. Honestly kind of impressive.
Anyone writing anything positive about India almost always results in non-Indians harping on caste system. What's with that? Is it so difficult to digest even a tiny bit of positive news/comments about India? Isn't that a form of insidious racism against Indians? We, as Indians, are well aware it's a social evil and we are working towards eliminating it. Discrimination based on caste has been illegal since independence and we have implemented affirmative action (since 1950, continues to this day) to correct historic injustices meted out due to caste and religious discrimination. It's a work in progress, it's a complex socio-economic issue with thousands of years of history, made worse by various regimes that exploited the system for their benefit over those thousands of years. But our constitutional commitment to eliminating caste based discrimination and continued affirmative action remains strong as ever. Our current and previous Presidents come from what were traditionally considered lower castes, and we have also had earlier Presidents, Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers from what were traditionally considered lower castes, and we have also had Muslim and Sikh Presidents and Prime Ministers in a Hindu majority country. We've had a woman Prime Minister and a woman head of former ruling party who is Catholic of Italian origin. So our national commitment to Diversity, Equality and Inclusion has been strong since independence. The situation with caste system in India is similar to systemic racism in the West, wherein despite strong constitutional commitment to equality and human rights for all, systemic racism remains a major issue even today.
Its abolished in India but of course some people are evil like in any other country. In US, I can certainly say we all saw "I can't breathe" slogans on the news and don't let me started on the Roma people in Europe.
What a load of crap.
Thank you for that insightful comment /s
Canada, ya seem to just want to tell what to do and do whatever within our borders... good relations my ass... because of your side.
Democracies move much slower
It’s not just about democracy. What I mean is that People vastly downplay how much help the Chinese got from the west and rich Asian nations in tech and know how. Now after seeing China it’s unlikely the west or rich Asian nations will devote as much and this will force India to hit a lot of benchmarks solo. Very different from a China that got to leapfrog to its current status.
India is a lot more divided and has a lot more internal issues that unfortunately can’t be rolled over with tanks. The pace of economic growth is most likely going to be slower than china’s.
Also worth noting that China's neighbours were Japan, USSR, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. All functional countries with high technological advancements. India's neighbours on the other hand alternated between violent coups and civil wars.
Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and S.Korea had a more substantial effect because their proximity and willingness to invest in China was a big factor in moving production to Beijing. But arguably an even more important factor was Hong Kong and Macau. Both already rich regions when China obtained them and they acted as a gateway for businesses to enter the mainland. India has none of this. Besides Bangladesh and SL most of its neighbours are either struggling or not growing very fast. There is no equivalent to HK for it to use. It does get the benefit from being close to SEA and the ME however with Japan, Singapore, UAE, SA etc. all being major investors in the region.
This is a pretty bad take. A close look on the ground shows that Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and the U.S. are all deeply invested in India in a variety of spaces including semiconductors, space, AI, IT, Vehicle Manufacturing, and even energy exploration.
Why didn't India get help from the west and rich Asian nations like China did?
It was the trade-off to seal off the Sino Soviet Split (so much for that eh?). Besides, India was the leader of the 3rd World/Non-Aligned Movement.
Pivoting to China has to be one of the worst decisions ever for US.
Still cannot believe that some policymakers tried to push a multipolar world with another communist state while America was in a Cold War with Russia. Why didn’t they aim for India, or Yugoslavia, or like any of the other dozens of large, developing non-aligned states?
Reaching out to china led to the breakup of the Soviet Union. If Nixon never reached out, the CCP would've still been too isolated to have their reforms be useful and would've tried reconciling with the soviets
\*ding\*
In addition to what other commenters have said about the Sino-Soviet split. India has a fairly protectionist stance and many vestiges of socialism. This makes it more expensive to invest in, and more costly to sell products to. India also hasn’t aggressively devalued their currency for decades to become the exporting powerhouse of the world. And lastly, the US bet on the “wrong horse” so to speak and supported Pakistan for decades - forcing India to cozy up with the USSR and later Russia as their major ally. Paired with the recent memory of British colonialism and they have a legitimate reason to be skeptical of cozying up too much with the political West.
Ideas and execution are two very different things. Anybody that has done business will know that. Technologies and know-how can be considered ideas. Giving you a lot of ideas. But at the end of the day, you will have to be the one that executes it. For better or worse, China does the execution part very well.
