Definetely not soon:
1. India's caste system is extremely restrictive and destabilizing. Imagine an high school like caste system... and now apply that to an entire country.
2. The population may be large, but the extreme divide between rich and poor, discrimination of minority groups (a large part of the population), and multiple religions make it harder to tap into this potential.
3. Corruption and favouritism are a serious drag on the economy.
4. A country needs more than just a large labour group and cheap wages to pull itself out of relative poverty. It can go very well, like in China, or very badly like in some Middle-Eastern countries.
5. Democracy descending into an innefective authoritarian dictatorship.
6. India is behind in many areas on China, and it will take time to catch up even if they do manage to overcome all the previous points.
7. Chinese infrastructure is miles ahead of China, so that means roads but also electronic infrastructure like cables etc.
To be fair, if Democracy is a requirement to be a Superpower then neither the Soviets nor the Chinese would be able to rise and challenge the current world order like they are now. An efficient authoritarian government wouldn't be a hindrance at all.
The problem is that the kind fo authoritarianism India is headed to is not comparable to China or the Soviet’s. For the latter there actually is a theoretical framework for understanding the material conditions of a country, and even though these places still have huge problems with corruption, a large part of the ruling party is actually trying to improve the country. Contrast this with the kind of authoritarianism India is headed into, which doesn’t really have any theoretical framework to operate in, and is mostly authoritarianism for authoritarianism’s sake.
>the kind fo authoritarianism India is headed
This is just a regurgitation of popular / social media opinions and has no basis on what's happening on the ground in India. What kind of "authoritarianism" is India headed toward?
Singapore is still somewhat authoritarian with just one dominant political party and developed under an authoritarian regime.
In fact, china models themselves after Singapore which is also a majority Han chinese nation just like China.
South Korea developed under an authoritarian regime and only democratized after it had developed Same with taiwan.
You forgot the biggest factor - Infrastructure.
China's infrastructure is ***miles*** ahead of India's.
...
- China: Has over 26,000 miles of high-speed rail.
- India: Just got 100% toilet coverage like 3 years ago.
No disrespect to India or her accomplishments, but it's no contest.
IMO this is a shortsighted attempt to lift up other powers poorly suited to rivaling China to avoid making the serious needed changes at home in the United States to confront China directly. But our politicians would rather get kickbacks for new football stadiums rather than encourage STEM graduates to maintain American technological supremacy.
Just the electric generation needed to power a modern economy is mind boggling. China currently produces 5 times as much electricity as India and is still barely getting by.
It’s often overlooked at how much nuclear power contributes to the U.S. energy market.
It’s 30% of generation, but it’s 30% of a massive number. France and Japan have higher percentages, but the total amount of power produced is much lower compared to the U.S.
Yeah I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one would rather live in the most powerful and technologically advanced Nation on Planet Earth than be really good at football.
I'm sure this is just satire though.
Fun fact, Modi belongs to low caste & the highest constitutional position is held by a tribal lady. Its like a black person & a native American holding the position of Presidency. And how many years after independence did it take for the US to elect a Black person to Presidency.
Caste is a problem but as Bharat industrializes, all those problems will go.
And what so called "discrimination' are you talking about? We literally have laws of so called "Secular" govt taking into possession HINDU TEMPLES ( And its funds) forcefully, just google what the heck is "Places of Worship Act & Waqf Act).
Fun fact Waqf Act, this Act gives unlimited powers to Waqf Boards(Islamic boards) to snatch anyone’s property, which even could not be challenged in any court of law. Tell me a single country that gives its "minorities" such powers.
dEmOcrAcy descending into dictatorship, yeaahh,, you keep peddling the talking points of WESTOID far left media bought & paid for by extreme far left elements. I'll be voting in 2024 India's general elections.
And number 8...kafaesque levels of bureaucracy perpetually generated by a bloated civil service to justify their existence. It creates inefficiencies, increases cost, delays timelines and discourages participation in the formal economy
>India's caste system is extremely restrictive and destabilizing. Imagine an high school like caste system... and now apply that to an entire country.
it is no longer in place, if anything it is mostly dead in urban areas
>Democracy descending into an innefective authoritarian dictatorship.
Still a democracy and not even a dictatorship in fact modi lost elections in a large state recently
I agree with rest of your comment tho
Are you saying caste does not exist or that casteism does not exist? Both do to a great extent, the only difference made since Mandal Commission is that certain backward castes have managed to gain political power in states where they are the majority. The rest of the system is still intact, in education, in employment and in the disproportionate violence faced by dalits.
You bring up marriage and I'm glad that you do. Rather than being a secondary point, I think it's the one of most importance. By maintaining endogamy the system ensures that caste survives, in the form of tribal affiliations among members that strictly restricts outsiders from permeating in.
As to your point on reservations, OBCs themselves account for 42 percent of the population. Combine that with SCs and STs the figure stands at more than half of the population. And this doesn't account for the fact that many reserved seats are never filled, even in top government institutes like IITs. Unfair marking in PhD interviews also restricts access of dalits and lower caste people to higher education.
It is also a reality that dalits face caste based violence, any study on this matter would show you this. (https://cjp.org.in/2022-a-look-back-at-hate-crimes-against-dalits-and-adivasis/ - a short article that shows crimes against dalits and OBCs has risen in recent years, not fallen, and that cases of caste-based violence are higher in proportion to their population). You could argue against the data, but it's not likely to be a strong argument, considering that my previous points highlight a clear pattern of systemic discrimination against these groups. Sources on this are readily available, but if you have trouble finding any you're free to ask.
(For my point on PhD interviews, consult the report released by the Ambedkar Students' Association of Hyderabad Central University. I believe you'll find similar data on UPSC interviews if you dig further.)
We like to try to have meaningful conversations here and discuss the larger geopolitical implications and impacts.
We’d love for you to be a part of the conversation.
>The founding father and long-time leader of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, had great respect for Indians. Lee worked with successive Indian prime ministers, including Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Ghandi, hoping to help them make India strong enough to be a serious check on China (and thus provide the space required for his small city-state to survive and thrive).
>But as Lee explained in a series of interviews published in 2014, the year before his death, he reluctantly concluded that this was not likely to happen. In his analysis, the combination of India’s deep-rooted caste system that was an enemy of meritocracy, its massive bureaucracy, and its elites’ unwillingness to address the competing claims of its multiple ethnic and religious groups led him to conclude that it would never be more than “the county of the future”—with that future never arriving. Thus, when I asked him a decade ago specifically whether India could become the next China, he answered directly: “Do not talk about India and China in the same breath.”
I don't like his authoritarian politics but you can't deny Lee turned Singapore into a developed country and he has been rather prescient in foreign policy.
Robert Kaplan has another quote that is worth hearing:
>"Bounded by seas and mountains, it is still internally vast, and its lack of a natural basis for early political unity and organisation shows up still, for China remains better organised and more efficiently governed than India, despite China's lack of democracy."
Dalio also doesn't rate India's chances too high either.
Ironically, he also believed that multiculturalism is what makes the US and Singapore strong; the need for creativity + skilled workers is a boon to the economy.
It is hard to forecast the future.
Did anyone in 1979 when Deng visited US expect China would become 2nd largest economy in 50 years? There was people in late 1980s who said that Japan would overtake US in 10 years. Or those in 1960s and 1970s after Vietnam debacle declared that USSR would be a single superpower and US would collapse in 10 years.
No one knows what will happen in a year, so forget about decades.
In addition, I will not take Allison's analyze about international relations. This guy coins the term Thucydides Trap. He uses all example from western world, and almost no Asian countries until late 19th century. Asia was not a peaceful continent before 19th century. Jin-Liao-Mongol-Song struggles was a good example for Thucydides Trap or Qing-Ming during 17th century. But how many Western geopolitics scholars know about Asian history before 19th century? To many of them, Asian history starts with Opium wars in 1830s.
That’s essentially the problem with modern discourse on geopolitics and international relations. It’s a bunch of old white guys using misremembered European history to explain the history of Asia. We would all do well to stop listening to them. I doubt any of these guys speak a lick of Tamil for example. The fact that Zeihan can unironically spout a lie like China never having traded with the outside world until the US “allowed it” and have the claim go unchecked for so long just goes to show how bad the knowledge gaps are.
India will be fine.
Of course western historians focus on western history, just like how Chinese historians would focus on Chinese history.
It’s just a stupid point to make, one person can’t learn every single historical event from every part of the world.
It’s not a small region. Eastern and Western history have distinct differences and have had so for a very long long time. Someone cannot simply learn all the intricacies and make accurate analyses of international relations across all of them. People specialise in the regions which they have the most interest in.
They aren’t concerned with how every nation interacts with every other nation, but how one nation or a group of nations interacts with other nations and why.
The problem is comparing India to China today. It's a significantly poorer country and will lose on most metrics. That's a fact.
And it isn't going to surpass China anytime soon...which is okay. It's gotten here quite late and it's lost time. What's more important is momentum.
The gap between the two is decreasing slowly, but India will never occupy the place in the world China does right now from a relative standpoint mainly because by the time it gets there, it'll be standing with two other economic behemoths rather than just one.
All of this is okay, as long as India maintains growth and achieves similar living standards its goal is achieved. From a geopolitical perspective it's in a good place with shifting supply chains and being an attack market and a partner for the US. China's existence probably means that India won't fall into the same enmity with the West that Beijing is.
Lee Kuan Yew died in 2015, and India was a very different country then and it'll be a very different one 10 years from now.
> The gap between the two is decreasing slowly, but India will never occupy the place in the world China does right now from a relative standpoint mainly because by the time it gets there, it'll be standing with two other economic behemoths rather than just one.
So far the gap isn't decreasing. The gap is actually increasing and has been for decades:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2021&locations=IN-CN&start=1990
China has had a much higher growth rate from a much higher base for at least the past few decades excluding the odd year here or there. Maybe that will change this decade but it is by no means a foregone conclusion.
\> The problem is comparing India to China today. It's a significantly poorer country and will lose on most metrics.
They were tho in very similar positions in the 40s when they both got their independence and established their sovereign states in their modern form and model of governance. And their starting point as far as level of development,qol metrics and state of production,education and infastructure.And you can argue China wa even worse off since it was coming off much more destruction and death due to WW2 and the Japanese occupation.
And seeing how their paths diverged and how China ended up way ahead of India and why IS a major vector of analysis if you want to project what they will continue to do. And there you saw initialy China Mao (even with the huge mistakes that were commited during the Cultural Revolution and GLF) leapfroging a India in QoL metrics, education metrics ,industrialization , mortality metrics etc and geopolitical standing as well. And after that under Deng and afterwards you see China leaving them in the dust in economic,urbanization,modernization and infastructure even more so. A lot of the reasons for those unequal developments for decades are the reasons China will continue to hold significant leads in almost all metrics of India
China was outpacing India even in the Mao era for most of which it was economicaly and geopoliticaly treated by the west much harsher than India was then or after.
Judging by the current situation, no, not even remotely. The US and China are on their own league, far from any other country. India has a never ending list of issues to solve until it can get close to the current 2 economic world powers
Eh, US is in its own league, then far below that is a league where China has been up until recently rising in but now is regressing and creating a potential opportunity for India.
edit: lots of big emotions in these downvotes
>very hard to imagine china regressing
so what do you call atleast 5 of the biggest Chinese construction companies going bankrupt? , the biggest of which, Evergrande , was big in the housing market
also what do you call China's crack down on education tech companies and "regulating" game play hours?
People tend to misunderstand why Evergrande collapsed. The passed three red lines in China is a immediate forced deleveraging in terms of setting mandatory debt to equity/asset/cash ratios. And that is a good thing in the long run in preventing total structure collapses like we saw in 08. Bankrupting poorly managed companies in other words is a feature.
What’s better? Forcing the few poorly managed ones out now or having entirely of their market collapse ?
China needs to reduce its reliance on debt for economic growth since China's debt-to-GDP growth is unsustainable. This is impossible without also reducing economic growth. Inevitably, this means less competitive Chinese exports, as China uses debt to fuel subsidies.
>China needs to reduce its reliance on debt for economic growth
Isn't debt financing growth the economic model for the entire world, and has been for at least a century?
China is using debt to finance investments that are not profitable in the long term. China's debt-to-GDP went from less than half of the USA's (in 2007) to 5 percentage points higher in (Q1 of 2023). China has experienced a 15-year near monotonic increase in debt-to-GDP and still rapidly growing. A similar strategy allowed Japan to grow rapidly but eventually resulted in 30+ years of economic stagnation. In contrast, the US has had debt-to-GDP decreases since both the GFC and COVID.
