Because these govt companies cnt survive when faced with corporate competition . babu culture , red tape , unionism no match for agility , innovativeness , quick decision making of corporate . So they need money from govt (tax payers) like Air india did , from time to time to survive .
Indian Economy : News,Discussions & Updates
- Thread starter Butter Chicken
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
Because these govt companies cnt survive when faced with corporate competition . babu culture , red tape , unionism no match for agility , innovativeness , quick decision making of corporate . So they need money from govt (tax payers) like Air india did , from time to time to survive .
That's not exactly correct. Profits made by PSUs are handed back to the govt, so they have limited means of raising capital on their own.
More importantly, private companies focus on towns and cities, where ARPU is higher. Whereas BSNL works to provide coverage in villages too. My family has a farming background, and for more than a decade, with 2G and 3G, most people I know from small towns and villages would use BSNL because of coverage problems with Airtel, Spice, Hutch etc. So it was practically run like a charity. It's like how oil companies used to throw subsidies around during difficult years.
And the most important factor why it's strategic, the network has been built with resiliency in mind. It's been made to handle situations like war and other natural disasters. There have been many complaints about private networks failing during floods and cyclones and only BSNL continuing to provide service.
BSNL provides cheap services to farmers, fishermen, forest officials, soldiers at the front, tribal areas etc at a huge cost to themselves, which is then borne by the taxpayer. And during national emergencies, when private sector groundsmen run back to their homes, it's BSNL employees who brave the elements and ensure uninterrupted services.
You are impressed by the private sector because they have designed their network for revenue generation and customer service, unlike BSNL. While the private sector focuses on entertainment, BSNL focuses on national security. So, while Airtel gives you access to many hours of uninterrupted cat videos, BSNL is meant to ensure you don't die in a street brawl after a cyclone over a single tomato.
Entertainment network vs war-fighting network, that's the difference.
The Chinese illegally subsidise these industries. And no one's complaining 'cause everybody wants cheap steel paid for by Chinese taxpayers.
China subsidy plan, it makes TN a manufacturing powerhouse. But now it's coming back to bite 'em.
?? Didn't get it? Explain....
Take it with WTO or Mutually agreed dispute solving institution. Also, Could be because they are more efficient than us.
Yeah govt gets the share for its share holding ( whtevr it is 40% or 60% ) . Its same for all companies . Their shareholder get the money for their share . I dont get this point .
Number of subscriber of JIO 42.28 crore , for Airtel its 36.60 crore , Vodafone Idea 24.37 crore , BSNL its 10 crore . Do you think it happened just by focusing on urban areas ? In January, the BSNL lost nearly 1.5 million mobile subscribers .
lots of vague statements and opinions . In coastal belt of Odisha every 2 year cyclone happen . Go ask there how many use BSNL .
MORE THAN 50 per cent of mobile network equipment used by state-run Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) comes from two Chinese companies, namely Huawei and ZTE . What a formidable war fighting machinery it is .
Over 50% equipment in BSNL mobile networks Chinese: Govt
After a border skirmish with Chinese soldiers in the Galwan valley region of Ladakh, which killed 20 Indian soldiers, the government moved to cancel the participation of Chinese companies from tenders and projects in India.
indianexpress.com
TN provides a lot of subsidies to manufacturers and population. But in the end someone has to pay.
It's failed. No, they get 20% subsidies. Our PLI is meant to bridge the gap.
They end up giving away more of the share of profits versus keeping some aside for capex.
It's a temporary infrastructure problem. BSNL is still building its 4G/5G network.
BSNL 4G to go live in next 2 weeks; 5G by December: Vaishnaw
BSNL has started rolling out of 4G network with 200 sites, and after a three-month trial, it will launch an average of 200 sites per day, Union IT and Communications Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said on Wednesday.
So they have that many subscribers even with 2G/3G. That says a lot.
Regular disaster areas may have better coverage than irregular disaster areas, but the fact still is BSNL gets coverage.
Also, every individual does not need coverage for cat videos. Only critical services and organisations supplying services need uninterrupted coverage. If your flat or society has even 1 BSNL connection, then you can use that phone to send messages to family telling them you are fine or vice versa, that's about the limit of what an individual needs.