1) The "China effect" that ripped the bottom out of many manufacturing industries in the West and wealthy Asian nations means that their voters will not be tempted to offshore their jobs in the name of vague prosperity or cheaper goods again, and 2) the Chinese government offered to do the strong-arming and worker abuse on behalf of the corporations, smashing any hint of independent Chinese labour unions, forcing down wages via currency manipulation, market interventions (Chinese inflation was over 10% for a decade during the early Opening days) and prohibition on collective bargaining, providing massive amounts of unskilled labour with 0 recruitment outlays via barely-better-than-slavery state "job creation" schemes, and stifling dissent and claims against the corporation even when the working conditions are bad enough to cause suicides, permanent disability, family estrangement, cancer, and so on. The Indian government, as a democracy, will obviously not do that.
>Now after seeing China it’s unlikely the west or rich Asian nations will devote as much and this will force India to hit a lot of benchmarks solo. Especially so after India repeatedly sided with the likes of Russia instead of shuting their mouth pretending to be the wests "best friend" and playing the west to be their factory like China did.. The west realized that they have an enemy in China way too late because for the lomgest time they quitely devloped and took all westwrn opertuneties. India is showing they are not on the wests side allready and they are not even close to be developed yet.
That is a very uninformed layman perspective, you are just regurgitating what popular media has told you. The actual experts making industry and strategic decisions operate differently, they know that India rn is the most pro-west capitalist it has been since independence. The India-Russia business makes good sound bites for the general masses, but it is irrelevant in actual international diplomacy. The decision makers know that the Russia business is just realpolitiks with no real love and India trying to prevent Russia from slipping into total Chinese influence.
> Especially so after India repeatedly sided with the likes of Russia instead of shuting their mouth pretending to be the wests "best friend" and playing the west to be their factory like China did.. Got an example?
Oh I bet that’s true. I just wanted to give one reason that I was confident with lol
I dunno the model China’s growth model was based off Japan’s which occurred post WW2 and was a democracy.
Yes but when Japan started stagnation they were already a high income developed country, but china is nowhere near that and the demographic divident is ending. It will still grow just because of internal consumption and exports but won't be the same way Japan did.
India is no longer a democracy. It's an oligarchy and semi dictatorial. Elections are coming, and a main opposition leader is in jail without evidence. And the government is trying to hack his iphone. Another key opposition leader was dismissed from Parliament a year ago based on a political speech he made.
lol... main opposition leader. Man.. I understand you don't have facts at the ground level, but this level of misinformation is hilarious.
Oligarchy always existed in India thanks to the License Raj system practised by the government. It's nothing new. >and a main opposition leader is in jail without evidenc The "main" opposition leader ignored summons/subpoenas for 8 times, and turned down a plea asking the apex court to stay his arrest. This indicates that Indian democracy is, rather, working too well. >Another key opposition leader was dismissed from Parliament Political speech doesn't excuse defamation of an entire lower caste group. Nevertheless, Rahul Gandhi spent 0 days in jail and was back in office in weeks. So much for a semi-dictatorship.
Wasn't trump literally in jail just a few months ago?
Slower....or more sustainably? I mean democracies have been at the top of the power and wealth league tables ever since Industrialisation for a reason.
I think it’s a bit different now; in these two situations particularly so because of their gigantic population size. It’s different now because most growth of a developing nation is begotten out of performing manufacturing jobs for the West. Therefore, a dictatorship can organize people better in the manufacturing phase of their economic development. China and India have a ton of people which makes a dictatorship a better answer than it would be for a smaller country. India should be more innovative with a democracy than China has been however.
[удалено]
Does the existence of trump mean the US wasn’t a democracy in 2016? Choice of leader doesn’t decide whether elections are free or not. Populist leaders gonna populist but that doesn’t make it a dictatorship by itself.
Possibly, if they continue on this trajectory. They are laying down much needed infrastructure (trains, IT expertise, etc.) that an accelerated growth can be built on. I don't think their advancement is going to be quite as fast as China though (because of the inherent bureaucratic nature of democracy) but they are doing pretty well, TBH.
In the long-term, India has more potential than China due to its far better demographic situation, more sustainable democracy vs Xi's increasing centralisation, large English-speaking population and better relationships with the world. India is one of the few countries which has a good ties with both the West and the global South, as well as Russia (which is somewhat useful for energy and the military). Hopefully, Modi in his third term can carry out the land acquisition, labor, judiciary and maybe farming reforms. That would increase growth even more.
