Talk:India as an emerging superpower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is related to the WikiProject Power in international relations, an effort to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Power in international relations and Geopolitics. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Archives [1]

This is basically a copy of the Indian article on Major powers, it is the result of a dispute between wikipedia members. The creation of this page, however, gives the opportunity for elaboration.

Contents 1 Internet censor 2 India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country 3 IQ and Race and it's impact on India's technological capabilities 4 India's weaknesses in comparison to America's and China's 5 INDIA'S POPULATION CONTROL, THE COMPETITIVELY HIGH STANDARDS SET CHINA 6 Secularism has two distinct meanings and Indian secularim is third. 7 People Issues 8 Edits by anon 9 Encyclopediatic?

[edit] Internet censor

I heard India's beginning to censor some of its Internet's content after the fateful Mumbai's bomb attacks. Is India finally beginning to tighten its media? Is there a problem on "Freedom of Information"? Heilme 09:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Speculation shouldn't be counted. In light of terrorist attacks, some restrictions need to be placed. At the moment, the freedom of information isn't tight. If indeed the Indian government decides to begin restricting sites like Wikipedia, then that is an issue that could cause problems. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Nobleeagle. Just a handful of blogs and other sites that propagate terrorist messages have been banned. It is more of a security measure than an infringement of the right to information. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}11:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But some websites containing political comments, or promotion of religion such as Hinduism are also blocked. Isn't that the case? It may be worth considering. I wonder what is the benchmark for a "serious" violation on Freedom of Information. Is censoring Wikipedia part of the benchmark? Heilme 11:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no censorship and ban on any websites or blogs. Now, in India even in Lok Sabha many Members of Parliament who favours muslims and simi openly say to ban RSS and BJP. Similarly MPs from BJP openly say that Office of the Prime Minister of India is involved supplying secrets to other countries.

vkvora 16:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The site was not promoting Hinduism, but a violent form of it. That was the reason it was blocked. The idea behind the blockage is analogous to many countries banning certain books — which doesn't exactly come under the scanner as a "violation of the freedom of expression". Its more of a national security issue.

-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)~

Yes, the sites in question would possibly promote Hindus to avenge the Mumbai attacks. The block is temporary and was put in as an emergency. I think one can safely say that this isn't censorship of Information, this is just a temporary block to avoid riots which could cause death. The fact that such riots can occur is already mentioned in Social Divide. So this shouldn't be mentioned on this page. Like Vkvora said, many Indians, from high-ranking politicians to small jilebi-sellers can have their own extreme opinions and people let them propagate such opinions.

Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country

• http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=72099

India 6th most dangerous country for kids: Poll

New Delhi, August 7: India has been judged as the sixth most dangerous country for children in the world, according to a recent poll. Afghanistan, Palestinian territories, Myanmar and Chechnya were placed better than India in the poll conducted by Reuters Alertnet, a humanitarian news website run by Reuters Foundation, Rajya Sabha was told today.

"Humanitarian" orgs often have political agendas.Hkelkar 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

During the survey, the website asked more than 110 aid experts and journalists to highlight the most dangerous places for children. The first five dangerous countries are Sudan, Northern Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Somalia, Minister of State (independent charge) for Women and Child Development Renuka Chowdhury said while replying to a written question.

The facts that have been taken into account for the poll survey include the children involved in armed conflict, the psychological trauma experienced by children caught up in violence, the children living in poverty and forced to work to support themselves and their families and malnutrition among children, the minister said.

vkvora 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked Indian's don't use their children as bombs like they do in Palestine and Indian schools don't teach children to hate Jews like Palestine, so I call BS on the survey. Very typical negationism in India I'm afraid.Hkelkar 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IQ and Race and it's impact on India's technological capabilities

Should there be some mention of modern day *SCIENTIFIC* measures of IQ within India? This is certainly a comparison that I would advise for all nations as I would help to determine how likely India is to develop economically and technologically given the fact that a minimal level of intelligence will be need if India ever wants to develop economically.

Also, viewing the quality of India and China's mathematicians, scientists and Engineers (in combination with whether or not there exist India and China Scientist/Engineer organisations) is something that would help to determine the likely rates of development within those countries. AxSingh 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India's weaknesses in comparison to America's and China's

For a start, America posseses far more nuclear weapons than any other nation with a higher level of technological capability in these regards than most other nations - thus America is clearly far superior to India in these regards. AxSingh 17:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes obviously, the USA is a superpower, much stronger than any of the emerging superpowers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That is obvious.USA is ALREADY a superpower. We are talking about India as a POTENTIAL superpower here. If India was in the same league as the US India would ALREADY be a superpower which it is NOT at present (for basically the reasons you cited and others) and even in the immediate future. The article mentions all that (poverty, illiteracy, sectarian stuff etc.)Hkelkar 19:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, it is hardly much of a weakness compared to China. China has it's fair share of poverty, ethnic violence (Urghuystan, Tibet), not to mention suppression of Freedom etc. China is only marginally better off than India that way.Also, bear in mind that India is already a regional military superpower of sorts (region being South/SouthEast Asia).Hkelkar 19:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction on the poverty part. China does have poverty, any country does, but very few Chinese are starving, compared to India or parts of Africa. And ethnic violence is not so significant, and exists mostly in Uyghuristan (Sinkiang). It exists on a minor level all across the country. There is of course, a lot of hard repression, which is probably why ethnic violence is not so huge, and suppression of freedom, although on a grander scale in China, still exists in India. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You're using dubious qualifications to whitewash China. Not all countries have poverty in the sense of below the international poverty line. The # of Americans below the international poverty line is negligible (poor people in USA are poor relative only to other Americans).Poverty in Korea (South) is also negligible compared to China (even if you factor in the population by taking per-capita). Quite a few people in rural China still don't get basic amenities and don't have access to running water (just like rural India). Abandoned children, orphans, urchins etc exist in China in density (#/area) that is higher than Taiwan or Korea and only a little lower than India. Compared to western countries, the poverty diff betwn India and China is not as high as it may look to India-bashers. Starvation in India has reduced a lot since the 80's, but, of course, you don't see that I'm sure. Suppression of Freedom is negligible in India.Indian govt is too diffuse to suppress anybody's freedom realistically. They can ban books and block sites, but they get unblocked quickly and banned books are sold even more in the black market. In fact, authors and filmmakers are usually quite happy to get their work "banned" in India because they get more publicity and more profit from bootlegging.