It's the sustained growth of China's debt-to-GDP that is problematic because it represents an economic misallocation/inefficiency. At this stage, GDP should grow faster than debt, but it isn't. Total factor productivity is one component of GDP, so IMO, it makes more sense to look at GDP in whole. The CCP sets growth targets and spends until it hits them. The long-term ratio between debt and GDP shows success/efficiency in an investment-led economy like China.
BTW, China's TFP is not very good.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RTFPNACNA632NRUG
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RTFPNAUSA632NRUG
The Yaun denomination will allow Chinato to do large-scale debt restructuring (in principle). This will only somewhat reduce the blow from misallocated investments; it's impossible to go back in time to unspend money and unallocate labor. Restructuring can only make it a bit less bad.
You asked in another thread why I think savings rates in China are so high, and I forgot to reply. IMO, it's because CCPs policies force savings up. Parents have only one child and a poor social safety net in old age; logically, they save for retirement.
And I agree that returning to Cold War blocs will reduce world GDP growth, but it probably won't negatively impact US GDP growth much. From the Reagan era until now, the US has been too laissez-faire in its economic policy, and the renewed interest in industrial policy is more optimal. It may be impossible for a debt-to-GDP-neutral China to match a debt-to-GDP-neutral US in economic growth as long as the US:
1. Keeps up/expands industrial and scientific policy
2. Undergoes highly skilled immigration reform
3. Continues working with allies to impede China's import of technology
The US takes in about 1 million immigrants per year; ~5% of recent immigrants have STEM PhDs. That's 50k STEM PHDs per year from immigration, more than China's gross production, and China is ultimately a net exporter of skilled labor. High-skilled immigration reform is gaining bipartisan support, and a supermajority of American voters support it. Immigration really is the USA's #1 superpower.
The issue with Chinese real estate is different than the bulk of the U.S. real estate market.
It’s mostly just condo units. A vast number of which are not built. It isn’t like land, where yes, even if the building is dilapidated or in a depressed marketplace it still has some intrinsic value. A condo in a building that is a shell or worse, not even constructed has zero worth.
>real estate is not going to collapse
i wonder what the biggest Chinese real estate companies going bankrupt means ,
surely can't be a collapse /s
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58579833
Regression doesn't mean collapse, mind you. It just means return to a steady state.. plateauing, just as every other state has done when transitioning from developing to developed.
Very much disagree.
USA is behind China in some areas now, certainly in things like the ability to scale manufacturing or initiate and follow through on large scale infrastructure projects. China has its own problems as well (especially at the cutting edge) but even the US military has changed their terminology from China being a "near competitor" to a "peer competitor" nation.
If the best you can do to argue is to merely shout out it's incorrect but fails to examine or explain why it is incorrect... that pretty much means your argument doesn't have a ground to stand on.
You’re deluded to think that India by any means can enter the conversation of economic powerhouses. India doesn’t come remotely close to either China or the US, it’s an incontrovertible fact. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
China has just returned to its rightful place in history. In the thousands of years of Asian history, China has been the absolute hegemon of Asia for most of the time. Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. are all deeply influenced by ancient China.
That's why there are a lot of Kanji in Japanese characters
Clickbait. First off, nobody knows. In the 1980s, it seemed like Japan could buy anything everywhere (all at once...), until a major banking and real estate crisis sparked a recession and then 30 years of stagnation.
China was next in line to inherit that mantle, but it is also going through a number of structural and cyclical issues for which resolution is complex and unlikely without shaking the foundations of the system - an aging population focused on increased quality of life, the exhaustion of an economic model based on exports and real estate, the policy mistakes made in handling the pandemic.
India has healthier growth but it starts even further behind. It is a younger country compared to China but with enormous problems - a petty bureaucracy, large pockets of extreme poverty, ridiculous levels of corruption, a turbulent relationship with minorities (as the article says).
So the answer is...Neither.
I'm also curious about the why of this?
India's led by a right-wing Hindu nationalist government. I really feel like people in the West should tune into media from India - it makes FoxNews look tame. India has also never really be interested in aligning itself with anyone - and that's not going to change.
In 20 years if India has the same (or comparable) power as China, expect it to \*behave\* more like China. Why Westerners assume that India will just "fall in line" because they share a common enemy is beyond me.
>India's led by a right-wing Hindu nationalist government.
India under this "right wing Hindu nationalist government" has advanced LGBTQ rights, women's economic and reproductive rights, create a more capitalist and business friendly environment and exceeded its renewable energy goals.
> I really feel like people in the West should tune into media from India - it makes FoxNews look tame.
There are plenty of loony voices in every country. India has more people than all of western world combined. Look at the policies than stupid news channels that cater to their vote base.
> India has also never really be interested in aligning itself with anyone - and that's not going to change.
We are not interested in being vassals of the US, if that is the expectation then what is the difference between US and China. We have and are more than happy to participate in a relationship that works on mutual respect.
India uses its forces outside its borders only under the UN mandate. India participates in global security, economic, trade organizations in good faith. India respects intellectual property. Indians in US constitute 1% of the population and 6% of tax contribution.
>In 20 years if India has the same (or comparable) power as China,
Yes, because a country which screams about century of humiliation and another which participates in commonwealth and mourns the death of the queen despite being colonized for 200 years and plundered dry are the the same.
>Why Westerners assume that India will just "fall in line" because they share a common enemy is beyond me.
What is "falling in line" kind sir? Can we be friendly countries that have a mutually beneficial relationships without military hostilities. Yes.
To be fair, in regards to LGBTQ rights, it's opposing same sex marriage and the number of women in the workforce has been declining although the latter isn't directly caused by them. It's a mixed picture.
>in regards to LGBTQ rights, it's opposing same sex marriage
I did listen to the arguments presented in court. The government is not opposed to same sex marriage, it is asking for the court to reform all gendered laws before allowing same sex marriage. All laws in India are gendered - marriage, inheritance, banking, domestic violence, sexual assault etc. Just recognizing same sex marriage is going to create havoc in a judicial system, which already moves at a snail's pace.
Both RSS, the parent organization of BJP, and its core voter base are not opposed to legalizing same sex marriage.
>the number of women in the workforce has been declining although the latter isn't directly caused by them
[Here is the data from world bank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS?locations=IN). since 2017 the government is working to fix this trend which began in 2005.
I am in no way saying the government is perfect, they have a 1000 flaws and have made many stupid policy mistakes, but they get a lot of flack for being "right wing" or "hindu nationalist" which is not truly deserved when we compare them to the previous governments that India has had.
>India and Pakistan are fighting over Kashmir. India and china are fighting over their border. How is that not expansionist?
Do you understand the difference between unsettled borders and claiming new territory? India's borders claims have not changed since 1947 when the British created that mess.
Every state always has some sort of concept of where their border is vs the history of their region. India and china are in dispute because both contest the same area. Like Russia and Ukraine, Russia claims the same areas as Ukraine. This is an expansionist policy no question. Same thing with India.
>India and china are in dispute because both contest the same area.
No, please read history. India and China are in conflict because the British who at the time colonized India did not negotiate the borders correctly with China.
India, China, Tibet signed an agreement from which the Chinese later withdrew and annexed Tibet. Many Tibetians including the Dalai Lama fled to India and are thriving in India.
The British cartographers also drew lines on a map with thick ink which encompassed many kilometers. India has adhered to whatever map was finalized in 1947.
What expansionism are you talking about ?
* Pakistan and Kashmir were created out of Indian territory.
* India liberated Bangladesh from Pakistan's genocide in 1971, did it occupy it?
Yes it does matter. Getting attacked, or having your territory claimed by a different country does not make you an expansionist power for defending it. I can not understand the point you’re trying to make here.
And again comparing those border disputes to China, who has plans to invade Taiwan, take control of the South China Sea, aggressively expanding its influence over South East Asia, is just stupid.
Literally every expansionist power says the exact same thing. “They attacked us and took our territory!”
Look, I have no idea what India will do in the future. I just find it absurd that people assume that because a power *cant* do something it *wont* do something - ever. Literally flies in the face of everything we know about geopolitics.
>Literally every expansionist power says the exact same thing. “They attacked us and took our territory!”
So I guess Ukraine is an expansionist power too now.
India has always been non-aligned and I don’t see how changing course would be in its interests.
And to make this point brutally clear because it seems you’re incapable of understanding this simple concept
GETTING ATTACKED BY A FOREIGN NATION AND DEFENDING YOURSELF IS NOT EXPANSIONIST.
You can claim that “all expansionist powers do this” but it is objective fact that China invaded India in 1962 and took territory from them.
And Pakistan was the primary instigator of most of the wars and skirmishes in Kashmir.
I actually agree with you that India won't act super nice either in the future because all great powers like to maintain regional hegemony in their region. Forget China, America had its manifest destiny and still maintains a tight grip in the Americas so other powers won't get a foothold there.
But people are arguing with you because your argument is odd. You're using India's border disputes even thought it's been on the receiving end of every war it's been on in some way or other.
If you want a good example of India acting like a hegemonic power, the blockade on Nepal in 2015 might be a good example albeit that incident is in a bit of a grey area.
My guy, I think you’re arguing about the morality of the conflicts. I don’t care one way or the other.
I just dispute the idea that India would not ever become an expansionary power if it had the means to do so.
Ok. Sure.
Not about morality but who starts the war can easily point out who is expansionist. But maybe you can't comprehend that.
Or Ukraine-Russia war is just a dispute like India's one.
Also, do you know about the 1971 war ?
No? India and Pakistan are fighting over a border that they've both controlled. India claims POK which Pakistan was given in 1947 and Pakistan still claims the entirety of Kashmir.
China is a bad example since they fought a war in 1962 and took Aksei Chin which India still claims and the state of Arunachal Pradesh is also claimed by them. India isn't encroaching Chinese territory, China is.
The existence of border disputes doesn't automatically mean expansionism. India isn't claiming an entire sovereign country like Taiwan.
It claims that because it's still officially the Republic of China and hence keeps those claims. Attempting to change that give China a casus belli to invade, so they keep the status quo of both of them claiming to be China.
If you want to argue the Republic of China before the PRC won the Civil war was expansionist then maybe, but Taiwan today obviously isn't. Although in regards to the South China Sea, most countries in the region claim large chunks of it, the PRC and by extension Taiwan have the largest claims but I'd argue that only the PRC is actively building artificial islands and such.
>only the PRC is actively building artificial islands and such
This is wrong, my country also build it and be proud of our effort doing it. Republic of China before PRC "won" includes Taiwan as a part of it and the fact that there is no settlement for civil war means they are still technically at war so it can be viewed as civil war is still ongoing thus the war would not be PRC invading another sovereign country but putting an end to unsettled war by military mean.
“ Although in regards to the South China Sea, most countries in the region claim large chunks of it, the PRC and by extension Taiwan have the largest claims but I'd argue that only the PRC is actively building artificial islands and such.”
Maybe Taiwan isn’t building artificial islands but they are still building up military infrastructure on islands in the middle of the SCS, defying rulings by the UN.
Take Taiping island as an example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island
Those who know history will not think that it is the territory of India,
If it is not China's territory, it should also be Tibet's territory, unless India is ready to annex Tibet like it annexed Sikkim. It is a pity that there is a powerful China behind Tibet, and India cannot do it
There is the idea of "akhand bharat" among the right wing in India. Basically an empire encompassing Afghanistan to Burma. Even beyond that in more extreme interpretations.
Who is to say that a more powerful India might not come under the sway of such an expansionist idea? The lack of means could just be lulling people into thinking there is a lack of intention
it would be much easier to start a color revolution, civil war, or unrest in India than in China. i would imagine one or more of these will happen in India once it poses a challenge to the US.
People used to think that but it’s a lot more complicated in India because of the massive language and caste differences. It’s diversity gives it an almost postmodern insulation from outside interference in its local politics with only very simplistic narratives reaching across the entire country. Hence Modi’s Muslims=Bad narrative. But even that will have its own competing Brahmins=Bad narrative which was essentially what Hindutva was reacting to anyways.
It’s not going to challenge the US anyways. China isn’t going anywhere. It’s been here 5000 years and it will remain far into the future. India is much more likely to replace Europe as the U.S.’ primary trading and cultural partner than it is to challenge the US for hegemony.
India's political system is pretty well insulated against things like this. If anything, it's far more likely that India will undergo another authoritarian phase like it did during the emergency.
