INDIA, A SUPERPOWER? NO. INDIA DOESN’T WANT IT.


A recent article in Foreign Policy magazine asked, “Will India Surpass China to Become the Next Super Power?”  A few other global publications have also posed the question in different ways, often tauntingly.

Most of these articles are misguided.

Strawman argument: The Foreign Policy article, written by Graham Allison, starts with the statement “observers wondered whether New Delhi will surpass Beijing and become the next global superpower.”  This statement is not hyperlinked to any other article or quotation by anyone important.

Which “observer” wondered about India becoming a “global superpower?”  When?  In what context?  It is possible (and likely) that a few jingoist Indians believe that India would become a global superpower.  Is Graham Allison refuting them and, in the process, dignifying them with credibility?

India’s prime minister and foreign minister have never claimed that India will (or even wants to) become a “global superpower.”  On the contrary, India has wanted to remain non-aligned, to be left alone by other superpowers.

Of course, India has been a hegemon, regionally.  Its successful assistance to Bangladesh made that country independent of Pakistan.  India has had some limited influence over Sri Lanka’s internal political issues, including the civil war between Tamil separatists and the government. India regularly challenges America and Western powers in international forums like the United Nations.  That has made India a regional champion, especially among developing countries.  India has been included in the Quad Alliance because of India’s strategic, regional importance in Asia.

But, has India ever tried to be a “global” superpower in the way Britain, USSR/Russia or America has?

Lack of definition: What does the term “global superpower” mean?

According to Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/topic/superpower), the definition of the term has not been agreed upon.  It says, “a superpower is a state that cannot be ignored on the world stage and without whose cooperation no world problem can be solved.”

By this definition, America is not a superpower because there are at least a few world problems which CAN be solved without America’s cooperation. For example, world hunger can be solved by the widespread adoption in Africa and elsewhere of what India did with its “green revolution.”  No American involvement is needed for this (except, of course, the problem of hunger in America will have to be solved by us, Americans.)

Instead of a rigid definition, we could use a loose definition, such as in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower) which says a “superpower is a state with a dominant position characterized by its extensive ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale.  This is done through the combined means of economic, military, technological, political and cultural strength as well as diplomatic and soft power influence.“

Under this definition, all five permanent security council members would qualify as superpowers: China, France, Russia, UK and USA.  All of them meet most, if not all, of the criteria listed above.

India also meets most of the criteria.

• ECONOMY: India’s economy is large, ranked among the top five, and growing rapidly;
• MILITARY: Indian military is powerful and nuclear armed, although it does not have global reach (China’s does not either);
• TECHNOLOGY: India is a technological powerhouse (even though it is not home to technological inventions as pointed out by Graham Allison in the Foreign Policy article); India has entrenched expertise and dominance in many fields of applied technology, including software, pharmaceuticals and satellites and space science;
• POLITICAL: India has been a stable and enduring democracy, having lasted for over seven decades as the world’s largest democracy, with peaceful transfer of power based on elections (even during the Emergency period); The flaws in Indian democracy are similar to those of other democracies, real, slow-burning and curable.
• CULTURAL: India’s cultural strength is deep and growing global (e.g., Yoga, meditation, Bollywood, sports, spirituality, etc.);
• DIPLOMATIC/SOFT POWER: India’s diplomatic and soft-power influence is significant, especially among developing nations.

Based on the above, India is already a global superpower to the same extent as France or China is.

If India is admitted to the UN Permanent Security Council, it would instantly become a global superpower under the Wikipedia definition.   None of the “four inconvenient truths” (see above) discussed by Graham Allison would stand in the way.

Irrelevance of China comparison:  Many writers keep bringing the comparison between China and India, especially the differences in the absolute size of the economy and the per-capita GDP of the two countries, as an impediment to India’s status in the world or as an ally of America.  This is irrelevant to the discussion.  After all, China’s per-capita GDP also remains quite low and was abysmally low when it became a nuclear power and a member of the permanent council at the United Nations.  China’s nuclear status and its UN role (not productivity or GDP) made China the counterbalance to the USSR in the 1970s when we formed our alliance with China.

Weak / incorrect facts / arguments: All the four so-called “inconvenient truths” cited by Allison are irrelevant to whether and how successfully India grows in its sphere of influence and power.  Allison himself concedes that the past is not an indication of the future.  As explained above, lagging behind China and lower worker productivity are not relevant factors in becoming a global superpower (China became one without these).  And, Allison’s point about India’s status in science and technology is factually incorrect.

Quoting Lee Kuan Yew:

As his final argument in the essay, Allison quotes Lee Kuan Yew, the long-deceased Singapore leader!  Lee, who died in 2015, reportedly wanted India to grow more rapidly so that India would be helpful to Singapore by matching / countering China. Allison writes that Lee was sure India could never match China.  If Allison had consulted Kishore Mahbubani, the Singaporean diplomat, he might have tempered his pessimism about India and even come to a very different conclusion.

Actually, Singapore did not need India’s help as a counter to China.  Singapore has continued to flourish because China grew rapidly and Singapore capitalized on its proximity to China, its excellent ports, its British-style legal system and hard-working immigrants of Chinese, Indian and Malay origins.

Read the Foreign Policy article at : https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/24/india-china-biden-modi-summit-great-power-competition-economic-growth/