It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
India's image is starkly different from that of China, the other fast-developing country, which is seen as a menacing rival, especially after President Hu Jintao said it would become a "world power second to none."
Compared to the United States' relationship with China, there seems to be less conflict with India, despite India's efforts to project its economic, diplomatic and military influence more assertively - including in ways that contravene U.S. desires.
It raises the question of whether India, which has jealously lagged behind China economically, will have a long-term advantage because it can be a world power without being a threat.
MUMBAI, India: The visit to Washington this week by India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, symbolizes a change in the fraught but inextricable relationship between the world's two largest democracies: an unrivaled superpower and an aspiring one.
For decades, it has been a dalliance of love and hate. Indians have craved American visas, denim, cinema and music. But the two countries were "estranged democracies" in the past, as Singh said recently. Previously, the Cold War had resulted in chilled relations, with Washington backing Pakistan and New Delhi the Soviet Union.
Regardless of how soon uranium will flow to this fast-growing country of one billion, Singh's visit may signify America's welcoming of a new type of superpower: militarily potent, economically dynamic, regionally assertive, independently minded, but still nonthreatening to the United States. Call it superpower light.
India's image is starkly different from that of China, the other fast-developing country, which is seen as a menacing rival, especially after President Hu Jintao said it would become a "world power second to none."
It raises the question of whether India, which has jealously lagged behind China economically, will have a long-term advantage because it can be a world power without being a threat.
The Bush administration earlier this year said that it was the United States' official policy "to help India become a major power in the twenty-first century." It is a startling contrast to the harsher vocabulary used in Chinese-U.S. dialogue.
The deal would usher India into the inner sanctum occupied by other "responsible" nuclear states like the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia - the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. In a speech to U.S. Congress, Singh asked lawmakers to back India for a permanent seat.
Yet India is no geopolitical shrinking violet. It is pushing its influence in Asia with trade agreements, direct investment, military exercises, aid funds, energy cooperation and new infrastructure. Its circle of friendships spans from Iran to Japan and includes emerging ties with countries like Tajikistan, Thailand, Myanmar and Vietnam
The Hindustan Times, a national newspaper, said that the nuclear agreement this week was "a historic bargain which could transform the global balance of power in as significant a manner as Richard Nixon's opening to China." It said the deal recognized India as a "thriving Asian nation that possesses sufficient gravitational force to keep the balance of power stable."
But Bharat Karnad, a defense analyst at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, argued in a newspaper article just before the agreement that India's unthreatening posture symbolizes its submission to the United States.
"A deep-rooted mother vein of servility mixed with complacency prevail in New Delhi," he wrote in The Asian Age, another national daily. He bemoaned the "easy option of riding another state's coat-tails" and projected that "India will continue to be what it has always been, a big little country bobbing along like cork in water - all buoyancy and drift, and no substance."
Originally posted by Bulldog 52
If India is the next superpower why do they need to keep coming to Britain to make ends meet. Looking at news reports on India shows me 80% of the people still live in poverty. India is rife for the exploitation of cheap labour, many companies have gone there from the USA and UK leaving many people without jobs in there home countries. Looks like the US and UK are making them a superpower , not.
Originally posted by Bulldog 52
80% of the people still live in poverty.
Originally posted by prelude
Today India is technologically much more advanced than China ....India is a country with great potentials of being a superpower but has a complex set of problems which will make it impossible for India to become a super power within the next 30 years unless there is some miracle
Originally posted by Stealth Spy
19% of India's population lives under the poverty line as of 2004 figures.
In 1990 a whopping 46% of India's population lived in poverty and at the time of Independence in 1947, it was about 70%, but was never 80%
Sure China is way ahead of India now, but in practise China opened its economy 25 years back in 1978, while India did so only in early 1992.
And the rate of poverty reduction is greater in India that China.
Originally posted by chinawhite
its the other way around. china is more advanced than india
Originally posted by mirza2003
Originally posted by chinawhite
its the other way around. china is more advanced than india
yes certainly china is more advance but only in copying stuff no matter which sector is it and exporting that stuff which is well below the par.
Originally posted by rogue1
Not to mention most of their tech comes from US and other companies, looking for a place to produce it more cheaply.