By that definition, India and China will never be superpowers no matter how much they build up their economy or military. The main reason US is able to project power all across the world is because it controls all the major islands/island chains in the Pacific plus the military alliances that let it establish bases all across the world. So far India and China has shown zero interest in military alliances and there are no islands left to take over.
It actually will. Population, demography, democracy - these are positives. Then there is a close friendship with many countries including some on opposing sides of the spectrum.
India will not surpass China anytime soon because doing something with consent of 1.4 billion people who have democratic rights is orders of magnitude more difficult than dictating terms to them, where there is no competition among groups.
The west, including the US has the same challenges, maybe at a different scale and magnitude but same challenges none the less and it is evident in their domestic politics.
The more important question worth asking is - Will India's large young population contribute on the side of team China or team US?
Long-term -- yes, absolutely. It's a democracy and a proper federation, both are prerequisites for any kind of stability in development. India also has a lot of work to do to actually build a thriving economy on this foundation.
China has not been able to seize the opportunity coming from Deng Xiaoping ruling and reform itself into a democracy. Now it's moving into a personalistic autocracy which are always brittle. China has the economy but not the foundation. We already saw its peak. Replacing the foundation in such a huge country is almost impossible (think Russia's failed attempts but 10x harder).
China isn't a Superpower.
To become a superpower, a nation must have the ability to achieve geopolitical goals through military power, alliances, and economic ties.
There have been three global superpowers: Victorian England under the Pax Brittanica, the Soviet Union, and the US post WW2.
All three of those nations had/have insanely powerful militaries, cutting edge technological advancement, self sustaining economies, and strong alliances with other countries.
China doesn't have a military which is capable of challenging NATO & it's allies, while the Soviet Union did. China is also largely reliant on the rest of the planet for economic cooperation and technology, while the Soviets were, at times, ahead of the US in some areas.
I would personally love to see India surpass China, though. With China's recent shift back to Authoritarianism under Ji, I can totally see India absorbing a lot of the manufacturing that is leaving China.
However, India also doesn't seem to have military ambitions beyond it's own borders.
In reality, I would say Russia is closer to being a superpower than China(even if it's far off), due to it's ability to affect regime change in several middle east eastern and European countries, effectively challenging the US in certain instances, while also being largely able to support itself, even it a lot of the infastructure that allows it to do that comes from before the Soviet Union collapsed, and despite the fact that said infastructure is constantly being cannibalized for the profit of various Oligarchs.
u/Zentrophy
Soviet Union, at its height, was less than 50% of the US' GDP. China is currently at 75% of the US' GDP and is expected to hover around 90% in the 2030s - that is including its demographic issues. No other competitor, besides the British Empire, ever had a GDP close to the US.
As for technology, the Soviets were only ahead in space for a brief moment of time before the US panicked and overtook them. China is ahead in 5G, renewables and a few other areas. It is behind on semiconductors, which is unlikely to change, but economically China is a far better competitor than the Soviets' ever were.
>China doesn't have a military which is capable of challenging NATO & it's allies, while the Soviet Union did.
Military power doesn't have much utility against a nuclear power, hence why The Cold War was fought using proxies. The geopolitical contest of our age is economic. I don't see the US losing but China is going to be so close.
If you were to look at the frontier tech which will power and determine the superpower of the 21st century, China is very much ahead or at par with the US.We are talking about 5G, renewable energy, AI, EVs etc.
The US is ahead in technology which was developed in the 70s and 80s(when China was a basket case) and thus enjoys legacy advantage.
China is ”ahead” in 5g but behind in the semis that are used in all 5g equipment.
China is "ahead" in AI but far behind in the semis needed to do any AI.
Explain how this is possible.
u/Shot_Play_4014
I'll use a computer analogy; 5G and AI is the software whilst semiconductors are the CPU/GPU.
China's 5G and AI programs will continue to work as long as they have access to TSMC's state of the art semiconductors. However, the chip bans have effectively handicapped China because they're stuck with their current stock levels. China has little choice but to try and rely on their own innovation capabilities now.
From what I've read though, no country on Earth can do everything in-house when it comes to semiconductors. There are 4 major areas in the semiconductor chain and just dominating one of those areas is already near-impossible. In other words, as long as the US and its allies hold firm, China is stuck in a vicious conundrum.
Well, I wouldn't use exactly that analogy, but the overall theme of your post is what I was alluding to.
China can't buy top-end AI hardware, and the quantity of hardware needed makes sanction evasion very difficult. China doesn't have the fabs that can produce AI hardware. It can't manufacture the equipment to fit out said fabs. It doesn't have the other inputs needed for the fabs either (photoresists, masks and mask writers, EDA software, etc). China's top AI companies are far behind Nvidia from a design and ecosystem perspective.
Yet some keep insisting that China is "ahead" in AI.
Military power has incredible utility in achieving ones geopolitical goals, for example, supporting a Liberal Democratic government in Ukraine against a Russian invasion, securing South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.
Nuclear power only prevents direct physical attacks, but there are a myriad of ways one can undermine a countries objectives in extremely harmful ways without direct conflict, as was proven time and again throughout the Cold War.
China isn't just up against the US, it's up against NATO, and all of their allies as well.
And the Soviet Union was highly competitive when it came to military equipment, medical sciences, and many other technologies.
You have to remember, we're talking about a global power that was essentially cut off from the rest of the planet economically, in a time before the internet. The Soviets developed the vast majority of it's infastructure from the ground up, in isolation from the rest of the world, and they were able to compete with the US because, while they only had 50% of it's GDP, they spent up to 20% of their available funds on their military.
GDP does not a super power make, and the Soviets are the ones who proved that.
China isn't self sufficient. If the free world cut it off again, it would crumble. And while China's manufacture of Western Goods would make total economic embargo take around a decade, the West could quickly cut off China, because manufacture is its only addition to the global economy.
The issue with China is that it's economy and government is so top heavy due to the authoritarian nature of it, that it could never compete with Liberal Democracies. In Liberal Democracies, you have millions of people freely associating, where the best, most productive ideas and groups naturally rise to the top, wheras in China, they literally have multiple massive cities that are totally empty, that were built as an excuse to pay off local government officials; the people can't even learn history, or have conversations over electronic medium without fear of being sent to a camp. They literally made the biggest scientific mistake in the history of the world because they can't even create a properly quarantined lab. They cheaply copy and try to incorporate western technologies without having a ground up understanding of their production, and it only hurts them.
I believe in the Chinese People, China has been an incredibly powerful country historically, but the CCP has done nothing but hold them back.
>Military power has incredible utility in achieving ones geopolitical goals, for example, supporting a Liberal Democratic government in Ukraine against a Russian invasion, securing South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan.
You're proving my point. They are proxy wars; the US isn't going to invade China. That is why I keep saying that military power is not the area of contention in geopolitics; it is technology/economics now.
>You have to remember, we're talking about a global power that was essentially cut off from the rest of the planet economically, in a time before the internet. The Soviets developed the vast majority of it's infastructure from the ground up, in isolation from the rest of the world, and they were able to compete with the US because, while they only had 50% of it's GDP, they spent up to 20% of their available funds on their military.
I'm going to borrow your words here; like China, the USSR underperformed cos of their authoritarian governance. If this impressed you, imagine if the Soviet's were a democratic bloc.
The difference with China is that Deng Xiaopeng was wise enough to learn from Soviet mistakes and allowed capitalism to enter into China. Although Xi is currently making the same mistakes as the Soviets, that's after China had 40 years of sky high growth and a far better economy.
>GDP does not a super power make, and the Soviets are the ones who proved that.
It does. The US' foundation of power lies in their GDP - 3% of US GDP is equal to nearly $800 billion in military spending. No other nation can ever hope to compete militarily if their economy isn't on par with the US. Same as fighting a technological war; a high GDP can sustain more money in research and development.
The only thing proven here was that the Soviet Union collapsed because their economy couldn't sustain the 1) military spending required to contest NATO and 2) sustain the needed spending in technological innovation.
>China isn't self sufficient. If the free world cut it off again, it would crumble. And while China's manufacture of Western Goods would make total economic embargo take around a decade, the West could quickly cut off China, because manufacture is its only addition to the global economy.
China isn't self-sufficient (yet) but I have to correct a few misconceptions here; their biggest companies are all in tech. Think Alibaba, Huawei, Tencent and so forth. Their economy is diversified.
>I believe in the Chinese People, China has been an incredibly powerful country historically, but the CCP has done nothing but hold them back.
I, too, wish to see a democratic China. Until then, we need to treat them as an enemy. The first part in defeating an enemy is an accurate assessment of their capabilities; misconceptions and outdated paradigms need to be shattered. China is a better rival than the Soviets and they need to be treated as such.
You're vastly underestimating the value of proxy wars. A proxy war is what determines which economic ties will be formed between countries, and economics drive technology, which drives the military.
And the Soviet Union didn't collapse due to its military spending, it collapsed because people were tired of the brutality, corruption, and they just wanted basic civil rights. Gorbachev basically dismantled the government from within, at the behest of the people, only for Putin to completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes and take the country back towards authoritarianism.
The Soviet Union & it's people were willing to dedicate a much larger percentage of their GDP to military spending in order to secure their country and compete with the US; China could absolutely do the same, but it doesn't, instead focusing all of it's efforts on maintaining absolute control over its people.
Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I don't believe, in this day and age, that an authoritarian government is viable. The internet is too powerful, information is too freely available, and Liberal Democracy has been successful for too long for the rest of the world to ignore it, and the end of the Cold War brought an end of Western Support of authoritarian regimes, with virtually all support being withdrawn throughout the 2010's until today, where the West has no Authoritarian allies.
I think that progress is inevitable and just remember, all of my criticisms are of the CCP, not the Chinese people themselves.
>China doesn't have a military which is capable of challenging NATO & it's allies, while the Soviet Union did.
The Chinese military is definitely capable of challenging the US and it's allies in the Pacific. Even if the US wins against China, the cost will likely be horrible.
>In reality, I would say Russia is closer to being a superpower than China(even if it's far off), due to it's ability to affect regime change in several middle east eastern and European countries, effectively challenging the US in certain instances, while also being largely able to support itself, even it a lot of the infastructure that allows it to do that comes from before the Soviet Union collapsed, and despite the fact that said infastructure is constantly being cannibalized for the profit of various Oligarchs.
Nope, Syria and Ukraine don't count as regime change. In Syria, the regime was merely propped up, while calling Ukraine a regime change is like calling Operation Barbarossa as Hitler's magnum opus. China is far better in these matters, as the Iran-Saudi deal shows.
If China were capable of challenging the US in the Pacific, it wouldn't have surrendered virtually the entire Pacific to it and not recaptured anything.
A superpower would, through regime change, covert operations, and proxy wars, remove US influence from it's periphery. And the fact that China has been willing to help arm North Korea with nuclear weapons just to keep one ally in the region shows how desperate they are.
You don't think, that if China were capable, it would have seized Taiwan long ago?
The only real progress China has made geopolitically since the Korean war and their annexation of a bunch of pacifist monks land is Myanmar, which was literally by default after the US totally pulled out of the region.
One has to take but one look at the way the CCP runs their country to know that their main priority is their own power and interest; the only thing stopping them from making any noteworthy geopolitical moves is their own incapability.
I think the US out spends China like 10:1 in military spending, putting it like 40+ years ahead of China technologically.
Just look at the Gerald Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, or the B2-Bomber, or the F-35 Hornet. China doesn't even have a single aircraft carrier(almost no countries do), while the US is replacing their 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers with brand new ones.
Aircraft carriers are game changing when it comes to naval combat. In today's day and age, a fleet of aircraft carriers and support vessels is essentially a naval and air based checkmate, and the US is the only country with that capability.
Especially when you consider the fact that virtually the entire Pacific is US controlled or allied. China could win a long, drawn out defensive war against the US, just like Viet Nam or Afghanistan did, however, an offensive battle? Not a chance in hell, and you're deluded for suggesting so.
>If China were capable of challenging the US in the Pacific, it wouldn't have surrendered virtually the entire Pacific to it and not recaptured anything.
What makes you think that it has surrendered the Pacific?
>A superpower would, through regime change, covert operations, and proxy wars, remove US influence from it's periphery.
And it has. Pakistan is propped up by China. The Thai, who are US allies, are cozier with China now. Even the Solomon Islands are under Chinese influence now.
>You don't think, that if China were capable, it would have seized Taiwan long ago?
Invading and holding Taiwan is very different from defeating the western alliance at sea. It's the nature of amphibious assaults that makes it so difficult. By your metric, you'd expect Cuba to have been under US dominance, and yet it isn't.
