The two acronyms that we hear concerning the twenty-first century are GRIN (Genetics Robotics Information Nanotech) to describe the wave of new technologies and BRIC (Brazil Russia India and China) to identify the new heavyweights. In foreign policy, media commentary has focused upon China, the earliest power to emerge an cast its influence across the globe.
Not far behind is India. With its longer demographic growth, this country is considered as the most powerful power in the longer term, since it will not have to deal with a rapidly aging population. Yet, because some of the people speak English, play cricket and vote, they are not considered to be a potential enemy, with whom we may come to blows. We forget at our peril that democracies can marshall the power of the majority and there is no guarantee that India will be on the side of the Enlightenment. Hindu chauvinism is a powerful counterweight to the Anglosphere. According to Immanuel Wallerstein, India has played on these assumptions to its advantage:
Was then the new Indo-U.S. joint statement a victory for U.S. diplomacy? In it, the U.S. for the very first time legitimated India’s role as a nuclear power, by promising India that it “will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security.” This of course undermined enormously the already weak position of the U.S. in opposing Iranian nuclear ambitions, since what India has received from the U.S. is precisely what Iran has been claiming is its right, “full civil nuclear energy.”
And in return, what did the U.S. get? – a promise “to combat terrorism relentlessly.” Since India was already doing this, it wasn’t very much. Meanwhile, India is maintaining its close relations with Iran and Russia, and even (on paper) a strategic alliance with China. More importantly, India is proceeding with Project Seabird, aimed at turning it into the major military power in the Indian Ocean. This does not make the Chinese too happy, to be sure, but it shouldn’t make the U.S. too happy either, since at the moment, it is the U.S. that is the major military power in the Indian Ocean.
Let us remember that India will, rightly, consider her own interests paramount. They may not coincide with ours.
In a word: no
I’m a bit sick of the whole “geopolitics” mindset. It is a game for collectivists who see nations as having an existence independent of their populations, and zero-sum ignorami who assume that if someone else becomes rich I must become poor. The geopolitics game leads countries to spend their precious tax dollars chasing phantoms that have nothing to do with what actually makes people prosperous and happy.
I live in the US. Do I care if China or India become rich and powerful countries? Yes — if it happens, I and everyone else on the planet will be richer thanks to the division of labor. Otherwise I pay it little mind.
I worry a wee bit about whether foolish governments in foreign lands become a threat to my physical safety, but I don’t see that happening in this case any time soon, and the more India and China develop economically the more they’ll have to lose from stupid warfare.
I agree with Perry and Perry. It is in all our interests for these countries to develop and get stinking rich. It is specifically in the interests of China and India to work together peacefully. This is what Lee Kuan Yew is pushing for. We want India and China to be allies, not enemies. India is already building a huge IT park in China to train Chinese IT technicians and scientists.
Long may the world enjoy, and benefit from, self-interested cooperation!
B – which century, again? the next one?
R – which century, again? the last one?
Brazil is the country of the future. And it always will be.
– Josh
I heard over on GNXP.com Razib say India’s average IQ is probably too low to ever match China in the long run.
Secretary of State Rice has notified US embassies in Europe that we are reducing personnel in Europe and sending those people to embassies in India.
The US is definitely turning away from Europe and looking to India to be the one of the big players in the future.
Much of India’s modern history reminds me of that of the United States, in that there was a rebellion against the colonial power, but crucially a rebellion to obtain those freedoms espoused and developed by that colonial power, not a radical alternative. As such, shared values such as the rule of law, free press, markets and the like existed between nations and it is because of these shared values that Britain and the US became allies, and so will India and the west. The United States’ establishment as a military power caused the British Empire no end of fear but without consequence. India’s recent flexing of muscles should be viewed in the same light.
Jake says: Secretary of State Rice has notified US embassies in Europe that we are reducing personnel in Europe and sending those people to embassies in India.
Well, like Diana’s marriage, it’s going to be a bit crowded in there as there is only one US embassy in India and it’s in Delhi. That’s how the ambassadorial system works.
