67 replies to this topic

[Marbles]

Bani Qaiser, on 05 March 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

  

   Afghanistan 2050: “A Muslim Yugoslavia”

Where's my Sindhudesh?

Down with the Islamic Emirate of Punjabistan.

[Wahdat]

CLynn, on 06 March 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

I say India will not be a 'super power' because it has never had a desire to be a 'super power'.   India has been great before and it has never sought to impose itself on the world.  The world always went to India.  That is, if I've got my history correct, and I believe I do.  This is my perception of India.
The Buddhist/Hindu philosophies of India are not materialistic philosophies.  They seek to transcend the desires of this world.  In fact I think their way is closest to God's way.  That is, if they stay true to themselves.

My exact view of India. This whole notion of being or becoming a super power is a Western one, and a primitive one when compared to Aisan levels of looking at the world in general and Indian one in particular. India has always been great without the need to dominate others. Those who seek greatness through domination and usurpation are in fact themselves hollow inside. And given the rich Indian history, culture, and philosophy, India is anything but hollow.

[Marbles]

Wahdat, on 07 March 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

My exact view of India. This whole notion of being or becoming a super power is a Western one, and a primitive one when compared to Aisan levels of looking at the world in general and Indian one in particular. India has always been great without the need to dominate others. Those who seek greatness through domination and usurpation are in fact themselves hollow inside. And given the rich Indian history, culture, and philosophy, India is anything but hollow.

Although centuries-old cultural moorings and philosophy of power does, will, have its say in how India (and China) deal with the world as they increase their capacity to become one of the super powers if not the sole super power, but in the end it's the contemporary political culture/philosophy of these nations that will in the main part determine whether or not, and to what extent, they will influence the world as super powers do.

Edited by Marbles, 07 March 2013 - 03:56 AM.

[Wahdat]

What instead India could do for both the region and the world is to do away with the current Eurocentric notions of domination and intimidation. China likewise. Instead of enslaving Africans like the Europeans, for example, China is building roads, stadiums, hospitals, telecommunication infrastructure etc. This by itself is a great leap forward from the politics of domination. India also has been doing it all around itself in places like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Tajikistan etc.

Marbles, on 07 March 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

Although centuries-old cultural moorings and philosophy of power does, will, have its say in how India (and China) deal with the world as they increase their capacity to become one of the super powers if not the sole super power, but in the end it's the contemporary political culture/philosophy of these nations that will in the main part determine whether or not, and to what extent, they will influence the world as super powers do.

What I personally find terribly worrying, specially in case of India, is that their contemporary political culture is more tilted towards Europe than anything Asian or Indian. China seems to be one step ahead in this regard. And I find hope in that.

Lets hope that the Indian voices prevail in captaining the Indian statecraft as opposed to the European ones.

[Bani Qaiser]

Looks like a close poll this one. Surprising amount of people want to rejoin india and pakistan, as per polls. But there is a sizeable group that doesn't. I think it would be an EU like coalition in which they have shared currency like Euro. Instead of pakistani rupee or indian rupee, it would simply be Rupee.

[Perfectionist]

If Pakistan was doing well and moving forward, I would be extremely happy. Why is it so few Pakistanis feel the same way about India?
People like you should try dragging Pakistan up, instead of constantly dragging India down, don't you think?
Anyway, let me give you another dose of reality...

Wahdat, on 06 March 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

What else, besides 10 dollar/hr tech-support, does India produce to make it a serious contender? And how does Shanghai look anything close to Mumbai? Like I said, post a picture if you are unable to provide sane stats.

Pictures? Stats? Here's both for you my friend. Obviously it's only a cheer-leading promotional video, so don't forget to get angry and say it's all just a pack of lies.

Quote

I provided a link from Western academics (LSE) who say that India is unlikely to become a super power.

The renowned Dr. Rosling is surely one Western academic you will enjoy. This balanced and entertaining TED talk, compares India and China with the rest of the world and (assuming there are no major calamities!) predicts when they will both reach parity with the West.

Watch it through to the end, and be sure to debunk his conclusion.

Quote

And in turn you provided a link from Western politicians (CNN or NIC) who obviously have biases towards China.

You seem to be confused here. I'd love to hear you explain why you think the Western politicians are being dishonest about the future success of India, and how this relates to biases towards China.

Quote

But in such situations academics are to be believed more as they do not base their predictions on politics. Politicians are bound to lie and make things up for politics is anything but. On the other hand academics are free from any sort of obligation except for their scientific methods. Werent the same Western political groups propping up Paksitan against the then India? Where is Pakistan today and where is India? India and China likewise

Even more than academics, the financial industry and corporate analysts, see a bright future for India.

Quote

The ratio was supposed to be 2.2 and not 22. Was a typo. But now that you say its even 4 that brings my point home comfortably.