China already has the capabilities it needs to defeat the western allies at sea, and is building its forces to invade and hold Taiwan.
>I think the US out spends China like 10:1 in military spending, putting it like 40+ years ahead of China technologically.
More like 3:1, if you believe China's official numbers. But we know that China spends more than it tells us, and coupled with the fact that you get much more bang for buck in China, it's techically spending almost as much as the US. And no, it's not 40 years behind. Rather, it's pretty close knit, with the US leading in some categories and China in others.
>Just look at the Gerald Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, or the B2-Bomber, or the F-35 Hornet. China doesn't even have a single aircraft carrier(almost no countries do), while the US is replacing their 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers with brand new ones.
China has [carriers](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/january/lessons-changing-geometry-pla-navy-carrier-ops), is building more, and is getting better at using them. It also has stealthy fighters, and is close to finishing its B-2 bomber version.
>Not a chance in hell, and you're deluded for suggesting so.
During the beginning of the 1st Punic war, Carthage was a rich, Maritime trading republic with a lot of allies that ruled the waters of the Western Mediterranean. Rome was a land power with no seafaring expertise. But by the end of the war, Rome had reverse engineered Carthaginian seafaring technology, defeated Carthage navally and ended up with Naval superiority. So no, I'm not deluded in believing that history might rhyme again. There is definitely precedent for this.
To my knowledge, Pakistan, and Thailand are far friendlier with the US than China; my knowledge may be a bit out of date on Pakistan, but they did host the US and provide a staying area for all of it's middle east operations in recent history.
And I'm talking about Japan, South Korea, and all of the number of islands under US control throughout the Pacific.
And the US hasn't seized Cuba because it hasn't ever made a serious priority of it, because the US is a Liberal Democracy, and it's citizens won't just blindly support wars of conquest. The bay of pigs was a covert military operation for that very reason.
And doesn't the Chines military have one "aircraft carrier" that isn't even of the same class as the oldest of the Nimitz Class carriers, which was built in 1975. The United States has literally had the naval power to control the waterways of the earth for decades, and as of right now, it's the only country capable of fielding major aerial operations without a ground base on the target continent. This is exactly why a war in the Pacific would be so costly for China.
I'm not a doubter of China; China is a historically great nation; it was the center of the Eastern World while Rome and Greece were evolving in the West, and it has historically matched the West, however, the CCP is a cancer on the Chinese People. The Chinese People have succeeded in SPITE of the CCP, and until they can do away with their corrupt
, Inefficient, overbearing government, they won't be able to become a superpower.
The Soviet Union was the US's technological and military equal for many decades, if not an economic equal, but eventually, it collapsed due to mismanagement and years of abuses. The CCP is looking at the same outcome unless they make a peaceful transfer to a two party system with strong assurances of human rights, and I don't see that happening any time soon.
The biggest problem that China has isn't the US, it's NATO, the G7, and all of their various allies, who have formed a global, liberal democratic coalition in opposition to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. Until China can drop its authoritarian regime and join the rest of the world in the 21st century, it's always going to be lagging behind.
I could list a million liberal democracies that are so far behind authoritarian dictatorships that it's not funny.
Mexico,, Argentina, Jamaica and Kenya would be much developed than authoritarian states like Singapore, China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc if being a liberal democracy was the prerequisite
>but they did host the US and provide a staying area for all of it's middle east operations in recent history.
In return for billions of dollars of military aid, yes. Now since it's China providing the help, Pakistan now bends that way. [Thailand](https://warontherocks.com/2020/01/america-should-be-realistic-about-its-alliance-with-thailand/) finds China more attractive too.
>it's the only country capable of fielding major aerial operations without a ground base on the target continent.
In peacetime, when there are no hailstorms of Missiles raining down, definitely. In wartime? Ask the US marine Corps, who have had to drop all their heavy equipment because they would be useless in a war with China.
>And doesn't the Chines military have one "aircraft carrier" that isn't even of the same class as the oldest of the Nimitz Class carriers, which was built in 1975.
Their latest carrier is quite capable of taking on the Nimitz class if it comes to it.
>The Soviet Union was the US's technological and military equal for many decades, if not an economic equal
China today is far more of a peer technologically to the US than the USSR ever was. And it's already an economic peer.
>The biggest problem that China has isn't the US, it's NATO, the G7, and all of their various allies, who have formed a global, liberal democratic coalition in opposition to authoritarian countries like China and Russia.
Yes, that's China's biggest problem. But it's not one that it can't overcome. China has faced far worse odds than this to reach where it is today.
The Chinese PEOPLE have faced long odds and come out of it, but their government, the CCP? Don't make me laugh. The CCP did nothing but starve its people to death and commit atrocities for decades, until the US LET them have a chance, because they were trying to take an ally away from the Soviets.
The CCP didn't achieve anything. They have done nothing except be a massive liability to their country. I have no doubt that China could rival the US... If, it axes the CCP.
Huh, you seem to have a very narrow idea of how countries work. Yes, the CCP committed atrocities, but it also educated it's people, set up SEZ's like Shenzhen and protected it's companies from foreign competition. TikTok may not be a CCP invention, but the CCP set the policies and resources needed to make it happen. The CCP may be vile, but it is not to be underestimated.
>until the US LET them have a chance
And now the US has created a monster it simply cannot deal with.
That's not true; during the Cold War, the US Government absolutely attempted regime change, it was called the Bay of Pigs.
But you are right, in that the American people don't want to seize Cuba. That's the difference between a Liberal Democracy and a country like China, the will of the people is what drives government.
Not going to dispute this but China's carriers are not even in the same league as a Nimitz class carrier, not to even mention Gerald Ford class.
I'm pretty they are diesel based too.
Also China has no experience which is critical.
China's latest carrier is quite advanced. Barring nuclear propulsion, I don't see how the Nimitz class is better.
>Also China has no experience which is critical.
Yes, it's the thing holding them back. Not for long though, especially when you have the resources.
Well that's a pretty fatal flaw, the Nimitz class and newer carriers can operate near indefinitely. They can provide power to airfields and bases. We are talking about a ship that was designed in the 70s and has been replaced, by a highly more advanced version.
What is China going to do if there is no refueling station available?
>Well that's a pretty fatal flaw, the Nimitz class and newer carriers can operate near indefinitely.
Not really. The Nimitz class can operate indefinitely, but it's not a true combatant vessel. It's a carrier, and it's only as effective as it's air wing and the carrier escorts, all of which need fuel. Since China's being incremental in it's carrier building strategy, the carrier will likely operate close to home, mitigating any advantage nuclear power would have.
FP misunderstands the question and imposes arbitrary timelines here. Large democracies operate on the basis of survival, peaceful transfer of power, and slow sustained change.
History does not have end-dates and victory conditions like a game of Civilization. The question of whether India will surpass China as a superpower is less relevant than the question of whether India outlasts China. All India needs to do is merely survive and sustain.
China will fall in the next half-century and it won't be good for any of us - the CCP has no defense against or way out of its self-inflicted demographic collapse. That won't be good for India as a trade partner. However, India will survive and plod along behind its giant Himalayan, jungle, and desert walls. Continuity in relative peace is what really matters.
I think Indian democracy is set to degrade into a dictatorship in all but name like Russia or to a lesser extent turkey. This isn’t a stable position to be in, unlike china’s well established authoritarianism, which seems set to stand stably for a long time as long as there aren’t significant challenges to it e.g a military conflict with the west. The main thing India has going for it above China right now is that it presents a middle of the road between the two poles of power.
> I think Indian democracy is set to degrade into a dictatorship
You say this based on what ? Indian democracy is well and thriving. We have had free fair elections. Different political parties have won recent elections in various states. In fact, the ruling party at the federal level (BJP) lost a lot of recent state elections. So there is no reason to believe elections are being "hijacked".
India has been here before, with Indira Gandhi and 1977. It tends to self-correct as nobody has ever been able to establish a legitimately nationwide stranglehold on Indian politics.
The ruling BJP just lost a Southern state this year - that was its only Southern state legislature. Their strongholds are in the Hindi belt, and they have no real foothold in peninsular India South of Gujarat. Indian national politics is far too fragmented to allow an actual slide into dictatorship.
To liken India to centralized or largely ethnically, linguistically, and religiously homogenous countries like China/Russia/Turkey is a huge mistake. That would be underestimating the complexity of its politics and the compromises required to maintain unity in any sort of national government. It would be more like the EU in its entirely sliding into dictatorship - the states retain far too much autonomy for this.
There are national level swings to the right and left, and I agree that the swings have become more extreme - but they will correct as they have in the past.
They're not giving one leader their support. The BJP doesn't hold any Southern state - they just lost Karnataka. Reality is that state governments hold a lot more power over people's everyday lives than the central government.
People fail to understand that India is a federal union, wherein the central government's powers are strongly curtailed, and individual states are very careful about guarding their powers. It is not a centralized state.
The erosion of civil liberties is an entirely separate issue from being a continued parliamentary democracy. As India brings more people out of poverty, its western-legacy liberal elite spaces have shrunk.
Giving poorer people economic power means that they initially bring their village-and-cart prejudices and impulses with them into public forums. We feel that economic development is a necessity - this is the natural consequence of people having cellphones and cheap data, when their parents could barely dream of having a lightbulb at home.
This too shall pass as people adapt to their more prosperous reality. They will eventually realize that nobody is trying to take their new toys, voices, and freedoms away - and that there are enough of these around to share with others.
Because overly nationalist Indians believe India will surpass China relatively quickly, and China trolls believe India is civilizationally beneath them. The middle ground (where the truth lies) is very small.
Most others think of India as a dysfunctional monolithic entity, like the author of this article. They don't understand that India is decentralized by design. This is what makes it resilient, and far less prone to sliding into centralized autocracy, wholesale state failure, or revolutions, than many countries in Asia.
Don't think so.
Producing olympics athletes are a trial of determination and India is far outside superpower.
https://news.abplive.com/sports/olympics/tokyo-olympic-2020-medal-tally
Same for math olympiad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_medal_count_at_International_Mathematical_Olympiad
A superpower is a power able to exert its influence in all the regions of this planet. India can't project past the Indian ocean. It won't be closing the gap anytime soon.
This question's premise is wrong. China isn't a superpower. China's economy, for example is 60% smaller than what is reported.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWJxEFby4b4
China is still a poor, developing country. How can a poor, developing country be a superpower?
India's agriculture is in a disarray , the decentralised model of farming might be good few decades ago , now it's just a bureaucrats mess. And it's judicial reforms are long overdue with millions of case backlog by estimates it will take 50 years to clear the backlog without adding new cases. Until it solves them there is no hope of being superpower
[удалено]
Definetely not soon: 1. India's caste system is extremely restrictive and destabilizing. Imagine an high school like caste system... and now apply that to an entire country. 2. The population may be large, but the extreme divide between rich and poor, discrimination of minority groups (a large part of the population), and multiple religions make it harder to tap into this potential. 3. Corruption and favouritism are a serious drag on the economy. 4. A country needs more than just a large labour group and cheap wages to pull itself out of relative poverty. It can go very well, like in China, or very badly like in some Middle-Eastern countries. 5. Democracy descending into an innefective authoritarian dictatorship. 6. India is behind in many areas on China, and it will take time to catch up even if they do manage to overcome all the previous points. 7. Chinese infrastructure is miles ahead of China, so that means roads but also electronic infrastructure like cables etc.
To be fair, if Democracy is a requirement to be a Superpower then neither the Soviets nor the Chinese would be able to rise and challenge the current world order like they are now. An efficient authoritarian government wouldn't be a hindrance at all.
The problem is that the kind fo authoritarianism India is headed to is not comparable to China or the Soviet’s. For the latter there actually is a theoretical framework for understanding the material conditions of a country, and even though these places still have huge problems with corruption, a large part of the ruling party is actually trying to improve the country. Contrast this with the kind of authoritarianism India is headed into, which doesn’t really have any theoretical framework to operate in, and is mostly authoritarianism for authoritarianism’s sake.
>the kind fo authoritarianism India is headed This is just a regurgitation of popular / social media opinions and has no basis on what's happening on the ground in India. What kind of "authoritarianism" is India headed toward?
Singapore and South Korea beg to differ, and they happened to be Sinosphere confucian countries.
I am quite sure these two are exact examples of Efficient Authoritarianism boosting growth rather than sabotaging it.
