India the Superpower? Think again

CNN.com ^ | February 9 2007 | Cait Murphy,

[MunnaP]

NEW YORK (Fortune) --For the first time ever, India has posted four straight years of 8 percent growth; since it cracked open its economy in 1991, it has averaged growth of 6 percent- not in the same league as China, but twice the "Hindu rate of growth" that had marked the first 45 years of independence.

India has gone nuclear, and even gotten the United States to accept that status. Its movies are crossing over to become international hits. No wonder the idea of India as the next superpower is fast becoming conventional wisdom. "Our Time is Now," asserts The Times of India. And in an October survey by the Chicago Council on World Affairs, Indians said they saw their country as the second most influential in the world.

Sorry: India is not a superpower, and in fact, that is probably the wrong ambition for it, anyway. Why? Let me answer in the form of some statistics.

-47 percent of Indian children under the age of five are either malnourished or stunted.

-The adult literacy rate is 61 percent (behind Rwanda and barely ahead of Sudan). Even this is probably overstated, as people are deemed literate who can do little more than sign their name.

-Only 10 percent of the entire Indian labor force works in the formal economy; of these fewer than half are in the private sector.

-The enrollment of six-to-15-year-olds in school has actually declined in the last year. About 40 million children who are supposed to be in school are not.

-About a fifth of the population is chronically hungry; about half of the world's hungry live in India.

-More than a quarter of the India population lives on less than a dollar a day.

-India has more people with HIV than any other country.

[MunnaP]

Well...They do have problems even today....
But China India trade is increasing and in 2/3 years....China would be India's largest trade partner......Also chinese are sitting on this huge pile of a trllion dollars ...they can and will anything they want including peace....

[MunnaP]

.they can and will buy anything they want including peace....

[MunnaP]

That may very well be...
The American point of view could be 'Can American companies make money in there ?'
I think the answer is yes.....The answer lies in this comparison....
Suppose a person makes 40K in US and another makes 15K in India...Who would have higher disposable income ???
I think the person in India might .... Because of the lower consumption patterns....
The energy consumation are lower because of the weather, smaller distances..transportation costs are lower..may be not because the roads situation is bad....

[canon5d]

I read somewhere that the number of Chinese cellphone users are about 450 million people. A cellphone costs in China about $30? (or maybe a bit less). Surely if you make $1 per day, you can't have that. Cellphones = a better indicator of middle class than anything else.

The average wage in China is actually $100 USD per month, or about $3 per day (tht's using 8 RMB to $1 ratio, which is now 7.7 RMB to $1 USD ratio) It's about 800 RMB per month, that figure though was about 5 years old.

[jveritas]

Cellphones = a better indicator of middle class than anything else.

In third world country people go in debt and deprive themselves from many amenities in order to have a cell phone a show it off. I think cell phone is the least indicator of a middle class. How about cars? How about nice and comfortable homes and apartments? How about PC and laptops? How about home internet and cable or dish? How about all the other electronics home devices and appliances? How about decent cloths? How about good food and the ability to go out a lot to eat in restaurants? How about decent healthcare? Those are real indictor of middle class not a cell phone! And based on your account, less us assume $ 100 month is what the average Chinese make, and if cell phone cost them $ 30 a month then that is 30% of their monthly salary, imagine how much less they can afford to other stuff with the remaining 70 dollars.

[archy]

I read somewhere that the number of Chinese cellphone users are about 450 million people. A cellphone costs in China about $30? (or maybe a bit less). Surely if you make $1 per day, you can't have that. Cellphones = a better indicator of middle class than anything else.

Cellphones became quite common in Zimbabwe in the last decade, because any attempt to string copper wire for telecommunications lines would only result in expanded employment for local jewelers. That's much of an indication of prosperity there, where the starving army has been shooting at Comrade Bob's palace in order to indicate displeasure about their limited [beans] diet.

Much the same is true in Southwest Asia, where distances or a shortage of wood for line poles make microwave and cell towers a more viable technology. If only people wouldn't use them for setting off IEDs and would quit shooting holes in their antennas.

Herat, Afghanistan cell tower link:

[aft_lizard]

All of this is true. My Panamanian spanish teacher tells me that many hispanics come to the US on vacation to purchase durable goods because it is almost a 50% savings for them. I know in Kuwait the Brits and Aussies and Poles even shopped at the US exchanges because the cost of goods were much lower for us, except for ciggarettes I bought them from the British. Wealth is such a hard thing to measure, a person earning three thousand US a year in China may have a higher SOL than a guy earning 12,000 a year here.