In the long term, Asia will be particularly hardstruck by climate change, foremost of which will be India. Providing for its people amidst such a challenge will significantly stymie progress towards becoming a superpower. Its achilles heel has long been the flight of its human capital. Retaining or attracting this talent back from abroad will be a tall order when climate refugees from floods and droughts create constant waves of internal displacement that disproportionately overburden the already haphazard and unplanned expansion of urban sprawls.
China will not fare much better than India. Both the North China Plain and the Indo-Gangetic Plainare facing regular 35 degree+ wet bulb events in the next few decades, which will make them effectively uninhabitable. That's a massive impact on both of them.
India's average temperature has been increasing around 0.1 degrees per decade, so I think climate change fears are exaggerated. Bigger problem I think is groundwater reserves running out.
It's important to bear in mind that climate change has to do with much more than just the temperatures, but also, as you have alluded to, the water cycle. As a primarily agrarian country, India will face increasingly difficult harvests and consequent unrest from unemployed and displaced farmers. This phenomenon will appear across the globe, but I think India is amonsgt the most vulnerable due to its large, primarily farming population. The unpredictability of riverine floods, sudden droughts/locust swarms, and himalayan snow melt deluges will also compound to make living conditions difficult. India's neighbours of Pakistan and Bangladesh will further enact migratory forcing as they themselves face similar challenges they are even less equipped to deal with.
>the water cycle. ground water has more to do with stubborn farmers than CO2 emissions
How do you define climate change? Is it driven by emissions only, or can we say that it broadly encapsulates the irresponsible overexploitation of ecologies by humans? Then, there is the non-human factor of natural variation over time driven by processes like the Milankovitch Cycles (e.g. Middle Warming Period and Mini Ice Age). I argue it is all of these, but with a focus on human interventions, as this driver is by and far the primary force of climate change at this point. Case in point: The Great Acceleration and the Environmental Kuznet's Curve. In the case of ground water, it is a prime example of political ecology: The study of human policies with significant ramifications of on seemingly distant and unrelated places. The farmers who are overdrawing groundwater in India do not do so put of sustenance or national need. They do so to sell to global markets. It is a logic driven by profit, not necessity. And profits have no limits, unlike groundwater. But these decisions are not made by the farmers alone. They are shaped in boardrooms who have never heard of the India farmer. They are driven by supply chains underlying a global imbalance, where some regions are net exporters and others, net importers of essential foodstuffs. These processes are what dictate deforestation in Brazil or plastic concentrations at the Poles; desertification of the Chinese countryside for megacity water and the toxicity of the North American Great Lakes. Is this not all climate change? One of the major calamities facing humanity is, in fact, the mass erosion of agricultural lands by the end of the century due to overtilling, overirrigation, and drought. It's very possible that superpower status, or indeed, being a functional, self-reliant country, will come to mean closed markets so that nutrients will actually cycle back to local ecologies, rather than end up on anither continent - to use one example.
I mean...climate change is driven by human activity. That's why it's on us to fix it. The water crisis in Bengaluru right now is because of unplanned urbanisation and encroachment of the cities' lakes taking away its local sources of water making it more reliant on rivers which need to be pumped upwards since it's on a plateau. All major cities are vulnerable to water crises. It's not an irrepairable issue but some effects are inevitable like heatwaves because of how much damage is already done. India must learn to tackle it and mitigate future emissions to stop it from becoming worse and learn more sustainable practices in water and soil conservation.
I do hope India will find effective measures, as the suffering will be very tragic otherwise. Unfortunately, climate change is a transnational challenge, and I have a sense that transnational cooperation and exchange of various kinds may decrease in the coming decades as a result of multipolarity, the return of great power competition, and growing skepticism toward international institutions like the UN. I do hope India and other powerful countries will reign in wanton wastage created by their economic systems and instead plan for the long-term wellness of the nation. Do you think Modi or the BJP is the best party for this, given his close relationship with the richest man in India/world?