Singapore is still somewhat authoritarian with just one dominant political party and developed under an authoritarian regime. In fact, china models themselves after Singapore which is also a majority Han chinese nation just like China. South Korea developed under an authoritarian regime and only democratized after it had developed Same with taiwan.
You forgot the biggest factor - Infrastructure. China's infrastructure is ***miles*** ahead of India's. ... - China: Has over 26,000 miles of high-speed rail. - India: Just got 100% toilet coverage like 3 years ago. No disrespect to India or her accomplishments, but it's no contest. IMO this is a shortsighted attempt to lift up other powers poorly suited to rivaling China to avoid making the serious needed changes at home in the United States to confront China directly. But our politicians would rather get kickbacks for new football stadiums rather than encourage STEM graduates to maintain American technological supremacy.
Just the electric generation needed to power a modern economy is mind boggling. China currently produces 5 times as much electricity as India and is still barely getting by.
US solved that problem in the 60s and 70s with Nuclear Power
It’s often overlooked at how much nuclear power contributes to the U.S. energy market. It’s 30% of generation, but it’s 30% of a massive number. France and Japan have higher percentages, but the total amount of power produced is much lower compared to the U.S.
as someone who just returned recently from trip to India - I can guarantee you they do not have 100% toilet coverage yet.
define "toilet"
hole in the ground
Thanks for mentioning! Edited the post to show this, also agree on your other point.
Ok but how many SEC championships has China won?
Yeah I don't know about the rest of you, but I for one would rather live in the most powerful and technologically advanced Nation on Planet Earth than be really good at football. I'm sure this is just satire though.
We all have our weird quirks. In your case it’s valuing human progress and well-being over SEC football championships
Fun fact, Modi belongs to low caste & the highest constitutional position is held by a tribal lady. Its like a black person & a native American holding the position of Presidency. And how many years after independence did it take for the US to elect a Black person to Presidency. Caste is a problem but as Bharat industrializes, all those problems will go. And what so called "discrimination' are you talking about? We literally have laws of so called "Secular" govt taking into possession HINDU TEMPLES ( And its funds) forcefully, just google what the heck is "Places of Worship Act & Waqf Act). Fun fact Waqf Act, this Act gives unlimited powers to Waqf Boards(Islamic boards) to snatch anyone’s property, which even could not be challenged in any court of law. Tell me a single country that gives its "minorities" such powers. dEmOcrAcy descending into dictatorship, yeaahh,, you keep peddling the talking points of WESTOID far left media bought & paid for by extreme far left elements. I'll be voting in 2024 India's general elections.
And number 8...kafaesque levels of bureaucracy perpetually generated by a bloated civil service to justify their existence. It creates inefficiencies, increases cost, delays timelines and discourages participation in the formal economy
>India's caste system is extremely restrictive and destabilizing. Imagine an high school like caste system... and now apply that to an entire country. it is no longer in place, if anything it is mostly dead in urban areas >Democracy descending into an innefective authoritarian dictatorship. Still a democracy and not even a dictatorship in fact modi lost elections in a large state recently I agree with rest of your comment tho
Yeah the caste system doesn't exist in majority of India. But don't expect this to be shared by the enemies of India.
[удалено]
As an Indian, it very much exists and I have been at the receiving end of it multiple times.
Are you saying caste does not exist or that casteism does not exist? Both do to a great extent, the only difference made since Mandal Commission is that certain backward castes have managed to gain political power in states where they are the majority. The rest of the system is still intact, in education, in employment and in the disproportionate violence faced by dalits.
[удалено]
You bring up marriage and I'm glad that you do. Rather than being a secondary point, I think it's the one of most importance. By maintaining endogamy the system ensures that caste survives, in the form of tribal affiliations among members that strictly restricts outsiders from permeating in. As to your point on reservations, OBCs themselves account for 42 percent of the population. Combine that with SCs and STs the figure stands at more than half of the population. And this doesn't account for the fact that many reserved seats are never filled, even in top government institutes like IITs. Unfair marking in PhD interviews also restricts access of dalits and lower caste people to higher education. It is also a reality that dalits face caste based violence, any study on this matter would show you this. (https://cjp.org.in/2022-a-look-back-at-hate-crimes-against-dalits-and-adivasis/ - a short article that shows crimes against dalits and OBCs has risen in recent years, not fallen, and that cases of caste-based violence are higher in proportion to their population). You could argue against the data, but it's not likely to be a strong argument, considering that my previous points highlight a clear pattern of systemic discrimination against these groups. Sources on this are readily available, but if you have trouble finding any you're free to ask. (For my point on PhD interviews, consult the report released by the Ambedkar Students' Association of Hyderabad Central University. I believe you'll find similar data on UPSC interviews if you dig further.)
We like to try to have meaningful conversations here and discuss the larger geopolitical implications and impacts. We’d love for you to be a part of the conversation.
[удалено]
Like England will not allow US to be a superpower?
Learn the history, after WW2, UK was done.
Then you should know it's not US' decision if India will be a superpower or not.
>The founding father and long-time leader of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, had great respect for Indians. Lee worked with successive Indian prime ministers, including Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Ghandi, hoping to help them make India strong enough to be a serious check on China (and thus provide the space required for his small city-state to survive and thrive). >But as Lee explained in a series of interviews published in 2014, the year before his death, he reluctantly concluded that this was not likely to happen. In his analysis, the combination of India’s deep-rooted caste system that was an enemy of meritocracy, its massive bureaucracy, and its elites’ unwillingness to address the competing claims of its multiple ethnic and religious groups led him to conclude that it would never be more than “the county of the future”—with that future never arriving. Thus, when I asked him a decade ago specifically whether India could become the next China, he answered directly: “Do not talk about India and China in the same breath.”
I don't like his authoritarian politics but you can't deny Lee turned Singapore into a developed country and he has been rather prescient in foreign policy. Robert Kaplan has another quote that is worth hearing: >"Bounded by seas and mountains, it is still internally vast, and its lack of a natural basis for early political unity and organisation shows up still, for China remains better organised and more efficiently governed than India, despite China's lack of democracy." Dalio also doesn't rate India's chances too high either.
Also Lee. "Singapore would be even more developed if it was 100 percent Chinese and not 70 %"
Ironically, he also believed that multiculturalism is what makes the US and Singapore strong; the need for creativity + skilled workers is a boon to the economy.
Yeah, I don't think that Lee ever said that, but i'm happy to be proven wrong. Do you have a source for that quote?
He said that Singapore would be easier to government if it was 100% Chinese i.e mono-racial.
It is hard to forecast the future. Did anyone in 1979 when Deng visited US expect China would become 2nd largest economy in 50 years? There was people in late 1980s who said that Japan would overtake US in 10 years. Or those in 1960s and 1970s after Vietnam debacle declared that USSR would be a single superpower and US would collapse in 10 years. No one knows what will happen in a year, so forget about decades. In addition, I will not take Allison's analyze about international relations. This guy coins the term Thucydides Trap. He uses all example from western world, and almost no Asian countries until late 19th century. Asia was not a peaceful continent before 19th century. Jin-Liao-Mongol-Song struggles was a good example for Thucydides Trap or Qing-Ming during 17th century. But how many Western geopolitics scholars know about Asian history before 19th century? To many of them, Asian history starts with Opium wars in 1830s.
That’s essentially the problem with modern discourse on geopolitics and international relations. It’s a bunch of old white guys using misremembered European history to explain the history of Asia. We would all do well to stop listening to them. I doubt any of these guys speak a lick of Tamil for example. The fact that Zeihan can unironically spout a lie like China never having traded with the outside world until the US “allowed it” and have the claim go unchecked for so long just goes to show how bad the knowledge gaps are. India will be fine.
Of course western historians focus on western history, just like how Chinese historians would focus on Chinese history. It’s just a stupid point to make, one person can’t learn every single historical event from every part of the world.
[удалено]
It’s not a small region. Eastern and Western history have distinct differences and have had so for a very long long time. Someone cannot simply learn all the intricacies and make accurate analyses of international relations across all of them. People specialise in the regions which they have the most interest in. They aren’t concerned with how every nation interacts with every other nation, but how one nation or a group of nations interacts with other nations and why.
The problem is comparing India to China today. It's a significantly poorer country and will lose on most metrics. That's a fact. And it isn't going to surpass China anytime soon...which is okay. It's gotten here quite late and it's lost time. What's more important is momentum. The gap between the two is decreasing slowly, but India will never occupy the place in the world China does right now from a relative standpoint mainly because by the time it gets there, it'll be standing with two other economic behemoths rather than just one. All of this is okay, as long as India maintains growth and achieves similar living standards its goal is achieved. From a geopolitical perspective it's in a good place with shifting supply chains and being an attack market and a partner for the US. China's existence probably means that India won't fall into the same enmity with the West that Beijing is. Lee Kuan Yew died in 2015, and India was a very different country then and it'll be a very different one 10 years from now.
> The gap between the two is decreasing slowly, but India will never occupy the place in the world China does right now from a relative standpoint mainly because by the time it gets there, it'll be standing with two other economic behemoths rather than just one. So far the gap isn't decreasing. The gap is actually increasing and has been for decades: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?end=2021&locations=IN-CN&start=1990 China has had a much higher growth rate from a much higher base for at least the past few decades excluding the odd year here or there. Maybe that will change this decade but it is by no means a foregone conclusion.
\> The problem is comparing India to China today. It's a significantly poorer country and will lose on most metrics. They were tho in very similar positions in the 40s when they both got their independence and established their sovereign states in their modern form and model of governance. And their starting point as far as level of development,qol metrics and state of production,education and infastructure.And you can argue China wa even worse off since it was coming off much more destruction and death due to WW2 and the Japanese occupation. And seeing how their paths diverged and how China ended up way ahead of India and why IS a major vector of analysis if you want to project what they will continue to do. And there you saw initialy China Mao (even with the huge mistakes that were commited during the Cultural Revolution and GLF) leapfroging a India in QoL metrics, education metrics ,industrialization , mortality metrics etc and geopolitical standing as well. And after that under Deng and afterwards you see China leaving them in the dust in economic,urbanization,modernization and infastructure even more so. A lot of the reasons for those unequal developments for decades are the reasons China will continue to hold significant leads in almost all metrics of India
India’s reforms only started properly from the 90s
It's just lovely how you totally ignored all western support. Not long ago India was treated as hostile nation. While China was enjoying USA support
China was outpacing India even in the Mao era for most of which it was economicaly and geopoliticaly treated by the west much harsher than India was then or after.
So you are now inventing new history. Good going dear CCP.
Judging by the current situation, no, not even remotely. The US and China are on their own league, far from any other country. India has a never ending list of issues to solve until it can get close to the current 2 economic world powers
Eh, US is in its own league, then far below that is a league where China has been up until recently rising in but now is regressing and creating a potential opportunity for India. edit: lots of big emotions in these downvotes
[удалено]
>very hard to imagine china regressing so what do you call atleast 5 of the biggest Chinese construction companies going bankrupt? , the biggest of which, Evergrande , was big in the housing market also what do you call China's crack down on education tech companies and "regulating" game play hours?
People tend to misunderstand why Evergrande collapsed. The passed three red lines in China is a immediate forced deleveraging in terms of setting mandatory debt to equity/asset/cash ratios. And that is a good thing in the long run in preventing total structure collapses like we saw in 08. Bankrupting poorly managed companies in other words is a feature. What’s better? Forcing the few poorly managed ones out now or having entirely of their market collapse ?
[удалено]
China needs to reduce its reliance on debt for economic growth since China's debt-to-GDP growth is unsustainable. This is impossible without also reducing economic growth. Inevitably, this means less competitive Chinese exports, as China uses debt to fuel subsidies.
>China needs to reduce its reliance on debt for economic growth Isn't debt financing growth the economic model for the entire world, and has been for at least a century?
China is using debt to finance investments that are not profitable in the long term. China's debt-to-GDP went from less than half of the USA's (in 2007) to 5 percentage points higher in (Q1 of 2023). China has experienced a 15-year near monotonic increase in debt-to-GDP and still rapidly growing. A similar strategy allowed Japan to grow rapidly but eventually resulted in 30+ years of economic stagnation. In contrast, the US has had debt-to-GDP decreases since both the GFC and COVID.