Your point being that India is already the 10th largest economy in the world?

Quote

Chinese economic reforms did not start in 70s...the talks of it did with Nixon's visit to China in 1970s. The actual reforms and liberalization did not begin till late 80s and early 90s.

China's economic reform was in two stages, which started in 1978 under Xiaoping. India started reforms in 1991. Naturally it took time for both countries to adopt and adapt to the changes, with India unsurprisingly taking longer than centralised China.

Quote

Even when you say that China had a 10 year head start

13 years actually, if not longer when taking in to account implementation, but lets not quibble brother, at least you've retracted your nonsense about India and China beginning their journey at the same time.

Quote

then you should have no problem comparing today's India with China from 10 years back.

The two countries are vastly different economically, politically, socially etc etc. Comparing them in such a simplistic manner is pretty desperate, and shows how little you truly understand. Let go of your prejudice brother and think rationally instead.

Quote

I am an American citizen and do not have to make things up about visiting India. Its the other way around my friend. I doubt that you have been in US.

I'm a Limey but did my postgrad at Columbia before working for a Wall Street Law Firm. I know America very well my friend as I was living there in the 90's.

Quote

Otherwise you would have had some reservation in comparing India to US or even to China who you say is very much in the same level as India.

I have said that India is most definitely behind America and China right now, but will easily catch up with them within a few decades. Most estimates put India on the same level by 2050, and many are saying India will forge ahead of China after this time, as its present Communist advantage slowly becomes a hindrance. Time will tell.

Quote

From internet speed to power outages to work ethics of the population to energy consumption to military industries

India ranks 4th in the world as a military power which is respectable. It ranks 3rd in the world for energy consumption. Per capita figures will obviously be lower than China but are commensurate with GDP.  

As for the rest of your comment, you will find that China also has the same problems, as most of its population are still peasant farmers. This is to be expected as both China and India are not fully developed countries yet - the point is that they will be in the not too distant future.

Quote

all say one thing and one thing alone that India is FAR FAR FAR away from becoming a super power or a serious challenger to China.

Okay brother, I admit it, you are right and I am wrong. Please contact Goldman Sachs this instant and order them to remove India from their BRICS assessment.

Quote

India becoming a super power would be beneficial for everyone. But it takes more than tech-support, blind nationalism, jingoism, and hatred of Pakistan to become a super power. Remember that.

I hate the fact that Pakistan is falling. You hate the fact that India is rising.

Surely Pakistanis should get their own house in order, before levelling criticism at their more successful neighbour?

CLynn, on 06 March 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

I say India will not be a 'super power' because it has never had a desire to be a 'super power'.  

Excellent point. You are quite right, one of the biggest factors which may hold India back is it's own lack of volition.

However, in a way this is actually a good thing, as super-power is often defined as being a nation who is, or can be, globally dominant by military force. I hope India does not take this path, (I personally highly doubt it will) as historically it is against the Indian nature and would not be popular with the public.

With a lesser focus on military strength, India can follow the industrial and intellectual road to success like many other countries have done. It will be a relatively benign super-power who should perhaps be simply called a major-power, to diffuse any notions of overwhelming self-serving influence and violent conquest.

India really has no need to project force in to other regions of the world like America does, nor does it have to worry too much about invasion as it already has nuclear strength. Obviously a strong military is important but modern Indians are a business minded people who would rather prosper through trading and learning from other countries, instead of threatening or attacking them. Hopefully Pakistan will follow this example before it's too late.

[CLynn]

Wahdat, on 07 March 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

What instead India could do for both the region and the world is to do away with the current Eurocentric notions of domination and intimidation. China likewise. Instead of enslaving Africans like the Europeans, for example, China is building roads, stadiums, hospitals, telecommunication infrastructure etc. This by itself is a great leap forward from the politics of domination. India also has been doing it all around itself in places like Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Tajikistan etc.


What I personally find terribly worrying, specially in case of India, is that their contemporary political culture is more tilted towards Europe than anything Asian or Indian. China seems to be one step ahead in this regard. And I find hope in that.

Lets hope that the Indian voices prevail in captaining the Indian statecraft as opposed to the European ones.

Greetings
I mostly agree with you, except that, I think the western world has given up notions of domination.  Great Britain long ago gave up colonialism ... well maybe not so long ago... I guess the last vesitge was Israel/Palestine/Jerusalem.   Germany(with France long before that, Rome even longer ago) but Germany is the only other modern day western nation that I feel tried to impose itself on the world.  Then there was always Russia, and Japan.  I think the two world wars cured most nations of the idea of world dominance... with the last to give up being Russia (the cold war).   It has been quite evident from all history that one can only extend oneself so far, before one collapses.  Having a strong inner economy is the goal, as evidenced by the U.S. and its former growth to economic dominance.   China and India obviously got the memo.    (I say Israel too, but I know that others, especially on this forum, will not see it that way)   Concentrate on your own infrastructures, and leave the world to itself, is the way to build a nation that takes care of its people.