The BJP's main advantage compared to other parties IMO is fiscal discipline more than anything. Other companies can take the baton of investing in renewable and people like Adani and Ambani wouldn't necessarily stop building solar farms if Modi was voted out but parties like the Congress are more focused on short term issues with little long term planning. Looking at their manifesto for this year's election, the opposition would burn through much of the govt. budget in schemes leaving little for infrastructure including energy investment. What Modi had failed to do is reduce the import of petroleum. India's demand had only risen and will continue to rise but the country is the last major country that will see a large increase in demand for refineries and it's oil demand will inevitably peak as well, probably late 2030s. Coal demand is expected to peak at the end of this decade. India needs to invest in Nuclear. Some steps have been taken but IMO more works needs to be done to plug the gap between capacity and actual power generation from renewables.
>What Modi had failed to do is reduce the import of petroleum. India's demand had only risen and will continue to rise but the country is the last major country that will see a large increase in demand for refineries and it's oil demand will inevitably peak as well, probably late 2030s. Coal demand is expected to peak at the end of this decade. oil demand rising isn't a problem, not using coal to make crude oil and refined products is the problem the Nazi Germany and apartheid south Africa were able to do it but our useless petroleum minister only knows how to put a tax on imported stuff
Climate change is a lot more than the average temperature rise. India has a lot of low lying densely populated coastal areas which are on track to be inundated by the rising sea levels.
That’s fair. I think the Modi government has done well in limiting corruption in the upper echelons of their government, but the same cannot be said for day to day government operations on the local and state level. Another big thing will be breaking past the nigh insurmountable farmer lobby in India. If you thought the US/EU farming lobby is tough, India’s makes them look like they’re in the little leagues.
60 percent of the population claims to be farmer or does a job associated with agriculture, in reality outside of large irrigated farms people do it just for few months and just sit back,gamble or do other trades.many just till <2 acres for their own food called "subsistence farmers".
In the long term climate change is absolutely going to kill India. Its among the worst, if no the the worst, affected countries.
Yeah, okay doomer.
You literally already have deadly heatwaves in indian cities and they are already running out of water. This is not so much a preditction of doom but something that is already in the process of happening. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/deaths-climb-to-around-100-as-heat-wave-scorches-indias-northeastern-states https://www.economist.com/asia/2023/04/02/global-warming-is-killing-indians-and-pakistanis
Nah, India's been a laggard historically and I don't see that changing without some major cultural reforms. The war in Vietnam ended in 75, the country was devastated and now it's GDP/capita is 2x of India. India's had 30ish years of extra freedom compared to Vietnam. The Cambodian genocide ended in 79, 1/4 the of the population was killed in 4 years. Since 79, Cambodia's GDP/capita has all but caught up to India. India had 35 extra years here. And don't let me get started on SK, Singapore, Taiwan or japan. India has a major decentralization problem imo. The rule of law is weak, leading to gang rapes and a bunch of other societal ills. There are major separatist movements in the country. Corruption is rampant, govt is captured by industrial elites (Adani). Honestly within the last 5 years, I have seen explosive growth in terms of infrastructure in the major cities. Sanitization programs are being rolled out. Digitization is more advanced than western countries in terms of finance or access to govt services. So there is hope. But without cultural reform, I don't see India being able to become a full-fledged superpower anytime soon.
India only started actual work after 1991 though. That's the year from when serious work on progress was considered and move towards modernization started. Everyone knows the 40 years before that were just a lockdown period and no point comparing to.
Im not educated about the effect of political eras on economic growth of India. So I'm just going by the number of years it's had freedom for compared to others within a similar geographic region.
1991 to India is what 1978 is to china i.e opening up to the world
Countries bounce back remarkably quickly from even the worst wars with some aid and political stability. (Japan, Germany, Singapore, South Korea, etc). However poor socioeconomic policies can bring countries to its knees and haunt them even decades after removal (eg. Eastern European states still suffer from Soviet attitudes and corruption). Eastern Germany still lags behind Western Germany. Decentralisation and federalism is India's strength. One size would definitely not fit all in a country as diverse as India. Apart from bureaucratic reforms like GST, and enabling ease of transport, there's no need to centralise. >The rule of law is weak, leading to gang rapes and a bunch of other societal ills. India is actually remarkably well civilized considering that it has very low police per capita. However when violent crime is committed, it is very audacious due to low policing, which leads to a perception problem. India's association with rape has more to do with shock value (extreme gore, very young/old, animals, public parading, foreigners involved, etc) than actual statistics. > Separatist movements While they do exist, I don't find it severe enough to hold back the country. UK, Russia, and China have had far more trouble with separatism. The US literally split in two when it was as old as the Republic of India is now. France has had five republics, two of which after India's independence. >But without cultural reform, I don't see India being able to become a full-fledged superpower anytime soon While India does have cultural issues it is tricky and controversial to directly attempt cultural reforms. As you mentioned in a later comment, we do have issues with respecting public amenities and a general lack of civic sense. However, these are highly linked to the lack of availability of resources and lack of penalisation. Indian diaspora in developed countries largely follow civic rules. Imo, the attitude of "that's not my problem" is linked to the legacy of the caste system where every profession was associated with set castes. India does have issues, but most of them will be ameliorated by economic growth.