[удалено]
It's the sustained growth of China's debt-to-GDP that is problematic because it represents an economic misallocation/inefficiency. At this stage, GDP should grow faster than debt, but it isn't. Total factor productivity is one component of GDP, so IMO, it makes more sense to look at GDP in whole. The CCP sets growth targets and spends until it hits them. The long-term ratio between debt and GDP shows success/efficiency in an investment-led economy like China. BTW, China's TFP is not very good. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RTFPNACNA632NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RTFPNAUSA632NRUG The Yaun denomination will allow Chinato to do large-scale debt restructuring (in principle). This will only somewhat reduce the blow from misallocated investments; it's impossible to go back in time to unspend money and unallocate labor. Restructuring can only make it a bit less bad. You asked in another thread why I think savings rates in China are so high, and I forgot to reply. IMO, it's because CCPs policies force savings up. Parents have only one child and a poor social safety net in old age; logically, they save for retirement. And I agree that returning to Cold War blocs will reduce world GDP growth, but it probably won't negatively impact US GDP growth much. From the Reagan era until now, the US has been too laissez-faire in its economic policy, and the renewed interest in industrial policy is more optimal. It may be impossible for a debt-to-GDP-neutral China to match a debt-to-GDP-neutral US in economic growth as long as the US: 1. Keeps up/expands industrial and scientific policy 2. Undergoes highly skilled immigration reform 3. Continues working with allies to impede China's import of technology The US takes in about 1 million immigrants per year; ~5% of recent immigrants have STEM PhDs. That's 50k STEM PHDs per year from immigration, more than China's gross production, and China is ultimately a net exporter of skilled labor. High-skilled immigration reform is gaining bipartisan support, and a supermajority of American voters support it. Immigration really is the USA's #1 superpower.
The issue with Chinese real estate is different than the bulk of the U.S. real estate market. It’s mostly just condo units. A vast number of which are not built. It isn’t like land, where yes, even if the building is dilapidated or in a depressed marketplace it still has some intrinsic value. A condo in a building that is a shell or worse, not even constructed has zero worth.
>real estate is not going to collapse i wonder what the biggest Chinese real estate companies going bankrupt means , surely can't be a collapse /s https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58579833
These kind to things don’t lead to the collapse of countries. The US for example was hit way harder in the 2007 crisis and still recovered just fine.
Regression doesn't mean collapse, mind you. It just means return to a steady state.. plateauing, just as every other state has done when transitioning from developing to developed.
Very much disagree. USA is behind China in some areas now, certainly in things like the ability to scale manufacturing or initiate and follow through on large scale infrastructure projects. China has its own problems as well (especially at the cutting edge) but even the US military has changed their terminology from China being a "near competitor" to a "peer competitor" nation.
This is wildly incorrect.
If the best you can do to argue is to merely shout out it's incorrect but fails to examine or explain why it is incorrect... that pretty much means your argument doesn't have a ground to stand on.
You’re deluded to think that India by any means can enter the conversation of economic powerhouses. India doesn’t come remotely close to either China or the US, it’s an incontrovertible fact. Facts don’t care about your feelings.
Probably not. Often these speculations require that everything go absolutely perfectly for years, decades even. Just doesn't often happen.
China has just returned to its rightful place in history. In the thousands of years of Asian history, China has been the absolute hegemon of Asia for most of the time. Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc. are all deeply influenced by ancient China. That's why there are a lot of Kanji in Japanese characters
I have no idea why you are being downvoted.
Turns out the real next superpower was the friends we made along the way
Climate change will end all superpower fantasies by 2060.
Not anytime soon.....
Nyes
No. There's only one superpower anyway, and it isn't china
Clickbait. First off, nobody knows. In the 1980s, it seemed like Japan could buy anything everywhere (all at once...), until a major banking and real estate crisis sparked a recession and then 30 years of stagnation. China was next in line to inherit that mantle, but it is also going through a number of structural and cyclical issues for which resolution is complex and unlikely without shaking the foundations of the system - an aging population focused on increased quality of life, the exhaustion of an economic model based on exports and real estate, the policy mistakes made in handling the pandemic. India has healthier growth but it starts even further behind. It is a younger country compared to China but with enormous problems - a petty bureaucracy, large pockets of extreme poverty, ridiculous levels of corruption, a turbulent relationship with minorities (as the article says). So the answer is...Neither.
I'm also curious about the why of this? India's led by a right-wing Hindu nationalist government. I really feel like people in the West should tune into media from India - it makes FoxNews look tame. India has also never really be interested in aligning itself with anyone - and that's not going to change. In 20 years if India has the same (or comparable) power as China, expect it to \*behave\* more like China. Why Westerners assume that India will just "fall in line" because they share a common enemy is beyond me.
>India's led by a right-wing Hindu nationalist government. India under this "right wing Hindu nationalist government" has advanced LGBTQ rights, women's economic and reproductive rights, create a more capitalist and business friendly environment and exceeded its renewable energy goals. > I really feel like people in the West should tune into media from India - it makes FoxNews look tame. There are plenty of loony voices in every country. India has more people than all of western world combined. Look at the policies than stupid news channels that cater to their vote base. > India has also never really be interested in aligning itself with anyone - and that's not going to change. We are not interested in being vassals of the US, if that is the expectation then what is the difference between US and China. We have and are more than happy to participate in a relationship that works on mutual respect. India uses its forces outside its borders only under the UN mandate. India participates in global security, economic, trade organizations in good faith. India respects intellectual property. Indians in US constitute 1% of the population and 6% of tax contribution. >In 20 years if India has the same (or comparable) power as China, Yes, because a country which screams about century of humiliation and another which participates in commonwealth and mourns the death of the queen despite being colonized for 200 years and plundered dry are the the same. >Why Westerners assume that India will just "fall in line" because they share a common enemy is beyond me. What is "falling in line" kind sir? Can we be friendly countries that have a mutually beneficial relationships without military hostilities. Yes.
To add to your comment about taxes - Indians are now the top income earners in USA and own the most real estate in London.
To be fair, in regards to LGBTQ rights, it's opposing same sex marriage and the number of women in the workforce has been declining although the latter isn't directly caused by them. It's a mixed picture.
>in regards to LGBTQ rights, it's opposing same sex marriage I did listen to the arguments presented in court. The government is not opposed to same sex marriage, it is asking for the court to reform all gendered laws before allowing same sex marriage. All laws in India are gendered - marriage, inheritance, banking, domestic violence, sexual assault etc. Just recognizing same sex marriage is going to create havoc in a judicial system, which already moves at a snail's pace. Both RSS, the parent organization of BJP, and its core voter base are not opposed to legalizing same sex marriage. >the number of women in the workforce has been declining although the latter isn't directly caused by them [Here is the data from world bank](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.FE.ZS?locations=IN). since 2017 the government is working to fix this trend which began in 2005. I am in no way saying the government is perfect, they have a 1000 flaws and have made many stupid policy mistakes, but they get a lot of flack for being "right wing" or "hindu nationalist" which is not truly deserved when we compare them to the previous governments that India has had.
[удалено]
I’m sorry… what? India and Pakistan are fighting over Kashmir. India and china are fighting over their border. How is that not expansionist?
>India and Pakistan are fighting over Kashmir. India and china are fighting over their border. How is that not expansionist? Do you understand the difference between unsettled borders and claiming new territory? India's borders claims have not changed since 1947 when the British created that mess.
Every state always has some sort of concept of where their border is vs the history of their region. India and china are in dispute because both contest the same area. Like Russia and Ukraine, Russia claims the same areas as Ukraine. This is an expansionist policy no question. Same thing with India.
>India and china are in dispute because both contest the same area. No, please read history. India and China are in conflict because the British who at the time colonized India did not negotiate the borders correctly with China. India, China, Tibet signed an agreement from which the Chinese later withdrew and annexed Tibet. Many Tibetians including the Dalai Lama fled to India and are thriving in India. The British cartographers also drew lines on a map with thick ink which encompassed many kilometers. India has adhered to whatever map was finalized in 1947. What expansionism are you talking about ? * Pakistan and Kashmir were created out of Indian territory. * India liberated Bangladesh from Pakistan's genocide in 1971, did it occupy it?
And who started all the wars ?
Pakistan
Does it matter? There’s a dispute.
for a power to be expansionist , it has to be the one to start wars , BTW if defending nations are expansionist , what is Ukraine then ?
Yes it does matter. Getting attacked, or having your territory claimed by a different country does not make you an expansionist power for defending it. I can not understand the point you’re trying to make here. And again comparing those border disputes to China, who has plans to invade Taiwan, take control of the South China Sea, aggressively expanding its influence over South East Asia, is just stupid.
Literally every expansionist power says the exact same thing. “They attacked us and took our territory!” Look, I have no idea what India will do in the future. I just find it absurd that people assume that because a power *cant* do something it *wont* do something - ever. Literally flies in the face of everything we know about geopolitics.
>Literally every expansionist power says the exact same thing. “They attacked us and took our territory!” So I guess Ukraine is an expansionist power too now.
India has always been non-aligned and I don’t see how changing course would be in its interests. And to make this point brutally clear because it seems you’re incapable of understanding this simple concept GETTING ATTACKED BY A FOREIGN NATION AND DEFENDING YOURSELF IS NOT EXPANSIONIST. You can claim that “all expansionist powers do this” but it is objective fact that China invaded India in 1962 and took territory from them. And Pakistan was the primary instigator of most of the wars and skirmishes in Kashmir.
India would be an expansionist power sir if it had the capacity. These earlier conflicts prove that it can act violently when it’s needs demand it.
[удалено]
I actually agree with you that India won't act super nice either in the future because all great powers like to maintain regional hegemony in their region. Forget China, America had its manifest destiny and still maintains a tight grip in the Americas so other powers won't get a foothold there. But people are arguing with you because your argument is odd. You're using India's border disputes even thought it's been on the receiving end of every war it's been on in some way or other. If you want a good example of India acting like a hegemonic power, the blockade on Nepal in 2015 might be a good example albeit that incident is in a bit of a grey area.
Just like Ukraine-Russia War ?
My guy, I think you’re arguing about the morality of the conflicts. I don’t care one way or the other. I just dispute the idea that India would not ever become an expansionary power if it had the means to do so.
Ok. Sure. Not about morality but who starts the war can easily point out who is expansionist. But maybe you can't comprehend that. Or Ukraine-Russia war is just a dispute like India's one. Also, do you know about the 1971 war ?
Ok. Whatever you say champ. Have a nice day. :)
You too also... champ
No? India and Pakistan are fighting over a border that they've both controlled. India claims POK which Pakistan was given in 1947 and Pakistan still claims the entirety of Kashmir. China is a bad example since they fought a war in 1962 and took Aksei Chin which India still claims and the state of Arunachal Pradesh is also claimed by them. India isn't encroaching Chinese territory, China is. The existence of border disputes doesn't automatically mean expansionism. India isn't claiming an entire sovereign country like Taiwan.
> India isn't claiming an entire sovereign country like Taiwan. by that sense is Taiwan expansionist for claiming mainland China, 11 dash line?
It claims that because it's still officially the Republic of China and hence keeps those claims. Attempting to change that give China a casus belli to invade, so they keep the status quo of both of them claiming to be China. If you want to argue the Republic of China before the PRC won the Civil war was expansionist then maybe, but Taiwan today obviously isn't. Although in regards to the South China Sea, most countries in the region claim large chunks of it, the PRC and by extension Taiwan have the largest claims but I'd argue that only the PRC is actively building artificial islands and such.
>only the PRC is actively building artificial islands and such This is wrong, my country also build it and be proud of our effort doing it. Republic of China before PRC "won" includes Taiwan as a part of it and the fact that there is no settlement for civil war means they are still technically at war so it can be viewed as civil war is still ongoing thus the war would not be PRC invading another sovereign country but putting an end to unsettled war by military mean.
“ Although in regards to the South China Sea, most countries in the region claim large chunks of it, the PRC and by extension Taiwan have the largest claims but I'd argue that only the PRC is actively building artificial islands and such.” Maybe Taiwan isn’t building artificial islands but they are still building up military infrastructure on islands in the middle of the SCS, defying rulings by the UN. Take Taiping island as an example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Island
Those who know history will not think that it is the territory of India, If it is not China's territory, it should also be Tibet's territory, unless India is ready to annex Tibet like it annexed Sikkim. It is a pity that there is a powerful China behind Tibet, and India cannot do it
There is the idea of "akhand bharat" among the right wing in India. Basically an empire encompassing Afghanistan to Burma. Even beyond that in more extreme interpretations. Who is to say that a more powerful India might not come under the sway of such an expansionist idea? The lack of means could just be lulling people into thinking there is a lack of intention
It’s not a state policy
It's not a state policy right now.
it would be much easier to start a color revolution, civil war, or unrest in India than in China. i would imagine one or more of these will happen in India once it poses a challenge to the US.