Here's an example:
Private SPs are not interested in such things.
MORE THAN 50 per cent of mobile network equipment used by state-run Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) comes from two Chinese companies, namely Huawei and ZTE . What a formidable war fighting machinery it is .
Over 50% equipment in BSNL mobile networks Chinese: Govt
After a border skirmish with Chinese soldiers in the Galwan valley region of Ladakh, which killed 20 Indian soldiers, the government moved to cancel the participation of Chinese companies from tenders and projects in India.
That's all old 2G/3G stuff. Now C-Dot, TCS and ITI, the same companies that provide to the armed forces are gonna provide hardware to BSNL for 4G and 5G.
BSNL issues purchase order to TCS, ITI for 1 lakh 4G sites: Report - ET Telecom
Bsnl: On Wednesday, the Union Cabinet approved the third revival package for the telecom PSU worth Rs 89,047 crores which also includes the allotment of 4G/5G spectrum through equity infusion.
Proof ? I am asking this because it looks like illegal , Because govt cant take away money at the cost of other shareholder or from capex whtev that is fixed . Yes it can earn by selling its share . And if your claim is true , it further the case against having such companies , whose capx fund can be taken away and invested in some subsidies .
But its our war fighting machinery , as you claimed . Important for our national security . Why call it temporary whn billions dollars invested in such equipment and operated over decades .
Do you know what USOF is ? Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) is the pool of funds generated by 5% Universal Service Levy that is charged upon all the telecom fund operators on their Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR). Aim of USOF is to provide a balance between the provision of Universal Service to all uncovered areas, including the rural areas.
BSNL is a loss-making entity. They need to get their subscriber count up. So they need capex input from the central govt.
Meaning, it's being built now. And once they get it running, people will subscribe more. Pan-India coverage is expected only next year, but they are also focusing on uncovered areas. Their network is apparently fully indigenous.
Yeah, capital for that is generated via USOF, disbursed by the govt for capex. But do you really expect them to maintain that infrastructure during emergencies? They have a history of not doing that, ie, sending out people in harm's way. They barely even build it on time. They also have insurance premiums to worry about.
Private players only act upon their duties when ordered, not out of interest.
Here's an example:
Govt slams Airtel for 'poor' infra in extremist regions - Times of India
India Business News: NEW DELHI: The government has come down heavily on Bharti Airtel for the company's "abysmal performance" in installing telecom network and infrastruct.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
So funding has been provided, but Airtel is not interested in doing the job, 'cause they don't wanna risk their employees there. Imagine when sh!t really hits the fan. What private company wants bad PR concerning kidnappings and deaths of their employees?
BSNL also invests a lot into making the system more functional during wartime. Additional redundancy, relaxed encryption standard for military use, backup infrastructure, vehicle-mounted base stations etc, which private companies don't care much about. And BSNL is better integrated with disaster relief forces.
Cell phone signals can also be used in many other ways by the military beyond communications. Working with PSUs ensures greater secrecy during field operations, especially because the company is willing to work in such conditions.
Private telcos are only suitable for entertainment, not for national security.
That everybody knows . Just like airindia needed . Wait for a decade this cycle ll be repeated . Our economic history should tell us by now what works for us and what does nt . By the way its second bailout . In 2019 there was another bailout of 69000 crore
Govt has a tool to make them do it . USOF . Its a misnomer that its not happening . If there is a delay then govt can demand action . You dont have to invest 20 billion for that .
Jio connecting villages in critical border areas, not BSNL
Jio has been awarded a tender for connecting 354 villages under USO Fund, many of which fall in critical border areas in Jammu and Kashmir and LadakhIn Jammu &a
Nearly 200 Villages in Uttarakhand near Indo-Nepal and China border to get Jio, BSNL connectivity | Dehradun News - Times of India
People in around 200 villages in Uttarakhand near Indo-Nepal and China border can heave a sigh of relief as they will be provided with Jio and BSNL co
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Ladakh’s Demchok near LAC, Chushul village to get 4G connectivity | Exclusive
Reliance Jio is expected to provide 4G network coverage in eastern Ladakh’s Demchok, near the LAC, and Chushul village from as early as the end of October.
