Posted on 02/02/2007 6:19:00 PM PST by Jedi Master Pikachu
BBC World Service will be dedicating a week of special programmes from 3-11 February looking at how India is changing.
The BBC's George Arney has been reporting on India for many years and, for just as long, the country's promise has been waiting to be fulfilled.
How do you summarise a country which is home to one in six members of the human race, which contains a third of the world's poorest people and yet has an increasingly consumer-oriented middle-class twice the size of the population of Germany?
And which - according to predictions by the CIA and investment bankers Goldman Sachs - could, along with China, come to dominate the global economy in the next few decades?
India has always been hard to get a handle on. In the 28 years that I've been visiting, thinking and writing about this vast and varied subcontinent, I've clung on to an unnerving, and yet somehow also reassuring, truism: for any generalisation that can be made about India, the opposite is equally true.
So is it or is it not true that, 60 years after partition and independence, India is finally about to take its place on the world stage as a major player?
Slumbering elephant
Dusting off my first ever Indian guide book (a 1978 Fodor Guide) - I can see that that the predictions of a resurgent India have been around a long time.
"India has rocketed", the foreword says, "from a backwater colony into the forefront of the world's leading nations."
But predictions that the slumbering Indian elephant would wake up never seemed to come true.
As the "tiger" economies of South-east Asia roared away in the 1970s and 1980s, India's biggest achievements remained its ability to feed its own people, and its adherence - against the odds - to democracy.
The question now, as one long-time observer puts it, is whether India will emerge as a major power, or whether it will remain "forever arriving".
Despite endemic problems of poverty and disease, major changes have already occurred.
Unshackled by the economic liberalisation of the early 1990s, India is already poised to overtake Japan as the world's third largest economy.
It is also strutting its stuff on the world stage. Its nuclear status has now been formally acknowledged by the US. And, when the UN is finally reformed, it's likely to land a permanent seat on the Security Council.
India Shining
All this adds up, to use the slick advertising slogan coined a couple of years ago by the then governing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to a new India: India Shining.
But hang on. Wasn't that slogan exposed as an empty boast, when - despite presiding over a period of unprecedented economic growth - the BJP was decisively rejected by India's have-nots at the last general elections?
Amidst all the buzz about the vibrant, new India getting ready for take-off, is the old India still capable of dragging it back, aborting the countdown?
Consider a few statistics: 300 million Indians live on less than US$1 a day, compared to only 85 million in China, which has a bigger population.
Forty-five per cent of Indian children under the age of five are malnourished. Less than a third of India's homes have a toilet. Less than half of its 500,000 villages are connected to the electricity grid.
Globalisation challenge
Despite the explosion of consumerism and capitalism in India's booming cities, more than half of all Indians still live in rural areas.
Farmers are committing suicide because they can't compete in a globalised market. "India doesn't live in its villages," says author and activist Arundhati Roy. "It dies."
Having shed its old commitment to state-directed socialism, critics argue that the Indian state is failing to provide the most basic necessities to its poorest citizens: health care, education, drinking water.
As the gap between rich and poor widens, Naxalite militants have spread their doctrine of Maoist revolution, now making their presence felt in more than a quarter of the country.
Maoism, according to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is the single biggest internal security challenge ever faced by India.
And, even though the Maoists are unlikely ever to bring the government to its knees - as they did in neighbouring Nepal - the brutal low-intensity conflict they've spawned is helping to keep India's poorest regions poor - and sharpening the inequity which some see as the biggest danger facing India over the next few decades.
So where is India headed? Some changes are visible to any casual visitor. The rampant consumerism in India's cities was unimaginable when I first visited in 1978.
But how far are India's traditional values breaking down under the onslaught of consumerism and individualism?
Are caste and hierarchy being eroded - and if so, are the downtrodden benefiting?
Is the explosion of television creating a new, more homogenised Indian culture?
Globalisation has brought tremendous changes and, for some, tremendous rewards. But are there more losers than winners, and, if so, what will the consequences be? In the rush for riches, can India's social fabric stand the strains? Or will growing inequities pull it apart at the seams?
|
GDP per cap is just $2000. Like Cuba. It has a long way to go, as does China.
We were discussing American heg on another thread a couple of days ago. I think this article bears out one of my earlier points. India is an awesome counterweight to China. I believe it will surpass China economically.
The much closer relationship that Bush has forged with India will prove one of the many brilliant moves by Bush. We have basically shrugged off the classic tension of Pakistan and India. We are putting a lot of relational chips on India.
I think it is a very smart move.