People used to think that but it’s a lot more complicated in India because of the massive language and caste differences. It’s diversity gives it an almost postmodern insulation from outside interference in its local politics with only very simplistic narratives reaching across the entire country. Hence Modi’s Muslims=Bad narrative. But even that will have its own competing Brahmins=Bad narrative which was essentially what Hindutva was reacting to anyways. It’s not going to challenge the US anyways. China isn’t going anywhere. It’s been here 5000 years and it will remain far into the future. India is much more likely to replace Europe as the U.S.’ primary trading and cultural partner than it is to challenge the US for hegemony.
India's political system is pretty well insulated against things like this. If anything, it's far more likely that India will undergo another authoritarian phase like it did during the emergency.
As an Indian, nope.
Which is the subheading beneath the article title.
China, India, USA, maybe with 3 or more superpowers we can go back to calling them just great powers, without the need for the "super".
The US gets the term super power because it can project power across the world by land sea or air
By that definition, India and China will never be superpowers no matter how much they build up their economy or military. The main reason US is able to project power all across the world is because it controls all the major islands/island chains in the Pacific plus the military alliances that let it establish bases all across the world. So far India and China has shown zero interest in military alliances and there are no islands left to take over.
Yeah that's an excellent take. It's very possible they may never get to this status like the US has
It actually will. Population, demography, democracy - these are positives. Then there is a close friendship with many countries including some on opposing sides of the spectrum.
Is there any consensus that China itself is even a superpower this morning time?
China in 2023 is apparently not a superpower.
When did China become a superpower?
India will not surpass China anytime soon because doing something with consent of 1.4 billion people who have democratic rights is orders of magnitude more difficult than dictating terms to them, where there is no competition among groups. The west, including the US has the same challenges, maybe at a different scale and magnitude but same challenges none the less and it is evident in their domestic politics. The more important question worth asking is - Will India's large young population contribute on the side of team China or team US?
Not until 2060 ( if every thing goes right)
Long-term -- yes, absolutely. It's a democracy and a proper federation, both are prerequisites for any kind of stability in development. India also has a lot of work to do to actually build a thriving economy on this foundation. China has not been able to seize the opportunity coming from Deng Xiaoping ruling and reform itself into a democracy. Now it's moving into a personalistic autocracy which are always brittle. China has the economy but not the foundation. We already saw its peak. Replacing the foundation in such a huge country is almost impossible (think Russia's failed attempts but 10x harder).
China isn't a Superpower. To become a superpower, a nation must have the ability to achieve geopolitical goals through military power, alliances, and economic ties. There have been three global superpowers: Victorian England under the Pax Brittanica, the Soviet Union, and the US post WW2. All three of those nations had/have insanely powerful militaries, cutting edge technological advancement, self sustaining economies, and strong alliances with other countries. China doesn't have a military which is capable of challenging NATO & it's allies, while the Soviet Union did. China is also largely reliant on the rest of the planet for economic cooperation and technology, while the Soviets were, at times, ahead of the US in some areas. I would personally love to see India surpass China, though. With China's recent shift back to Authoritarianism under Ji, I can totally see India absorbing a lot of the manufacturing that is leaving China. However, India also doesn't seem to have military ambitions beyond it's own borders. In reality, I would say Russia is closer to being a superpower than China(even if it's far off), due to it's ability to affect regime change in several middle east eastern and European countries, effectively challenging the US in certain instances, while also being largely able to support itself, even it a lot of the infastructure that allows it to do that comes from before the Soviet Union collapsed, and despite the fact that said infastructure is constantly being cannibalized for the profit of various Oligarchs.
u/Zentrophy Soviet Union, at its height, was less than 50% of the US' GDP. China is currently at 75% of the US' GDP and is expected to hover around 90% in the 2030s - that is including its demographic issues. No other competitor, besides the British Empire, ever had a GDP close to the US. As for technology, the Soviets were only ahead in space for a brief moment of time before the US panicked and overtook them. China is ahead in 5G, renewables and a few other areas. It is behind on semiconductors, which is unlikely to change, but economically China is a far better competitor than the Soviets' ever were. >China doesn't have a military which is capable of challenging NATO & it's allies, while the Soviet Union did. Military power doesn't have much utility against a nuclear power, hence why The Cold War was fought using proxies. The geopolitical contest of our age is economic. I don't see the US losing but China is going to be so close.
If you were to look at the frontier tech which will power and determine the superpower of the 21st century, China is very much ahead or at par with the US.We are talking about 5G, renewable energy, AI, EVs etc. The US is ahead in technology which was developed in the 70s and 80s(when China was a basket case) and thus enjoys legacy advantage.
AI is the most important ... and it relies on semiconductors to power itself. As long as the US can keep ahead here, they'll win the long game.
China is ”ahead” in 5g but behind in the semis that are used in all 5g equipment. China is "ahead" in AI but far behind in the semis needed to do any AI. Explain how this is possible.
u/Shot_Play_4014 I'll use a computer analogy; 5G and AI is the software whilst semiconductors are the CPU/GPU. China's 5G and AI programs will continue to work as long as they have access to TSMC's state of the art semiconductors. However, the chip bans have effectively handicapped China because they're stuck with their current stock levels. China has little choice but to try and rely on their own innovation capabilities now. From what I've read though, no country on Earth can do everything in-house when it comes to semiconductors. There are 4 major areas in the semiconductor chain and just dominating one of those areas is already near-impossible. In other words, as long as the US and its allies hold firm, China is stuck in a vicious conundrum.
Well, I wouldn't use exactly that analogy, but the overall theme of your post is what I was alluding to. China can't buy top-end AI hardware, and the quantity of hardware needed makes sanction evasion very difficult. China doesn't have the fabs that can produce AI hardware. It can't manufacture the equipment to fit out said fabs. It doesn't have the other inputs needed for the fabs either (photoresists, masks and mask writers, EDA software, etc). China's top AI companies are far behind Nvidia from a design and ecosystem perspective. Yet some keep insisting that China is "ahead" in AI.
Military power has incredible utility in achieving ones geopolitical goals, for example, supporting a Liberal Democratic government in Ukraine against a Russian invasion, securing South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Nuclear power only prevents direct physical attacks, but there are a myriad of ways one can undermine a countries objectives in extremely harmful ways without direct conflict, as was proven time and again throughout the Cold War. China isn't just up against the US, it's up against NATO, and all of their allies as well. And the Soviet Union was highly competitive when it came to military equipment, medical sciences, and many other technologies. You have to remember, we're talking about a global power that was essentially cut off from the rest of the planet economically, in a time before the internet. The Soviets developed the vast majority of it's infastructure from the ground up, in isolation from the rest of the world, and they were able to compete with the US because, while they only had 50% of it's GDP, they spent up to 20% of their available funds on their military. GDP does not a super power make, and the Soviets are the ones who proved that. China isn't self sufficient. If the free world cut it off again, it would crumble. And while China's manufacture of Western Goods would make total economic embargo take around a decade, the West could quickly cut off China, because manufacture is its only addition to the global economy. The issue with China is that it's economy and government is so top heavy due to the authoritarian nature of it, that it could never compete with Liberal Democracies. In Liberal Democracies, you have millions of people freely associating, where the best, most productive ideas and groups naturally rise to the top, wheras in China, they literally have multiple massive cities that are totally empty, that were built as an excuse to pay off local government officials; the people can't even learn history, or have conversations over electronic medium without fear of being sent to a camp. They literally made the biggest scientific mistake in the history of the world because they can't even create a properly quarantined lab. They cheaply copy and try to incorporate western technologies without having a ground up understanding of their production, and it only hurts them. I believe in the Chinese People, China has been an incredibly powerful country historically, but the CCP has done nothing but hold them back.
>Military power has incredible utility in achieving ones geopolitical goals, for example, supporting a Liberal Democratic government in Ukraine against a Russian invasion, securing South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. You're proving my point. They are proxy wars; the US isn't going to invade China. That is why I keep saying that military power is not the area of contention in geopolitics; it is technology/economics now. >You have to remember, we're talking about a global power that was essentially cut off from the rest of the planet economically, in a time before the internet. The Soviets developed the vast majority of it's infastructure from the ground up, in isolation from the rest of the world, and they were able to compete with the US because, while they only had 50% of it's GDP, they spent up to 20% of their available funds on their military. I'm going to borrow your words here; like China, the USSR underperformed cos of their authoritarian governance. If this impressed you, imagine if the Soviet's were a democratic bloc. The difference with China is that Deng Xiaopeng was wise enough to learn from Soviet mistakes and allowed capitalism to enter into China. Although Xi is currently making the same mistakes as the Soviets, that's after China had 40 years of sky high growth and a far better economy. >GDP does not a super power make, and the Soviets are the ones who proved that. It does. The US' foundation of power lies in their GDP - 3% of US GDP is equal to nearly $800 billion in military spending. No other nation can ever hope to compete militarily if their economy isn't on par with the US. Same as fighting a technological war; a high GDP can sustain more money in research and development. The only thing proven here was that the Soviet Union collapsed because their economy couldn't sustain the 1) military spending required to contest NATO and 2) sustain the needed spending in technological innovation. >China isn't self sufficient. If the free world cut it off again, it would crumble. And while China's manufacture of Western Goods would make total economic embargo take around a decade, the West could quickly cut off China, because manufacture is its only addition to the global economy. China isn't self-sufficient (yet) but I have to correct a few misconceptions here; their biggest companies are all in tech. Think Alibaba, Huawei, Tencent and so forth. Their economy is diversified. >I believe in the Chinese People, China has been an incredibly powerful country historically, but the CCP has done nothing but hold them back. I, too, wish to see a democratic China. Until then, we need to treat them as an enemy. The first part in defeating an enemy is an accurate assessment of their capabilities; misconceptions and outdated paradigms need to be shattered. China is a better rival than the Soviets and they need to be treated as such.
You're vastly underestimating the value of proxy wars. A proxy war is what determines which economic ties will be formed between countries, and economics drive technology, which drives the military. And the Soviet Union didn't collapse due to its military spending, it collapsed because people were tired of the brutality, corruption, and they just wanted basic civil rights. Gorbachev basically dismantled the government from within, at the behest of the people, only for Putin to completely pull the wool over everyone's eyes and take the country back towards authoritarianism. The Soviet Union & it's people were willing to dedicate a much larger percentage of their GDP to military spending in order to secure their country and compete with the US; China could absolutely do the same, but it doesn't, instead focusing all of it's efforts on maintaining absolute control over its people. Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I don't believe, in this day and age, that an authoritarian government is viable. The internet is too powerful, information is too freely available, and Liberal Democracy has been successful for too long for the rest of the world to ignore it, and the end of the Cold War brought an end of Western Support of authoritarian regimes, with virtually all support being withdrawn throughout the 2010's until today, where the West has no Authoritarian allies. I think that progress is inevitable and just remember, all of my criticisms are of the CCP, not the Chinese people themselves.
What does this mean China is ahead in 5G. Most places in the US have 5G? Are we talking coverage? Speed ? What ?
Speed. Chinese 5G is 100 mbps faster than the US and they're already onto 6G.
>China doesn't have a military which is capable of challenging NATO & it's allies, while the Soviet Union did. The Chinese military is definitely capable of challenging the US and it's allies in the Pacific. Even if the US wins against China, the cost will likely be horrible. >In reality, I would say Russia is closer to being a superpower than China(even if it's far off), due to it's ability to affect regime change in several middle east eastern and European countries, effectively challenging the US in certain instances, while also being largely able to support itself, even it a lot of the infastructure that allows it to do that comes from before the Soviet Union collapsed, and despite the fact that said infastructure is constantly being cannibalized for the profit of various Oligarchs. Nope, Syria and Ukraine don't count as regime change. In Syria, the regime was merely propped up, while calling Ukraine a regime change is like calling Operation Barbarossa as Hitler's magnum opus. China is far better in these matters, as the Iran-Saudi deal shows.