How do they manage with private companies in other countries , if they cnt provide secrecy . Reliance Jio by the way has expanded the reach of its 4G services in the Ladakh region to a village close to Pangong lake by setting up a mobile tower.
Last edited:
That everybody knows . Just like airindia needed . Wait for a decade this cycle ll be repeated . Our economic history should tell us by now what works for us and what does nt . By the way its second bailout . In 2019 there was another bailout of 69000 crore
I think BSNL will be run better than before. Plus that move in 2019 cut flab. 70% of BSNL and 90% of MTNL workforce took voluntary retirement, so both are a lot more leaner and meaner than before.
Govt has a tool to make them do it . USOF . Its a misnomer that its not happening . If there is a delay then govt can demand action . You dont have to invest 20 billion for that .
Jio connecting villages in critical border areas, not BSNL
Jio has been awarded a tender for connecting 354 villages under USO Fund, many of which fall in critical border areas in Jammu and Kashmir and LadakhIn Jammu &apsuwatch.com
Nearly 200 Villages in Uttarakhand near Indo-Nepal and China border to get Jio, BSNL connectivity | Dehradun News - Times of India
People in around 200 villages in Uttarakhand near Indo-Nepal and China border can heave a sigh of relief as they will be provided with Jio and BSNL co
Ladakh’s Demchok near LAC, Chushul village to get 4G connectivity | Exclusive
Reliance Jio is expected to provide 4G network coverage in eastern Ladakh’s Demchok, near the LAC, and Chushul village from as early as the end of October.www.indiatoday.in
No, a working pan-India connection is necessary during wartime. Also, to connect uncovered areas, you also need connections in covered areas. Renting from others won't work due to functionality requirements for wartime. If Delhi gets nuked, you can bet that after the initial disruption, BSNL's network will be the first to come back online.
Legally in India, private players cannot provide bulk encryption. They do provide end-to-end encryption for consumers, but it's not military grade.
The army is paying for cell towers near the borders, along with USOF, the private sector doesn't care.
India ramping up mobile connectivity along LAC, amid Chinese spill over
The Indian Army has recently held a discussion with NTRO on how to bring a secure network in the region through mobile and microwave towers. Currently, the Indian side along the border automatically picks up a Chinese network in the area.
Officials added that other service providers are reluctant to come to these locations due to the lack of economic viability. “There are barely more than 500 locals staying in the area,” an official said.
USOF is great on paper, but the private telcos don't want to do what's necessary.
The army is also setting up a dedicated network of their own for military use.
Will India Surpass China to Become the Next Superpower?
This question has only become more relevant as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets with U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington this week. From a U.S. perspective, if India—the world’s largest democracy—really could trump China, that would be something to shout about. India is China’s natural adversary; the two countries share more than 2,000 miles of disputed, undemarcated border, where conflict breaks out sporadically.
The bigger and stronger China’s competitors in Asia, the greater the prospects for a balance of power favorable to the United States.
Yet before inhaling the narrative of a rapidly rising India too deeply, we should pause to reflect on four inconvenient truths.
First, analysts have been wrong about India’s rise in the past. In the 1990s, analysts trumpeted a growing, youthful Indian population that would drive economic liberalization to create an “economic miracle.” One of the United States’ most thoughtful India analysts, journalist Fareed Zakaria, noted in a recent column in the Washington Post that he found himself caught up in the second wave of this euphoria in 2006, when the World Economic Forum in Davos heralded India as the “world’s fastest-growing free market democracy” and the then-Indian trade minister said that India’s economy would shortly surpass China’s. Although India’s economy did grow, Zakaria points out that these predictions didn’t come true.
Second, despite India’s extraordinary growth over the past two years—when India joined the club of the world’s five largest economies—India’s economy has remained much smaller than China’s. In the early 2000s, China’s manufacturing, exports, and GDP were about two to three times larger than India’s. Now, China’s economy is about five times larger, with a GDP of $17.7 trillion versus India’s GDP of $3.2 trillion.