I’m surprised that you would pick up on Wallerstein as a source on Samizdata. Wallerstein is the grandfather of world-systems analysis, which has an interesting intellectual framework, but is extraordinarily Marxist in its outlook. Wallerstein is still heavily influenced by Marx, particularly Marxist historiography. Check out his bio on his Yale website http://www.yale.edu/sociology/faculty/pages/wallerstein/
and you can get a good handle on his ideas. He’s very fond of the contradictions of capitalism and convinced 1968 marked the turning point ushering in the age of the demise of the current capitalist world-system. Curiously, no mention of 1989-1990. So the thesis about India, etc seems to be coming from a man on the wrong side of the historical debate.
Wild Pegasus – V good!
some of the people on this blog cant hardly wait to start wars all over the place due to perceived threats of “rival”powers. Perry Metzger said it well enough for me not to repeat anything.
Verity:
The US has 1 Embassy and 3 consulates in India. Obviously the US plans to open many more consulates in India.
Verity,
Thanks, but I think Charles de Gaulle beat me by several decades.
– Josh
wild pegasus – Now, why did you have to go and spoil it? I didn’t know that! Congratuations anyway for knowing the quote!
Jake – a country cannot have more than one embassy. I am heartened to hear that India will have more American consulates. That demonstrates confidence in the country and cheers me up.
I can’t decide which is more worth the effort: learn to speak Chinese or learn to speak Arabic?
anonymous – You can’t?
India is a developing market. China is a developing market. 2 billion people who will soon want and need all the things, services, medical benefits, and financial outlets, we find so useful in our everyday life.
Every step to open them up and gain access is a step toward the day when their own people will demand to be allowed to learn, live, earn, and acquire the various trappings of 21st century life.
Every crack in the wall lets in a little more light.
Immanuel Wallerstein has been a perceptive commentator on the decline in the USA’s power since 1945 and the hopelessness of its neo-imperial pretensions. All they do is facilitate the shredding of civil liberties and the entrenchment of bureaucracy and plutocracy back home. It is ridiculous for self-styled libertarians to help push such a Moloch.
‘War is the Health of the State’ (Randolph Bourne).
“Osama bin Laden will soon be forgotten, but the kind of political violence we call terrorism will remain very much with us in the 30-50 years to come. Terrorism is to be sure a very ineffective way to change the world. It is counterproductive and leads to counterforce, which can often wipe out the immediate set of actors. But it will nonetheless continue to occur. An America that continues to relate to the world by a unilateral assertion that it represents civilization, whether it does so in the form of isolationist withdrawal or in that of active interventionism, cannot live in peace with the world, and therefore will not live in peace with itself. What we do to the world, we do to ourselves. Can the land of liberty and privilege, even amidst its decline, learn to be a land that treats everyone everywhere as equals? And can we deal as equal to equal in the world-system if we do not deal as equal to equal within our own frontiers?”
(Immanuel Wallerstein, December 5, 2001)
http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/wallerstein.htm
Absolutely, veryretired! PJ O’Rourke says, “When the water rises, all our boats go up” and I think this should be engraved on a stone tablet somewhere because it is such a truth.
I love seeing them begin to prosper. My point is, I would like to see them prosper in amiable competition. I would not like to see two such intelligent nations – and powerful nations as they will be in around 30 years – on less than easy terms with each other. Which is why Lee Kuan Yew stresses that each has very great strengths that the other doesn’t have, and they can learn from each other as they proceed.
China opened up to the manufacturing sector – and how! India endured 50 years of import substitution. On the other hand, India has a stronger legal system and its courts are more reliable. They’ll mutually catch up in those areas.
I just think we’re moving into such interesting times – in a nice sense. I think the EU is dead in the water. Yesterday’s news that never was anyway. A weird little dying blip.
I find it so hard to take those chaps at GNXP seriously. I’d bet (and have) on India over China in the long run.
Old Jack Tar – Me too.