I would enjoy taking your dollar :)
China's banking system is on the verge of breaking down.
Unfortunately...On the whole India china border, there are no land resources worth of taking over from a India point of view. Tibet is a huge cold desert...
..In the modern world, the square miles of land you control is not a very good indicator of your worth...A more reliable indicator would be the square miles of cultivable land you have...and cultivable land per head is also a good indicator..
Look at the following Source is
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
China statistics
Area:
total: 9,596,960 sq km
land: 9,326,410 sq km
water: 270,550 sq km
Area - comparative:
Definition Field Listing
slightly smaller than the US
arable land: 14.86%
permanent crops: 1.27%
other: 83.87% (2005)
India Statistics
Area:
total: 3,287,590 sq km
land: 2,973,190 sq km
water: 314,400 sq km
Area - comparative:
Definition Field Listing
slightly more than one-third the size of the US
arable land: 48.83%
permanent crops: 2.8%
other: 48.37% (2005)
If you look at these statistics, you would get the true picture...India has more cultivable land that the China..even if nominal land area is more for China...
In case of a serious war, Both India and China has the same constraint in terms of fossil fuels..Both countries have to import petroleum....These economies even if they are big and rich in resources, cannot sustain a military campaign beyond 50-60 days....Especially India can shut down shipment of gulf oil to China altogether....China might send navy into Indian Ocean ...but cannot sustain forever like the American can.....The war would be a stalemate......
Americans might decide the winner by throwing their weight one way or other.....
The Chinese power structure understands all these issues and they are working on increasing the dependencies in China and India economies...I don't see a conflict in foreseeable future..
In a short term China might register some gains, those would not be sustainable...Even in 62 when China absolutely had an upper hand, the Chinese withdrew from gained territory...not because of greatness of their heart..but because they know that their gains cannot be sustained...
Today's India is much different and China would not be able to repeat the performance of 62...
Easy does it boys. I will bet my money on stalemate and take away both your dollars ;D
The first aggression on China's part will lose it all its uneasy "friends". China is so low on soft-power that even a test in space gets the powers that be to protest loudly. Should it fire a single missile at any of its neighbours, the world will drop China like a hot-potato.
India's soft-power will mean more countries will condemn any chinese aggression and get the US, Australia and possibly Russia and Japan to retaliate on India's behalf. More a question of timing.
cmdJing knows so little about the Chinese PLA like all his country-men that he's assuming that they are more powerful than they are. Chine being able to produce its own weapons doesn't mean it can win a war against India. In all, its not how many weapons one can make but how many weapons one has that counts. Given the quality of Chinese manufactures, I'm not going to bet too heavily on a Chinese win.
Let's not underestimate China...I would give them a few things...China has a strong center...They have a very high amount of resources available to them..They don't always need to exert military power to get their way.....They are today sitting on this huge pile of a trillion dollars...What that means is that they can buy their way in and out of any situation...
Their central structure has a deep understanding of today's issues and they are good students...
There is no such thing as winning a war against China..No one..not even the mighty Americans can win a land war against China...Every one learned that in Korea and Vietnam...
Have you ever been in China? I have...close to three years. Don't overestimate them either. Its a mess inside, probably a little more orderly than India, but chaotic nevertheless.
You don't need to win a war in China to defeat them. SunTzu may have been chinese, but his lessons can be used against China as well.
"Every one learned that in Korea and Vietnam..."
China lost in Vietnam.
How do you define winning and losing?
China invaded Vietnam, Vietnam tried to invade China into the Yunnan province but was UNSUCCESSFUL. In other words, China was able to go into Vietnamese territory and not the other way around. In this way, China wins.
If you define victory as China having to force Vietnam out of Cambodia, then you're right, they lost. But from the casualties, both side suffered about 25k men. It's a draw.
Remember 1962? China beats India without an airforce and with much less technological weapons than what India possess at that time because Indians underestimated China and didn't think it could operate in high altitudes. In the long run China did lose in terms of international image but military wise, they did achieve their objectives.
You mean same quality of hardware that allows them to shoot down a satellite (measuring at most 4 feet) in space and it's a moving target too? It means their guidance system is accurate within 1 meter and that's on a BALLISTIC missile too.
The reason why Japan and US complained so loudly against it is because they have underestimated Chinese capabilities.
I was actually referring to the NVA-South vietnam conflict with Russian/China on one side and America on the other side...In that fight Chinese backed the NVA and eventually drove americans out...
Then chinese fell out with the NVA too..that is a different story...
In Korea also it was the chinese army through north korean proxy that fought Americans and stalemated...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.