[canon5d]

Exactly - that means they have 450 million middle class guys in their own standards.

BTW - the service fees of the cellphones are NOT cheap. It's about 9 RMB per minute with long distance, or about $1 per minute. So certainly they have to make above $100 per month to afford that.

My point is that in China the middleclass is much bigger than in India, because they have a manufacturing base. Without it, IT work is limited to a a couple of million people, as what the author of the article says.

[jveritas]

My point is that in China the middleclass is much bigger than in India, because they have a manufacturing base.

Agree.

[Arjun]

" world's largest democracy can deliver real progress to the hundreds of millions who have never used the phone, much less the Internet. And in important ways, that just isn't happening."
So how come India happens to be the worlds fastest growing cellphone market if that isnt happening?

[Arjun]

>>The adult literacy rate is 61 percent
So now the number of literate individuals living in India constitute twice those that live in the US.

[MimirsWell]

You make a lot of statements about the Chinese with no solid justification. Money cannot buy peace. China with all its money need not "want to buy peace".

I would not want to see India as China's little brother. We have very little in common with them. India cannot have an equal relationship with China, there will only be a pretense of "mutual respect and cooperation". Your statements are naive at the best.

[MunnaP]

Well....

In international relations only nehruvian fools believe in things like brotherhood and mutual respect and cooperation...
The only thing that countries care about are their own interests..Now once China becomes India's largest trade partner and India does not happen to be China's largest trade partner...So even if you do not want to be the little brother..effectively you are what you are.....I would leave it to you to define your role...In the end it is about how much resources can the country generate and in what fashion....
Rather than getting into emotional rhetoric ... India would do better to exploit the situation any way she could...That is what every one else is doing.....

[MunnaP]

Are you justifying the fact that those 39% are illiterate ??
Should you be justifying it ??? Even if net number of literate individuals is bigger than US, can to tell that to the remaining 39%?....What does that tell about the mindset of the literates...?

[Arjun]

You dont understand why there are 39% illiterate. Thats because 30 years ago there were 70% illiterate. 60 years ago there were 95% illiterate. One shouldnt only look at the negative side. Look at the whole picture.

[MimirsWell]

There is room for only one major power in Asia. India cannot become that power by being China's little brother. It can however achieve that status by being America's junior partner.

Its not always about trade. The US-China relationship should tell you a lot about that. You are an Indian advocating India becoming a Chicom-stooge? Get a grip. You sound like a CPI/CPM dumb-f***.

India will never get on the Security Council by being a Sino-Russian ally. It isn't in their "national interests" for that to happen. One doesn't have to be a Nehruvian idiot, one could just as well be a misinformed fool to advocate what you are saying.

[MunnaP]

I do not subscribe to the zero sum view of the world or Asia...I do not believe in the pipe-dream of superpowerdom of either China, India or US...I think of the future of the multipolar world in which US might be first among the equals...
US and China relationship is about trade...without trade there is no relationship....When I started the thread I did not even want to talk about China...I rather wanted to concentrate on self evaluation....Well...I never thought I would ever be called a communist...well looks like today is my lucky day...
Getting on the Security council...Is that the pinnacle of success ?? Are there more important issue in the country ??

[MimirsWell]

The Security Council seat isn't about stature, it is about "us" having a say in world affairs. We represent 1/6th of humanity. Don't you think we deserve to get to have our say?

Our bigger problems? Why wonder about our "bigger problems" all the time? Especially when it deters us from achieving what we can. At best you're a Nehruvian. A communist is not beyond you.

[webstersII]

"I wonder what the statistics of the US looked like, say 1936. I wouldn't be surprised in school enrollement was dropping or that 1/5 people where chronically hungry that a good amount lived on less than a dollar a day."

There may have been some truth to what you are saying here but that was a temporary situation in US History. Previous to that the US didn't have the highest standard of living but it was better than India or China has dreamed of in the modern age. The level of people constantly hungry and malnourished was relatively low.

The literacy rate for Americans in the late 18th century was close to 100%. People were taught to read by family, primarily by reading the Bible. The literacy rate was much higher back then, before compulsory education was put in place; compulsory education was not initiated to solve the problem of illiteracy because that wasn't a problem.

[Tribune7]

The late Milton Friedman said to bet on India beating China.