Were India to acquire and operate a naval force capable of “threatening” the US Navy, it would have had to also acquired an extraordinary degree of economic and logistical skill to make that force operable. The acquisition of that capability would only occur in an environment in the country which would make conflict with the US anathama to India’s own interests.
Matt O’Halloran – Never start a post you wish other people to read with:
“Immanuel Wallerstein has been a perceptive commentator …”.
Anonymous asks above “should I learn chinese or arabic?”
My reply is Ha! I’m learning Hindi! 🙂
I’m an Indian. This is all just bullshit. Utter bullshit. Go fuck yourself.
I should be working in Bangalore for a bit from January 07. I’m not learning Hindi (Maybe a few words of Tamil, but that’s not for business). The dollar and the pound were in their day, and still are to an extent, one of the greatest competitive advantages of the Anglosphere. The global use of dollars is like a trillion uncashed cheques. My sense is that it will be eclipsed by the use of English. One of the better things about contracting a piece of software to an American team is that you can have it effectively debugged by Indians. As medical, clerical, and legal outsourcing is increasingly integrated into the economy, the advantage that we have in speaking their language will increase.
South India is one of the great hopes for humanity today. Ever more American in character, ever more able to lift millions out of poverty (around 250 million over the last 30 years). Northern India isn’t growing nearly so fast. The Communists are a big party in the governing coalition. There are caste wars and religious tensions, not to mention the occasional Maoist or other separatists. If the American bubble does burst, the tensions could become a lot nastier.
If we don’t trade with India, if we don’t do all that we can to help it prosper before the west crashes, then India could be a real threat to the world. One with nukes and angry religious fundies in power. When we use ugly terms that can sound racially tinged, when we look at India as an enemy rather than a partner, we increase mutual hostility.
From another angle, Hindu chauvinism does not see its chief concerns as being with Christians (although there are some Hindu activists who aren’t terribly pleasant to us). The big issues for Hindutva are Islam and secularisation/ socialism. I’m sure it’s clear how it might be advantageous to have vast resources being spent on intelligence regarding violent Islamist organisations, particularly when the resources are being spent by a power that is knowledgeable about such groups, has a considerable pool of linguistic and cultural talent at its disposal, and is broadly friendly with us.
India is only a threat to us in the sense that the US was in the early 40s. Their economy might overtake us, not all of our interests are aligned, but if they overtake, it’ll be a good thing and the big interests are peas in a pod.
James – agree with every word – except I don’t believe the fundamentalists will ever get national power in India. The majority of Indians are too chaotic for rigid fundamentalism.
I would be living in India right now if they would allow foreigners to buy property. I love that place. And actually, I had been looking for property in Bangalore before I found out I wouldn’t be allowed to buy.
As of others have said, wealth is not a pie to be divided up (“so if India is richer we must be poorer). Wealth is a process – and if Indians gets richer it tends to help people get richer also.
So the economic progress of India is a good thing for India and for other nations.
However, the Indian government has a big government deficit and is busy inventing welfare schemes.
So it seem unlikely that India will replace the Welfare States of the West as top nation.
I think that is a pity.
Having a country where most of the population were once incredibly poor, overtake us economically would be a shock that might make people question the Welfare State.
Sadly, it seems that instead India will join us on the Welfare State path to long term economic and social collapse.
Unfortunate.
There seems to be a very powerful ideological doctrine that holds that when a country makes some economic progress it should then set up Welfare State schemes – i.e. it should doom itself.
Almost needless to say India also accepts fiat money (although the population have a wise tradition of collecting large amounts of nongovernment material, such as gold, in case things go wrong – which they will), and government backed fractional reserve banking (i.e. the boom-bust cycle).
But then all nations accept these doctrines.
Verity, I hope you’re right. Certainly they couldn’t in the current climate. There’s a part of me that fears that an economic crash could see the hard left become a lot stronger in the media, that it could easily all be blamed on globalisation.