Third, India has been falling behind in the race to develop science and technology to power economic growth. China graduates nearly twice as many STEM students as India. China spends 2 percent of its GDP on research and development, while India spends 0.7 percent. Four of the world’s 20 biggest tech companies by revenue are Chinese; none are based in India. China produces over half of the world’s 5G infrastructure, India just 1 percent. TikTok and similar apps created in China are now global leaders, but India has yet to create a tech product that has gone global. When it comes to producing artificial intelligence (AI), China is the only global rival to the United States. China’s SenseTime AI model recently beat OpenAI’s GPT-4 on key technical performance measures; India has no entry in this race. China holds 65 percent of the world’s AI patents, compared with India’s 3 percent. China’s AI firms have received $95 billion in private investment from 2013 through 2022 versus India’s $7 billion. And top-tier AI researchers hail primarily from China, the United States, and Europe, while India lags behind.
Fourth, when assessing a nation’s power, what matters more than the number of its citizens is the quality of its workforce. China’s workforce is more productive than India’s. The international community has rightly celebrated China’s “anti-poverty miracle” that has essentially eliminated abject poverty. In contrast, India continues to have high levels of poverty and malnutrition. In 1980, 90 percent of China’s 1 billion citizens had incomes below the World Bank’s threshold for abject poverty. Today, that number is approximately zero. Yet more than 10 percent of India’s population of 1.4 billion continue to live below the World Bank extreme poverty line of $2.15 per day. Meanwhile, 16.3 percent of India’s population was undernourished in 2019-21, compared with less than 2.5 percent of China’s population, according to the most recent United Nations State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report. India also has one of the worst rates of child malnutrition in the world.
Fortunately, the future does not always resemble the past. But as a sign in the Pentagon warns: Hope is not a plan. While doing whatever it can to help Modi’s India realize a better future, Washington should also reflect on the assessment of Asia’s most insightful strategist. 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.”
Since Lee offered this judgment, India has embarked on an ambitious infrastructure and development agenda under a new leader and demonstrated that it can achieve considerable economic growth. Yet while we can remain hopeful that this time could be different, I, for one, suspect Lee wouldn’t bet on it.
foreignpolicy.com
Four inconvenient truths make this scenario unlikely.
When India overtook China in April to become the world’s most populous nation, observers wondered: Will New Delhi surpass Beijing to become the next global superpower? India’s birth rate is almost twice that of China. And India has outpaced China in economic growth for the past two years—its GDP grew 6.1 percent last quarter, compared with China’s 4.5 percent. At first glance, the statistics seem promising.This question has only become more relevant as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets with U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington this week. From a U.S. perspective, if India—the world’s largest democracy—really could trump China, that would be something to shout about. India is China’s natural adversary; the two countries share more than 2,000 miles of disputed, undemarcated border, where conflict breaks out sporadically.
The bigger and stronger China’s competitors in Asia, the greater the prospects for a balance of power favorable to the United States.
Yet before inhaling the narrative of a rapidly rising India too deeply, we should pause to reflect on four inconvenient truths.
First, analysts have been wrong about India’s rise in the past. In the 1990s, analysts trumpeted a growing, youthful Indian population that would drive economic liberalization to create an “economic miracle.” One of the United States’ most thoughtful India analysts, journalist Fareed Zakaria, noted in a recent column in the Washington Post that he found himself caught up in the second wave of this euphoria in 2006, when the World Economic Forum in Davos heralded India as the “world’s fastest-growing free market democracy” and the then-Indian trade minister said that India’s economy would shortly surpass China’s. Although India’s economy did grow, Zakaria points out that these predictions didn’t come true.
Second, despite India’s extraordinary growth over the past two years—when India joined the club of the world’s five largest economies—India’s economy has remained much smaller than China’s. In the early 2000s, China’s manufacturing, exports, and GDP were about two to three times larger than India’s. Now, China’s economy is about five times larger, with a GDP of $17.7 trillion versus India’s GDP of $3.2 trillion.