Can you show me one instance in the last 5-6 years where freedom has been suppressed for extended periods of time in India? I can show you plenty in China.Hkelkar 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I only said China's poverty is less than India's. I am not trying to whitewash China in any way, just to counter your exaggerated claims. And your right in saying the Indian government is pretty free, more than China. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts are synomynous with "exaggeration"? That's very interesting coming from someone who claims to be a "Language Person" (for the benefit of the Indically challenged, Basa means language and Wala means owner-->Basawala=Language owner or Linguist I guess)Hkelkar 08:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] INDIA'S POPULATION CONTROL, THE COMPETITIVELY HIGH STANDARDS SET CHINA

It is necessary to consider the fact that both countries have had differing levels of success in regards to their population control policy. A comparison of India's relatively weak and forgiving population control policy against China's aggressively successful eugenic one child policy shows that China has set a phenomenally high standard and good example to India in regards to population control. It is clearly seen that Chinese superiority in this area is something that should be reflected in at least some part of this article. Specifically in regards to the *agressively eugenic* aspect of Chinese population control.

AxSingh 17:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that a democracy like India cannot enforce such aggressive measures and the population control policies at the moment are weak and unhelpful. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Indira Gandhi tried to do that, which creates antoganism among the rural and in particular Muslim population. Gizza^{Chat ©} 03:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that there are places like Kerala where population is dwindling. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}04:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you get a source on that? Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Population growth rate in most southern states are on the decline. Right now it is less that 1% in Kerala and TN [1] (compare that with having the highest growth rate in the country a few decades back). -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secularism has two distinct meanings and Indian secularim is third.

An interesting side note concerns the words "SOCIALIST" and "SECULAR" in the preamble. The original drafting used the words "SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC". The two additional words "SOCIALIST" and "SECULAR" were introduced by the controversial 42nd amendment. The amendment was pushed through by Indira Gandhi in 1976, when she had dictatorial powers. A committee under the chairmanship of Sardar Swaran Singh recommended that this amendment be enacted after being constituted to study the question of amending the constitution in the light of past experience.

Secularism has two distinct meanings.

It asserts the freedom of religion, and freedom from religion, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions.

It refers to a belief that human activities and decisions should be based on evidence and fact, and not superstitious beliefs, however devoutly held, and that policy should be free from religious domination. For example, a society deciding whether to promote condom use might consider the issues of disease prevention, family planning, and women's rights. A secularist would argue that such issues are relevant to public policy-making, whereas Biblical interpretation or church doctrine should not be considered and are irrelevant.

vkvora 04:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People Issues

DESPERATION 85% of people are desperate working poor in an informal economy and their lives oscillate between fear and frustration.

COLLUSION The remaining 15% well to do people are even 'more' desperate. The 'professional' relation between individuals here is collusion.

A credible basic income guaranteed system for every one whether they work or not will bring in dignity instead of desperation for the working poor and inheritance taxes will stimulate compassion instead of collusion. In return everyone should pay personal income taxes.

Unsolicited 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Source is an op/ed.Plus, information is outdated and unreliable.Hkelkar 23:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by anon

Some edits were simple rephrasing of sentences that were already alright. But then there was deletion of many lines as well that shouldn't have been deleted. I have no problem with Oneearth's edits but the anon's edits were dodgy so I reverted them. If you don't have the time Oneearth, please detail the broken links, problems etc. here so that I can fix them when I have time. If you do have the time then you can fix them yourself. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopediatic?

Is this really an encyclopediatic article? If so, in what way? --Soman 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In the same way as these:

People's Republic of China as an emerging superpower European Union as an emerging superpower

Hkelkar 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC) India's HDI is too low to be treated as an emerging super power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

And Indians have an average IQ of 81 which is a little bit low for an emerging power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_by_country

A regional power? Sure, the mass is there. But the quality of that mass is low

Stop trolling and learn wikipedia policy, specifically WP:Verifiability. As long as there are SOURCES that STATE that India is an emerging superpower, that's all it takes. We have provided many sources. Plus, before you decide to bash Indians a bit more, consider that India's GDP is significantly higher than any sub-saharan African country (no disrespect intended for sub-saharan African people, unlike you, I have respect for my fellow man).The fact that India has a low HDI is a point against it being a future superpower. That issue is mentioned. Please don't cite WP:NOR and advance your borderline Indophobic (racist) POV here. There are blogs for that.Hkelkar 11:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the average IQ may be low, but the IQ of the collective middle class in India (the largest in the world, bigger than China's even) is remarkably high. Which is why so many Americans are losing their jobs to a bunch of us "bloody Indians". Based on the anon poster they got a little too mad that brown people can do something worthwhile.Hkelkar 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)