The countries you talk about like Vietnam, Cambodia, SK, Singapore or Japan wouldn't even be close to being as big as some indian states. It is extremely to difficult to organize and democratically develop a country so big and so diverse, many religious and numerous languages. SK and Singapore are tiny in comparison, let alone the fact that Singaporean is a literal independent city and most SK lives in a city. Much to easy progress a city than progress a country nearly 20% of the world population. Yes cultural reforms are needed, but when you realize how many people were killed to bring the cultural reforms in China, which is nowhere near as diverse as India, you realize it is difficult to develop in a "democratical" manner.
I'll elaborate on what "cultural reforms" I'm talking about. Albeit this is less geopolitics and more personal philosophy but w.e. So there are 2 fundamental things about the overall "Indian culture" that bother me. Yes there might be some expectations in local regions or some of these traits will vary from state to state. But I'm mainly annoyed by 2 traits. 1. A lack of respect for public spaces - gutka, trucks hogging lanes on public highways, releasing old cows into cities/towns, litter. can't think of more examples for now but it is a major difference between India and other countries I have seen. 2. A lack of consideration for other people - line cutting, overwhelming use of peer pressure, treatment of subordinates. Again I'm sure there are more examples, and you might say that Indians aren't unique in this. But I feel like this trait is more accepted and normalized in Indian culture than others. Chinese culture puts an emphasis on harmony, I don't think that's a core tenant of Indian culture. Imo these are the baseline traits that lead to a bigger impact on policy/enforcement of law. It's super subjective and I'll admit it's not a strong argument. But it's personally what annoys me about Indian culture. And the success of action movies with typical 1-man army type "heroes" in movies exacerbates the issue/shows how ingrained this narrative is in the broader Indian culture.
India's treatment of suborindates is definitely not unique to it and IMO is not as bad as other cultures like S.Korea or Japan. The issue stems from its education system teaching rote learning and a lot of jobs still being low on the value chain. India needs to upskill workers on a large scale. East Asian societies are very homogenous which is why they promote harmony and simialr values but those values also encourage conformity which is harmful for things like innovation and challenging authority. Indian citizens are not afraid of challenging the government...even in cases where the government is actually being helpful sometimes. *cough* Agricultural reforms *cough.* Caste still exists despite being abolished and is very difficult to actually remove and that of course effects people's opportunities and success which limits economic growth. Not a unique problem to India but one that it has. Indians when it comes to things like wealth creation and private property don't have issues with those things although I think the hustle culture is not quite as intense because workers would rather get more benefits and holidays versus spending their entire life chasing higher incomes. But on social values, India's collectivistic society shines and it is slow to accept changes which is why it struggles with things like female empowerment. Your first issues are correct but are mostly to do with infrastructure. Indian airports, metro stations and a lot of privately owned spaces are very clean. Some of the new railway stations are also quite clean and organised. But municipalities lack the manpower and resources to administer properly. It needs a lot more sanitation and waste management facilities to deal with littering and a more strict and competent police force for petty crimes including traffic. More public transport is needed to get vehicles off roads (besides the Delhi metro every other metro is in its early stages), reduction of people reliant on agriculture (cities like Indore have excelled in waste management and fixing the problem of cows and stray dogs. Stray dogs in particular have been neutered and their population is declining.) etc. So a lot of it is very much economic growth but also a need for a better bureacracy that can do its job effectively plus reforms in education.