[CLynn]

Perfectionist, on 07 March 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

However, in a way this is actually a good thing, as super-power is often defined as being a nation who is, or can be, globally dominant by military force. I hope India does not take this path, (I personally highly doubt it will) as historically it is against the Indian nature and would not be popular with the public.

With a lesser focus on military strength, India can follow the industrial and intellectual road to success like many other countries have done. It will be a relatively benign super-power who should perhaps be simply called a major-power, to diffuse any notions of overwhelming self-serving influence and violent conquest.

India really has no need to project force in to other regions of the world like America does, nor does it have to worry too much about invasion as it already has nuclear strength. Obviously a strong military is important but modern Indians are a business minded people who would rather prosper through trading and learning from other countries, instead of threatening or attacking them. Hopefully Pakistan will follow this example before it's too late.

Greetings

I agree with what you have responded to me except for this one thing;
You see United States as one who oppresses or 'dominates'.  I see United States as one who helps people to defeat their oppressors.  United States is mainly involved in world affairs because the world expects the United States to be involved in world affairs... to use their power and might to help.  They only get angry when U.S. chooses a side other than their own.   Most nations want the U.S. to provide their superior military strength to help them in their causes.  There was a time when U.S. was criticized, and still is when it chooses not to to get involved, as in, I have heard many criticisms as to why do they not help out Syria, why do they ignore the plight of Syria, when that uprising was first occurring.  The U.S. used to be criticized for being isolationist, and still is criticized no matter what they choose to do.  The old, 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', catch 22.  They are hated for getting involved, and they are hated for not getting involved.  It does not pay so well to be considered a super power, or even a 'super power' contender.  Switzerland has the right idea... fly under the radar.
Salaam.

Edited by CLynn, 07 March 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Mutah_King]

CLynn, on 07 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Greetings

I agree with what you have responded to me except for this one thing;
You see United States as one who oppresses or 'dominates'.  I see United States as one who helps people to defeat their oppressors.  United States is mainly involved in world affairs because the world expects the United States to be involved in world affairs... to use their power and might to help.  They only get angry when U.S. chooses a side other than their own.   Most nations want the U.S. to provide their superior military strength to help them in their causes.  There was a time when U.S. was criticized, and still is when it chooses not to to get involved, as in, I have heard many criticisms as to why do they not help out Syria, why do they ignore the plight of Syria, when that uprising was first occurring.  The U.S. used to be criticized for being isolationist, and still is criticized no matter what they choose to do.  The old, 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', catch 22.  They are hated for getting involved, and they are hated for not getting involved.  It does not pay so well to be considered a super power, or even a 'super power' contender.  Switzerland has the right idea... fly under the radar.
Salaam.

What a load of rubbish.  If you are an American citizen and you have been supporting the foreign policies of your country, you have blood on your hands.

[shiamehdi14]

The whole reson muslims created Pakistan i was because of the Hindus in India. I realise there are some muslim communities in India but still not enough to reunite. And for what?

[Hoscyan]

Perfectionist, on 02 March 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

In 50 years India will be a super-power, by which time Pakistan will be a bankrupt and starving Forth world hell-hole - India will then easily take over the entire region and make it prosperous, democratic, civilised and impervious to foreign influence.

In 100 years, this new united India, will rule the World (together with China) - despite Sunni's trying their level best to sabotage the process.

With all due respect, I think it is far more likely that India will fragment (maybe Pakistan too?) and there will be immense social upheaval due to static morally bankrupt political/economic systems.  India has 18 different independence/separation movements I read somewhere.  How long can the oppression and tyranny of half-million plus soldiers in Kashmir continue?  Before you misunderstand me, I am not Pakistani or even someone who wishes India and Indians ill; I just cannot see the existing situations improving much.  The abject poverty of and inequity toward the overwhelming majority of the population is heartbreaking (same in Pakistan).  How can these countries even dream of becoming 'superpowers'?

CLynn, on 07 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Greetings

I agree with what you have responded to me except for this one thing;
You see United States as one who oppresses or 'dominates'.  I see United States as one who helps people to defeat their oppressors.  United States is mainly involved in world affairs because the world expects the United States to be involved in world affairs... to use their power and might to help.  They only get angry when U.S. chooses a side other than their own.   Most nations want the U.S. to provide their superior military strength to help them in their causes.  There was a time when U.S. was criticized, and still is when it chooses not to to get involved, as in, I have heard many criticisms as to why do they not help out Syria, why do they ignore the plight of Syria, when that uprising was first occurring.  The U.S. used to be criticized for being isolationist, and still is criticized no matter what they choose to do.  The old, 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', catch 22.  They are hated for getting involved, and they are hated for not getting involved.  It does not pay so well to be considered a super power, or even a 'super power' contender.  Switzerland has the right idea... fly under the radar.
Salaam.