Third, India has been falling behind in the race to develop science and technology to power economic growth. China graduates nearly twice as many STEM students as India. China spends 2 percent of its GDP on research and development, while India spends 0.7 percent. Four of the world’s 20 biggest tech companies by revenue are Chinese; none are based in India. China produces over half of the world’s 5G infrastructure, India just 1 percent. TikTok and similar apps created in China are now global leaders, but India has yet to create a tech product that has gone global. When it comes to producing artificial intelligence (AI), China is the only global rival to the United States. China’s SenseTime AI model recently beat OpenAI’s GPT-4 on key technical performance measures; India has no entry in this race. China holds 65 percent of the world’s AI patents, compared with India’s 3 percent. China’s AI firms have received $95 billion in private investment from 2013 through 2022 versus India’s $7 billion. And top-tier AI researchers hail primarily from China, the United States, and Europe, while India lags behind.
Fourth, when assessing a nation’s power, what matters more than the number of its citizens is the quality of its workforce. China’s workforce is more productive than India’s. The international community has rightly celebrated China’s “anti-poverty miracle” that has essentially eliminated abject poverty. In contrast, India continues to have high levels of poverty and malnutrition. In 1980, 90 percent of China’s 1 billion citizens had incomes below the World Bank’s threshold for abject poverty. Today, that number is approximately zero. Yet more than 10 percent of India’s population of 1.4 billion continue to live below the World Bank extreme poverty line of $2.15 per day. Meanwhile, 16.3 percent of India’s population was undernourished in 2019-21, compared with less than 2.5 percent of China’s population, according to the most recent United Nations State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report. India also has one of the worst rates of child malnutrition in the world.
Fortunately, the future does not always resemble the past. But as a sign in the Pentagon warns: Hope is not a plan. While doing whatever it can to help Modi’s India realize a better future, Washington should also reflect on the assessment of Asia’s most insightful strategist. 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.”
Since Lee offered this judgment, India has embarked on an ambitious infrastructure and development agenda under a new leader and demonstrated that it can achieve considerable economic growth. Yet while we can remain hopeful that this time could be different, I, for one, suspect Lee wouldn’t bet on it.
Will India Surpass China to Become the Next Superpower?
Four inconvenient truths make this scenario unlikely.
foreignpolicy.com
India's forex reserves up $2.4 bn to $596.1 bn
India's foreign exchange reserves saw an uptick of $2.350 billion, taking the overall level to $596.098 billion as on June 16. Forex reserves had dropped by $1.318 billion for the week ended June 9, RBI data had showed.
Another BS article from China funded Harvard prof. China did incredibly well for last 3 decades, but it has spent its bullets. The debt fueled growth is saturated and can’t continue for long time. With western companies diversifying supply chain, China’s long term growth will be in 2-3 % range.Will India Surpass China to Become the Next Superpower?
Four inconvenient truths make this scenario unlikely.
When India overtook China in April to become the world’s most populous nation, observers wondered: Will New Delhi surpass Beijing to become the next global superpower? India’s birth rate is almost twice that of China. And India has outpaced China in economic growth for the past two years—its GDP grew 6.1 percent last quarter, compared with China’s 4.5 percent. At first glance, the statistics seem promising.
This question has only become more relevant as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets with U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington this week. From a U.S. perspective, if India—the world’s largest democracy—really could trump China, that would be something to shout about. India is China’s natural adversary; the two countries share more than 2,000 miles of disputed, undemarcated border, where conflict breaks out sporadically.
The bigger and stronger China’s competitors in Asia, the greater the prospects for a balance of power favorable to the United States.
Yet before inhaling the narrative of a rapidly rising India too deeply, we should pause to reflect on four inconvenient truths.
First, analysts have been wrong about India’s rise in the past. In the 1990s, analysts trumpeted a growing, youthful Indian population that would drive economic liberalization to create an “economic miracle.” One of the United States’ most thoughtful India analysts, journalist Fareed Zakaria, noted in a recent column in the Washington Post that he found himself caught up in the second wave of this euphoria in 2006, when the World Economic Forum in Davos heralded India as the “world’s fastest-growing free market democracy” and the then-Indian trade minister said that India’s economy would shortly surpass China’s. Although India’s economy did grow, Zakaria points out that these predictions didn’t come true.