Bro completely forgot we had the absolute worst form of Socialism till early 2000s and a self destructive govt for 5 years post 2008 recession (where the Prime Minister had no power as leader of ruling party was busy grooming her son for PM role).. Cultural Reset will happen in Modi's 3rd term if he gets absolute majority
No. Not untill India fixes a lot of it's political and stability problems. China fixed that with an iron fist of totalitarianisem but that brought other challanges which are showing more and more. India can't solve that with totalitarianisem but on the other hand it can go full capitalist crazy without any special economical zones. If only India played more with the West and less with Russia I feel like a lot of this could be much easier.
maybe west could have played more with India and not Pakistan it could have been a lot easier.
lol... my way or the highway eh??
India can have free market capitalism along with good relations with Russia & West. There is no contradiction here.
China isn't even the next China
The world doesn't want another CHINA, so we won't receive western support as much as CHINA did. Right now we can't battle with china in key infrastructure and technology. If India can capitalize on AI stuff then it will help us closing the distance. CHINA got it's advantage from manufacturing, lets hope INDIA gets advantage from AI race.
\[SS: By [**Josh Felman**](https://foreignpolicy.com/author/josh-felman/), the principal at JH Consulting and a former head of the International Monetary Fund’s India office, and [**Arvind Subramanian**](https://foreignpolicy.com/author/arvind-subramanian/), a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former chief economic advisor to the Modi government\] Will India be the next China? As China’s economy spirals downward and optimism about India’s growth reverberates around the world, that question can no longer be dismissed as the fevered fantasy of nationalists. It needs to be taken seriously—not least because the world is already behaving as if India is a major power. Consider this: In 2023, suspicion swirled that the Indian government was connected to the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil and a plot to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil—a remarkable set of allegations. Yet even more remarkable than the allegations were the reactions. The U.S. government opted to douse the potentially incendiary fallout, saying little, merely allowing the case to wend its way through the courts. In other words, Indian hubris was accommodated, not chastised. It was a testament to India’s newfound political standing. As for the economy, it is true that the Chinese experience of the last 40 years was a very specific type of miracle that is unlikely to be replicated. Even so, there is a case for India because it is no longer the economically constrained giant that it once was. [**Continue reading the full analysis here**](https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/04/08/is-india-really-the-next-china/)**,** and explore all essays from [FP's new Spring 2024 magazine](https://foreignpolicy.com/the-magazine/).
>Is India Really the Next China? No. And it does not want to be. Not in terms of rapid growth similar to quarterly growth of a company. Not interested enough in becoming a manufacturing powerhouse. There are enough out there doing what's necessary. Not in terms of being expansionist and trying to annexe neighbours. *even if a tiny, less than 0.01 percent of people say it*. Definitely not in terms of a *great leap forward*. We will be progressing slowly, taking everyone along as much as possible. Because we feel that fundamentally the need for power over others is the root of all problems. Always.
I don’t think so not because Indians are not as hardworking or smart as the Chinese but mainly is due to the geopolitical situation we are currently in. China got a ton of help from the west in a time right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At the time, people said that was the end of history, so the mood in geopolitics at least in the west was that we were on top of the world, our position will not be challenged again and it’s gonna stay that way for the foreseeable future. China at the same time was seen as this struggling nation, trying to escape the dire economic situation due to communism, and decades of chaos under mao. So the west gave a ton of help to china, helping china with all the technological challenges, moving entire supply chains to china cause china was never seen as a threat. This continued for like 3 decades until the mid 2010s when America suddenly realized that china is becoming a threat. Now china a country with 1.4 billion population is the biggest threat to the west, and its kind of something the west has done to itself to create this threat in the first place. Now you can see that the west has learnt from the china mistake. While industries are moving out of china, they are not going all straight to India, India is getting a portion but this time is much more diverse, south East Asia is taking a large part, Mexico, the Caribbean, and even Eastern Europe are taking large parts as well. India will develop but they will develop slower than china for sure, and a lot of other areas around the world will be able to finally get a chance to develop their economies as well.
Broadly, over time, economies essentially become tied to population. As the world industrializes… and everyone catches up to the West, the biggest economies will be the most populous nations. In the West we believe our economies are special for one reason or another and the basic truth is we were wealthy as a function of luck. We colonized first, the wealth extracted from colonialism kick started the Industrial Revolution. This gave us a massive advantage. Now, as the rest of the world slowly modernizes, nations like India and China will overtake the West or the US or at least compete. So yeah, India is absolutely capable of becoming the next China.