Nonsense, the American Empire engages in the nonstop inferring in other nations/regions of the world through media propaganda, open warfare, assassinations, sanctions.  It is not "damned if you do, damned if you don't", it is more like "please leave us the hell alone".  Yes America does a some good things (and I must admit that American people are generally giving and even good-hearted), but all the aid and charity is colored by shameless promotion (coercion) of it's ideology (which is just a guise) and in reality is just to subsidize American companies.  The banking elite that owns/runs the American Empire (realistically 'the West') merely wants to subjugate all of humanity to their perpetual control and slavery-regime.  I am an American.  I know this, and Americans (who in reality oppose all these meaningless wars) are waking up to this, especially after the collapse of 2008.

Edited by Hoscyan, 07 March 2013 - 11:41 PM.

[CLynn]

Hoscyan, on 07 March 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

Nonsense, the American Empire engages in the nonstop inferring in other nations/regions of the world through media propaganda, open warfare, assassinations, sanctions.  It is not "damned if you do, damned if you don't", it is more like "please leave us the hell alone".  Yes America does a some good things (and I must admit that American people are generally giving and even good-hearted), but all the aid and charity is colored by shameless promotion (coercion) of it's ideology (which is just a guise) and in reality is just to subsidize American companies.  The banking elite that owns/runs the American Empire (realistically 'the West') merely wants to subjugate all of humanity to their perpetual control and slavery-regime.  I am an American.  I know this, and Americans (who in reality oppose all these meaningless wars) are waking up to this, especially after the collapse of 2008.

Greetings
How familiar then are you with American history... have you ever studied about the part of history where America was criticized for not being willing to get involved in world affairs... their 'isolationist' period?  You should look it up.  It is a worthwhile study to see how they've come from there to here.
Salaam.

Do a Google search of 'isolationism and the united states'

" "Leave me alone," seemed to be America's attitude toward the rest of the world in the 1930s."

Sound familiar?

"Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics."
"Isolationist sentiment kept the U.S. out of both World Wars until it found itself under threat."
"After World War I the US attempted to become less involved in world affairs."

Trust me that sentiment is coming back to the people of the United States.

"On June 19, 2011, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) criticized some of his fellow Congressmen as being "isolationist" for wanting to curtail American involvement in the NATO-led intervention in Libya's civil war."

"... survey found that almost half of Americans (49 percent) think the United States should stay out of foreign affairs and let other countries get along the best they can on their own. That number is the highest in 40 years and represents an increase from 30 percent who felt that way just seven years ago."

Edited by CLynn, 08 March 2013 - 02:23 AM.

[Darth Vader]

You can be an isolationist who conducts diplomacy and not wars, like you're doing with Iran now. Going to the other side of the globe to mass murder women and children who don't agree with your sh!t can't be justified in any way. Your barbaric anti-human civilization is no different than Ghengis Khan's.

[Hoscyan]

CLynn, on 08 March 2013 - 02:09 AM, said:

Greetings
How familiar then are you with American history... have you ever studied about the part of history where America was criticized for not being willing to get involved in world affairs... their 'isolationist' period?  You should look it up.  It is a worthwhile study to see how they've come from there to here.
Salaam.

Do a Google search of 'isolationism and the united states'

" "Leave me alone," seemed to be America's attitude toward the rest of the world in the 1930s."

Sound familiar?

"Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics."
"Isolationist sentiment kept the U.S. out of both World Wars until it found itself under threat."
"After World War I the US attempted to become less involved in world affairs."

Trust me that sentiment is coming back to the people of the United States.

"On June 19, 2011, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) criticized some of his fellow Congressmen as being "isolationist" for wanting to curtail American involvement in the NATO-led intervention in Libya's civil war."

"... survey found that almost half of Americans (49 percent) think the United States should stay out of foreign affairs and let other countries get along the best they can on their own. That number is the highest in 40 years and represents an increase from 30 percent who felt that way just seven years ago."

Yes I am familiar with that, but that was a long time ago.  There is a wide middle ground between isolationism and imperialism.  How about we move to the middle for the good of all, especially our own?

[Wahdat]

nvm

Edited by Wahdat, 08 March 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[JimJam]

Marbles, on 07 March 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

Where's my Sindhudesh?

Down with the Islamic Emirate of Punjabistan.

To hell with Sindhudesh, wheres my city-state of Karachi?

Edited by JimJam, 08 March 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[Ugly Jinn]

I know one thing, if they reunite, they will dominate cricket for decades.

[Hassan5785]

Pakistan and India should start harmonizing with each other, reunification of the two won't do any good as they are on different currencies.