Second, despite India’s extraordinary growth over the past two years—when India joined the club of the world’s five largest economies—India’s economy has remained much smaller than China’s. In the early 2000s, China’s manufacturing, exports, and GDP were about two to three times larger than India’s. Now, China’s economy is about five times larger, with a GDP of $17.7 trillion versus India’s GDP of $3.2 trillion.
Third, India has been falling behind in the race to develop science and technology to power economic growth. China graduates nearly twice as many STEM students as India. China spends 2 percent of its GDP on research and development, while India spends 0.7 percent. Four of the world’s 20 biggest tech companies by revenue are Chinese; none are based in India. China produces over half of the world’s 5G infrastructure, India just 1 percent. TikTok and similar apps created in China are now global leaders, but India has yet to create a tech product that has gone global. When it comes to producing artificial intelligence (AI), China is the only global rival to the United States. China’s SenseTime AI model recently beat OpenAI’s GPT-4 on key technical performance measures; India has no entry in this race. China holds 65 percent of the world’s AI patents, compared with India’s 3 percent. China’s AI firms have received $95 billion in private investment from 2013 through 2022 versus India’s $7 billion. And top-tier AI researchers hail primarily from China, the United States, and Europe, while India lags behind.
Fourth, when assessing a nation’s power, what matters more than the number of its citizens is the quality of its workforce. China’s workforce is more productive than India’s. The international community has rightly celebrated China’s “anti-poverty miracle” that has essentially eliminated abject poverty. In contrast, India continues to have high levels of poverty and malnutrition. In 1980, 90 percent of China’s 1 billion citizens had incomes below the World Bank’s threshold for abject poverty. Today, that number is approximately zero. Yet more than 10 percent of India’s population of 1.4 billion continue to live below the World Bank extreme poverty line of $2.15 per day. Meanwhile, 16.3 percent of India’s population was undernourished in 2019-21, compared with less than 2.5 percent of China’s population, according to the most recent United Nations State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report. India also has one of the worst rates of child malnutrition in the world.
Fortunately, the future does not always resemble the past. But as a sign in the Pentagon warns: Hope is not a plan. While doing whatever it can to help Modi’s India realize a better future, Washington should also reflect on the assessment of Asia’s most insightful strategist. 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.”
Since Lee offered this judgment, India has embarked on an ambitious infrastructure and development agenda under a new leader and demonstrated that it can achieve considerable economic growth. Yet while we can remain hopeful that this time could be different, I, for one, suspect Lee wouldn’t bet on it.
Will India Surpass China to Become the Next Superpower?
Four inconvenient truths make this scenario unlikely.
How does it negates what he is saying? Is he wrong about current statistics quoted ?
Point is how the statistics is used and whether it makes sense to predict the future?
Do you remember my comment on a similar article predicting iPhones can’t be produced in India? Check the actual numbers now.
Havard is completely captured by commies and you will see many such hit jobs. Basically China is shit scared and will try everything to stop India’s growth.
Will India Surpass China to Become the Next Superpower?
Four inconvenient truths make this scenario unlikely.
When India overtook China in April to become the world’s most populous nation, observers wondered: Will New Delhi surpass Beijing to become the next global superpower? India’s birth rate is almost twice that of China. And India has outpaced China in economic growth for the past two years—its GDP grew 6.1 percent last quarter, compared with China’s 4.5 percent. At first glance, the statistics seem promising.
This question has only become more relevant as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets with U.S. President Joe Biden in Washington this week. From a U.S. perspective, if India—the world’s largest democracy—really could trump China, that would be something to shout about. India is China’s natural adversary; the two countries share more than 2,000 miles of disputed, undemarcated border, where conflict breaks out sporadically.
The bigger and stronger China’s competitors in Asia, the greater the prospects for a balance of power favorable to the United States.
Yet before inhaling the narrative of a rapidly rising India too deeply, we should pause to reflect on four inconvenient truths.