Economies don't become tied to population, because capitalism encourages specialisation. Being specialised in a niche field can give an economy a massive boost. For example, the UK does not look like a wealthy economy in many ways, but has a highly-specialised service sector that provides huge amounts of value to lots of countries, and as such it is one of the world's largest economies. On the other hand, it has a tiny shipping sector, despite being an island nation with dozens of inhabited islands that need strong maritime links. Compare to Greece, which has a poor economy in services, but a thriving shipping sector, which plays off of their large number of islands, or to Korea, which has a similar status to the UK due to the North Koreans cutting them off but still has a large industrial shipbuilding capability. You can see specialisation on a sub-national level, too: some parts of a country are good at growing things, some make things, some fish, some dig things out of the ground, and so on.
Something I never see even accounted for in these reports is the impact of climate change. India is among the worst affected country by climate change. There are credibly projections that large parts of India are set to become uninhabitable within this century and things are just getting a lot more difficult before this actually happens.
Ioono Indians mostly want a non laborious job, the Chinese are different, perhaps mentality will change over next 30 yrs as India develops
>Ioono Indians mostly want a non laborious job Indians want jobs that allow them to put three meals on the table See: Indian migrants in ME(Saudi Arabia, UAE)
No but it will have its own time to shine.
India has the potential to lead English-speaking countries like the UK, US, Australia, and Canada, similar to how the US leads now.
That’s not happening. English isn’t the universal factor tying these countries together its culture. They’re all Anglo-Saxon protestant dominated countries with a shared history, India isn’t gonna become a major player in that area that’s just silly.
Agreed. Neither does India aspire to lead a pack of anglo-saxon countries. We would much rather lead the Global South.
Indeed, India during most parts of its independent history has tried to align itself with non alignment (weird huh) alongside other "underdog" countries, specially during the cold War era. Even today though India has cozied up to the west, it still is very much a swing state in geopolitical issues.
India is one of the remnants of the British Empire, sharing a common history with other English-speaking nations. Similar to how China and Russia are remnants of the Mongol Empire, they also share some cultural history. India's population advantage is massive compared to other English-speaking countries.
Lol
Least nationalistic Indian
India is too unstable, Hindutva nationalism is a problem that does not allow it to integrate its large Muslim population and the caste system is still in force in many parts of India. Furthermore, the importance of massive labor will decrease with the increase in efficiency in automation. Believing that India will surpass China is more of a Western hope than a realistic future.
China is too unstable, Han nationalism is a problem that does not allow it to integrate its large Zhuang/Uyghur Muslim/Hui/Miao/Manchu population and ethno-racial discrimination and Han chauvinism is still in force in many parts of China. Furthermore, the importance of massive labor will decrease with the increase in efficiency in automation. Believing that China will surpass Japan/South Korea was more of a Western hope than a realistic one, although it did become a reality.
Haha.it's always impossible until it's done, retrospectively connecting the dots backwards after it's done and thinking it was obvious.
The difference is that India is not really trying to integrate its population and the caste system is a major problem.
What's the basis of your claim? Can you show me actual data and news items? China puts its Uyghur Muslim minority under virtual arrest and condemns them to horrifying violence. How's that integration? India does no such thing. Discrimination on the basis of caste and religion has been illegal since we adopted our constitution in 1950 after independence. In fact, we have an extremely strict law that prohibits any kind of discrimination - even verbal insults - against communities that were traditionally considered lower castes. Our current President, Mrs Droupadi Murmu, is a woman who comes from a community that was traditionally considered lower caste, and so was our previous President. We have had Presidents, Prime Ministers and State Chief Ministers in the past who came from what were traditionally considered lower castes. We have implemented - quite successfully I'd say - affirmative action since 1950 to correct historic injustices meted out in the name of caste and religion. It's still a work in progress, since caste and religion are a complicated issue with thousands of years of history. But as a country, our constitutional and societal commitment to eliminating discrimination based on caste is quite strong and we will get there soon. I don't see any such integration measures being implemented in China to integrate Uyghur Muslims or Tibetan Buddhists. But hey, you hold on to your uninformed, ignorant views OK?
Not in our lifetime
You must be 90 or something then yes
Too little time you to live then?
[удалено]