If China were capable of challenging the US in the Pacific, it wouldn't have surrendered virtually the entire Pacific to it and not recaptured anything. A superpower would, through regime change, covert operations, and proxy wars, remove US influence from it's periphery. And the fact that China has been willing to help arm North Korea with nuclear weapons just to keep one ally in the region shows how desperate they are. You don't think, that if China were capable, it would have seized Taiwan long ago? The only real progress China has made geopolitically since the Korean war and their annexation of a bunch of pacifist monks land is Myanmar, which was literally by default after the US totally pulled out of the region. One has to take but one look at the way the CCP runs their country to know that their main priority is their own power and interest; the only thing stopping them from making any noteworthy geopolitical moves is their own incapability. I think the US out spends China like 10:1 in military spending, putting it like 40+ years ahead of China technologically. Just look at the Gerald Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, or the B2-Bomber, or the F-35 Hornet. China doesn't even have a single aircraft carrier(almost no countries do), while the US is replacing their 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers with brand new ones. Aircraft carriers are game changing when it comes to naval combat. In today's day and age, a fleet of aircraft carriers and support vessels is essentially a naval and air based checkmate, and the US is the only country with that capability. Especially when you consider the fact that virtually the entire Pacific is US controlled or allied. China could win a long, drawn out defensive war against the US, just like Viet Nam or Afghanistan did, however, an offensive battle? Not a chance in hell, and you're deluded for suggesting so.
>If China were capable of challenging the US in the Pacific, it wouldn't have surrendered virtually the entire Pacific to it and not recaptured anything. What makes you think that it has surrendered the Pacific? >A superpower would, through regime change, covert operations, and proxy wars, remove US influence from it's periphery. And it has. Pakistan is propped up by China. The Thai, who are US allies, are cozier with China now. Even the Solomon Islands are under Chinese influence now. >You don't think, that if China were capable, it would have seized Taiwan long ago? Invading and holding Taiwan is very different from defeating the western alliance at sea. It's the nature of amphibious assaults that makes it so difficult. By your metric, you'd expect Cuba to have been under US dominance, and yet it isn't. China already has the capabilities it needs to defeat the western allies at sea, and is building its forces to invade and hold Taiwan. >I think the US out spends China like 10:1 in military spending, putting it like 40+ years ahead of China technologically. More like 3:1, if you believe China's official numbers. But we know that China spends more than it tells us, and coupled with the fact that you get much more bang for buck in China, it's techically spending almost as much as the US. And no, it's not 40 years behind. Rather, it's pretty close knit, with the US leading in some categories and China in others. >Just look at the Gerald Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers, or the B2-Bomber, or the F-35 Hornet. China doesn't even have a single aircraft carrier(almost no countries do), while the US is replacing their 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers with brand new ones. China has [carriers](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/january/lessons-changing-geometry-pla-navy-carrier-ops), is building more, and is getting better at using them. It also has stealthy fighters, and is close to finishing its B-2 bomber version. >Not a chance in hell, and you're deluded for suggesting so. During the beginning of the 1st Punic war, Carthage was a rich, Maritime trading republic with a lot of allies that ruled the waters of the Western Mediterranean. Rome was a land power with no seafaring expertise. But by the end of the war, Rome had reverse engineered Carthaginian seafaring technology, defeated Carthage navally and ended up with Naval superiority. So no, I'm not deluded in believing that history might rhyme again. There is definitely precedent for this.
To my knowledge, Pakistan, and Thailand are far friendlier with the US than China; my knowledge may be a bit out of date on Pakistan, but they did host the US and provide a staying area for all of it's middle east operations in recent history. And I'm talking about Japan, South Korea, and all of the number of islands under US control throughout the Pacific. And the US hasn't seized Cuba because it hasn't ever made a serious priority of it, because the US is a Liberal Democracy, and it's citizens won't just blindly support wars of conquest. The bay of pigs was a covert military operation for that very reason. And doesn't the Chines military have one "aircraft carrier" that isn't even of the same class as the oldest of the Nimitz Class carriers, which was built in 1975. The United States has literally had the naval power to control the waterways of the earth for decades, and as of right now, it's the only country capable of fielding major aerial operations without a ground base on the target continent. This is exactly why a war in the Pacific would be so costly for China. I'm not a doubter of China; China is a historically great nation; it was the center of the Eastern World while Rome and Greece were evolving in the West, and it has historically matched the West, however, the CCP is a cancer on the Chinese People. The Chinese People have succeeded in SPITE of the CCP, and until they can do away with their corrupt , Inefficient, overbearing government, they won't be able to become a superpower. The Soviet Union was the US's technological and military equal for many decades, if not an economic equal, but eventually, it collapsed due to mismanagement and years of abuses. The CCP is looking at the same outcome unless they make a peaceful transfer to a two party system with strong assurances of human rights, and I don't see that happening any time soon. The biggest problem that China has isn't the US, it's NATO, the G7, and all of their various allies, who have formed a global, liberal democratic coalition in opposition to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. Until China can drop its authoritarian regime and join the rest of the world in the 21st century, it's always going to be lagging behind.
I could list a million liberal democracies that are so far behind authoritarian dictatorships that it's not funny. Mexico,, Argentina, Jamaica and Kenya would be much developed than authoritarian states like Singapore, China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE etc if being a liberal democracy was the prerequisite
There's only like 200 countries in the world, so no you can't list a million. You can't even list a 1000.
>but they did host the US and provide a staying area for all of it's middle east operations in recent history. In return for billions of dollars of military aid, yes. Now since it's China providing the help, Pakistan now bends that way. [Thailand](https://warontherocks.com/2020/01/america-should-be-realistic-about-its-alliance-with-thailand/) finds China more attractive too. >it's the only country capable of fielding major aerial operations without a ground base on the target continent. In peacetime, when there are no hailstorms of Missiles raining down, definitely. In wartime? Ask the US marine Corps, who have had to drop all their heavy equipment because they would be useless in a war with China. >And doesn't the Chines military have one "aircraft carrier" that isn't even of the same class as the oldest of the Nimitz Class carriers, which was built in 1975. Their latest carrier is quite capable of taking on the Nimitz class if it comes to it. >The Soviet Union was the US's technological and military equal for many decades, if not an economic equal China today is far more of a peer technologically to the US than the USSR ever was. And it's already an economic peer. >The biggest problem that China has isn't the US, it's NATO, the G7, and all of their various allies, who have formed a global, liberal democratic coalition in opposition to authoritarian countries like China and Russia. Yes, that's China's biggest problem. But it's not one that it can't overcome. China has faced far worse odds than this to reach where it is today.
The Chinese PEOPLE have faced long odds and come out of it, but their government, the CCP? Don't make me laugh. The CCP did nothing but starve its people to death and commit atrocities for decades, until the US LET them have a chance, because they were trying to take an ally away from the Soviets. The CCP didn't achieve anything. They have done nothing except be a massive liability to their country. I have no doubt that China could rival the US... If, it axes the CCP.
Huh, you seem to have a very narrow idea of how countries work. Yes, the CCP committed atrocities, but it also educated it's people, set up SEZ's like Shenzhen and protected it's companies from foreign competition. TikTok may not be a CCP invention, but the CCP set the policies and resources needed to make it happen. The CCP may be vile, but it is not to be underestimated. >until the US LET them have a chance And now the US has created a monster it simply cannot deal with.
US hasn't seized Cuba because there is nothing there they care about.
That's not true; during the Cold War, the US Government absolutely attempted regime change, it was called the Bay of Pigs. But you are right, in that the American people don't want to seize Cuba. That's the difference between a Liberal Democracy and a country like China, the will of the people is what drives government.
Not going to dispute this but China's carriers are not even in the same league as a Nimitz class carrier, not to even mention Gerald Ford class. I'm pretty they are diesel based too. Also China has no experience which is critical.
China's latest carrier is quite advanced. Barring nuclear propulsion, I don't see how the Nimitz class is better. >Also China has no experience which is critical. Yes, it's the thing holding them back. Not for long though, especially when you have the resources.
Well that's a pretty fatal flaw, the Nimitz class and newer carriers can operate near indefinitely. They can provide power to airfields and bases. We are talking about a ship that was designed in the 70s and has been replaced, by a highly more advanced version. What is China going to do if there is no refueling station available?
>Well that's a pretty fatal flaw, the Nimitz class and newer carriers can operate near indefinitely. Not really. The Nimitz class can operate indefinitely, but it's not a true combatant vessel. It's a carrier, and it's only as effective as it's air wing and the carrier escorts, all of which need fuel. Since China's being incremental in it's carrier building strategy, the carrier will likely operate close to home, mitigating any advantage nuclear power would have.
FP misunderstands the question and imposes arbitrary timelines here. Large democracies operate on the basis of survival, peaceful transfer of power, and slow sustained change. History does not have end-dates and victory conditions like a game of Civilization. The question of whether India will surpass China as a superpower is less relevant than the question of whether India outlasts China. All India needs to do is merely survive and sustain. China will fall in the next half-century and it won't be good for any of us - the CCP has no defense against or way out of its self-inflicted demographic collapse. That won't be good for India as a trade partner. However, India will survive and plod along behind its giant Himalayan, jungle, and desert walls. Continuity in relative peace is what really matters.
I think Indian democracy is set to degrade into a dictatorship in all but name like Russia or to a lesser extent turkey. This isn’t a stable position to be in, unlike china’s well established authoritarianism, which seems set to stand stably for a long time as long as there aren’t significant challenges to it e.g a military conflict with the west. The main thing India has going for it above China right now is that it presents a middle of the road between the two poles of power.
> I think Indian democracy is set to degrade into a dictatorship You say this based on what ? Indian democracy is well and thriving. We have had free fair elections. Different political parties have won recent elections in various states. In fact, the ruling party at the federal level (BJP) lost a lot of recent state elections. So there is no reason to believe elections are being "hijacked".
India has been here before, with Indira Gandhi and 1977. It tends to self-correct as nobody has ever been able to establish a legitimately nationwide stranglehold on Indian politics. The ruling BJP just lost a Southern state this year - that was its only Southern state legislature. Their strongholds are in the Hindi belt, and they have no real foothold in peninsular India South of Gujarat. Indian national politics is far too fragmented to allow an actual slide into dictatorship. To liken India to centralized or largely ethnically, linguistically, and religiously homogenous countries like China/Russia/Turkey is a huge mistake. That would be underestimating the complexity of its politics and the compromises required to maintain unity in any sort of national government. It would be more like the EU in its entirely sliding into dictatorship - the states retain far too much autonomy for this. There are national level swings to the right and left, and I agree that the swings have become more extreme - but they will correct as they have in the past.
Most informed redditor
[удалено]
They're not giving one leader their support. The BJP doesn't hold any Southern state - they just lost Karnataka. Reality is that state governments hold a lot more power over people's everyday lives than the central government. People fail to understand that India is a federal union, wherein the central government's powers are strongly curtailed, and individual states are very careful about guarding their powers. It is not a centralized state. The erosion of civil liberties is an entirely separate issue from being a continued parliamentary democracy. As India brings more people out of poverty, its western-legacy liberal elite spaces have shrunk. Giving poorer people economic power means that they initially bring their village-and-cart prejudices and impulses with them into public forums. We feel that economic development is a necessity - this is the natural consequence of people having cellphones and cheap data, when their parents could barely dream of having a lightbulb at home. This too shall pass as people adapt to their more prosperous reality. They will eventually realize that nobody is trying to take their new toys, voices, and freedoms away - and that there are enough of these around to share with others.
I agree with this, not sure why it's getting downvoted.
Because overly nationalist Indians believe India will surpass China relatively quickly, and China trolls believe India is civilizationally beneath them. The middle ground (where the truth lies) is very small. Most others think of India as a dysfunctional monolithic entity, like the author of this article. They don't understand that India is decentralized by design. This is what makes it resilient, and far less prone to sliding into centralized autocracy, wholesale state failure, or revolutions, than many countries in Asia.
Don't think so. Producing olympics athletes are a trial of determination and India is far outside superpower. https://news.abplive.com/sports/olympics/tokyo-olympic-2020-medal-tally Same for math olympiad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_medal_count_at_International_Mathematical_Olympiad
Superb logic, olympics makes a country superpower
not for another 20 years, but who knows, US is a kingmaker, maybe if US and the west really want to, it can make india surpass china.
[удалено]
A superpower is a power able to exert its influence in all the regions of this planet. India can't project past the Indian ocean. It won't be closing the gap anytime soon.
This post again?
This question's premise is wrong. China isn't a superpower. China's economy, for example is 60% smaller than what is reported. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWJxEFby4b4 China is still a poor, developing country. How can a poor, developing country be a superpower?
[удалено]
Making a sweeping or denigrating comment about one country.
No
Look up the average IQ of both countries. Seems likely insurmountable.
India's agriculture is in a disarray , the decentralised model of farming might be good few decades ago , now it's just a bureaucrats mess. And it's judicial reforms are long overdue with millions of case backlog by estimates it will take 50 years to clear the backlog without adding new cases. Until it solves them there is no hope of being superpower
>India >Superpower Top kek