We could see a lot more protectionism and a lot more blaming of Indians for job losses, a lot more hatred. Unlike when the US car industry’s anger was against the Japanese, the horrific images of racial hatred would be as widely seen in India as in the US or France. Combine a sudden drop in Indian income as US and EU companies pull out with a huge increase in the sense that the west was violently racially hostile to them and you’ll have a recipe for some really, seriously, unpleasant politics.
p.s. Not in Bangalore, a lovely moderate place, but elections aren’t just decided by the good guys.
James of England – I think one thing India has going for it is that the Indian diaspora is so well respected in the West. There’s no seed of hostility there.
I don’t think the situation is the same as with cars anyway. If India has learned anything from its years under the communist Gandhis, it has learned that it neglected building a manufacturing base, and that was a big mistake. It is years behind China. So now India’s only just starting to build such a base. So it won’t be taking manufacturing jobs away from Americans for quite some time, if ever. Don’t forget, it has a vast domestic market, and it is pulling people out of the lowest poverty fast. Let them get huge factories going and people in India are going to be able to afford these goods, so they may be able to absorb their manufacturing domestically. And who knows what the manufacturing industry will look like in 20 or 30 years? We can only project for the short term.
Also, India has a huge middle class – around 350m, which is about the size of the entire population of the US. All these things make India a special case.
There is also the fact that they are wisely teaming up with China for some projects. India is building a huge IT park in China to teach Chinese technicians and programmers some skills they need. This is good news because I think we would rather see China and India as friendly competitors than at one another’s throats.
And, India enjoys the inestimable advantage of the middle classes all speaking flawless English.
pps., to Paul as well as Verity,
It’s true that the Indian example of the triumph of trade is deeply, deeply, ironic. When I’m there, I should have a master’s in Theology and 3.5 law degrees and I’ll be a fucking intern (nominally, with a powerful impact on my pay). They still keep foreigners out with some amazingly clumsy and overbearing legislation. It’s great that they’re getting better, but man, does the government piss everyone off who tries to deal with it like it’s a capitalist entity.
It’s also true that they’re horrible programs, the Indian welfare schemes. Massive fraud, lots of other problems, much too large. Still, the Indians have a fertility rate of 3.3. You can do welfare on an expanding economy and an expanding population. Its a shame and it sucks that the Indian government still has so many relics of Nehru’s socialism, but it’s easy to go too far about the impact. It’s not like the Hun has a properly capitalist economy, but that doesn’t mean that the German economy wasn’t successful for a while. Indians would be much better off if they were more like Thatcher and less like de Gaulle, but the country has a bolder future than the Fifth Republic. Politics influence people’s welfare, but they’re not determinative. Sweden may be a bunch of ugly lefty voters, but it’s more comfortable to be a Swede today than to be a Chilean or Estonian, despite the latter’s superior political instincts.
Yes, it irritates me that they’re still trialing clouds of Nehru and Gandhi. Get over it!
However, they have recently loosened up enough to allow NRIs (Non-Resident Indians) to buy property and this is regarded as a huge step forward. But they absolutely will not let foreigners buy. I have no idea what the thinking is, but I’ll bet it originated with bloody Gandhi.
Hello All,
I live in India and I also have something to say.
Firstly, I am touched by amount of the good faith that exist on this blog.
Secondly, When the lives of people in China and India develop to a decent level it is likely that we will begin to see flying cars and floating cities in the West. Seriously,
Our huge Asian countries could act as an massive resource for the betterment of the entire world.
But,
Indian leadership is slow. Its political heads are considered shockingly irresponsible by citizens.
India could really do with foriegn demi-gods! Unfortunately, it is unlikely that good planning and disciplined execution will be seen, in India, anytime soon.
Indian population is largely vegetarian. This is because most Indians hate to kill, harm or injure other forms of life. This may sound absurd but its visibly true here.
One thing the World must be very careful about is
the careless attitude of the ruling political parties and the general people of India.
One fear is that not hate but carelessness can lead to destruction in the future times of nuclear energy driven economies. Indian legislation may fail the world badly.
What do you feel?