First, analysts have been wrong about India’s rise in the past. In the 1990s, analysts trumpeted a growing, youthful Indian population that would drive economic liberalization to create an “economic miracle.” One of the United States’ most thoughtful India analysts, journalist Fareed Zakaria, noted in a recent column in the Washington Post that he found himself caught up in the second wave of this euphoria in 2006, when the World Economic Forum in Davos heralded India as the “world’s fastest-growing free market democracy” and the then-Indian trade minister said that India’s economy would shortly surpass China’s. Although India’s economy did grow, Zakaria points out that these predictions didn’t come true.
Second, despite India’s extraordinary growth over the past two years—when India joined the club of the world’s five largest economies—India’s economy has remained much smaller than China’s. In the early 2000s, China’s manufacturing, exports, and GDP were about two to three times larger than India’s. Now, China’s economy is about five times larger, with a GDP of $17.7 trillion versus India’s GDP of $3.2 trillion.
Third, India has been falling behind in the race to develop science and technology to power economic growth. China graduates nearly twice as many STEM students as India. China spends 2 percent of its GDP on research and development, while India spends 0.7 percent. Four of the world’s 20 biggest tech companies by revenue are Chinese; none are based in India. China produces over half of the world’s 5G infrastructure, India just 1 percent. TikTok and similar apps created in China are now global leaders, but India has yet to create a tech product that has gone global. When it comes to producing artificial intelligence (AI), China is the only global rival to the United States. China’s SenseTime AI model recently beat OpenAI’s GPT-4 on key technical performance measures; India has no entry in this race. China holds 65 percent of the world’s AI patents, compared with India’s 3 percent. China’s AI firms have received $95 billion in private investment from 2013 through 2022 versus India’s $7 billion. And top-tier AI researchers hail primarily from China, the United States, and Europe, while India lags behind.
Fourth, when assessing a nation’s power, what matters more than the number of its citizens is the quality of its workforce. China’s workforce is more productive than India’s. The international community has rightly celebrated China’s “anti-poverty miracle” that has essentially eliminated abject poverty. In contrast, India continues to have high levels of poverty and malnutrition. In 1980, 90 percent of China’s 1 billion citizens had incomes below the World Bank’s threshold for abject poverty. Today, that number is approximately zero. Yet more than 10 percent of India’s population of 1.4 billion continue to live below the World Bank extreme poverty line of $2.15 per day. Meanwhile, 16.3 percent of India’s population was undernourished in 2019-21, compared with less than 2.5 percent of China’s population, according to the most recent United Nations State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World report. India also has one of the worst rates of child malnutrition in the world.
Fortunately, the future does not always resemble the past. But as a sign in the Pentagon warns: Hope is not a plan. While doing whatever it can to help Modi’s India realize a better future, Washington should also reflect on the assessment of Asia’s most insightful strategist. 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.”
Since Lee offered this judgment, India has embarked on an ambitious infrastructure and development agenda under a new leader and demonstrated that it can achieve considerable economic growth. Yet while we can remain hopeful that this time could be different, I, for one, suspect Lee wouldn’t bet on it.
Will India Surpass China to Become the Next Superpower?
Four inconvenient truths make this scenario unlikely.
- Most of the economic activity happening in private sector after opening of market and i have hope new generation research oriented startups ll herald a era where private sector research activity ll surpass govt . But thats only a hope .
- Its true , though bureaucracy has stalled economic development of india . But they are nothing compared to their former selves . Their power has reduced . And there is this culture of projecting power and little ego ( thukrake mera pyar culture ) . For exp in our district a vehicle of a private owner was refused by IPS because it was being used by IAS ( he said something like ( not exactly ) " SP aur collector ka bich ka jo ego hai woo app samjhenge ) . I believe they ll adjust to the new reality in course of time .
- Regarding competing claims of different groups , i ll say when cake is small there is all kinds of politics on distributing it . When cake grows bigger the struggle for getting a piece ll reduce . Also i beleive society might turn individualistic as urbanization progress .
One thing that differentiate India and china in my opinion is india growing in age of information . If someone wants some information regarding something , learn some trade , skill its all out there . But at the end of the day we must keep improving upon education and health . Get more companies to invest here and sign freetrade deals .