A discussion of India as a “strategic partner,“ or whatever we decide to call it, in the absence of any serious consideration of “shared democratic values” and Modi’s cancellation of multiple democratic norms and creation of a post-liberal society based on an emergent form of sectarian neofascism, is quite a feat for all of the analysts involved. Hats off…
Our intoxication with “size“ and our undying dream that countries which liberalize economically and “get rich” through export-led development will become more like us politically — as if the “hypothesis-generating cases” of Taiwan and S. Korea should still guide our thinking — has led to staggering errors of judgment and colossal policy blunders regarding both China and Russia during the last 30 years. It looks as if India is next in line for the same treatment.
The current fantasy-based views of “India rising,” and the impending flood of analysis suddenly triggered by that country eclipsing the population of China — as if some magic switch has been flipped — remind me of Samuel Johnson’s famous quote about second marriages being “the triumph of hope over experience.“ Only this will be our third in recent memory.
Rising, it is. But not in the way most people think.
Most of the breathless talk about India being “the next China,“ or whatever else people want it to be, is based on a poor understanding of (1) the structure of India’s economy (agriculture still constitutes a bloated proportion of the economy vis-à-vis industry, in particular manufacturing); (2) the effective participation of women in the open labor market (much lower than in China, where it has been critical to growth and poverty alleviation); (3) the role that erratic sectarian neoauthoritarianism will likely play as a brake on investor enthusiasm in what people are still somehow being told is a “democracy” (but which is quickly becoming an increasingly institutionalized hybrid system); etc.
Aside from its population and state-sanctioned bigotry under its current post-democratic leader, not much else at the moment is “rising” in India — unless you specifically look at things like the persecution of journalists and the violation of the basic human rights of religious minorities by local-level officials.
All “simple facts that have to be dealt with” as we contemplate the likely future
While there will be cultural bonds between the US and India, I’m a realist (but one in touch with reality instead of the pinheads who thought Russia is powerful) so yes, India and the US would pursue their own interests.
But what that means in practice is that it is far more likely that India and China will clash in a great power rivalry than that either will with the US (there’s a reason it’s called “geopolitics”; the geography part really does matter!) and India would be more aligned with the US than not, just as it was Germany that the UK clashed with instead of the US (and it was the UK that the US aligned with than Germany).
Always interesting to read American's views on an ancient civilisational state. They always have selective amnesia, being world's superpower. USA supported a genocidal Pakistani regime (genocide of Hindus and some Muslims in Bangladesh) while helping China reach where it is today via technology transfer, market access etc etc since 1970s. India won't be a vassal state (ally is the political correct term!) like Europe or Japan or South Korean. And so both the American pessimists and optimists are wrong about India (in USA context). India and her leaders will do what's best for her citizens and the Indic rootedness of her faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikhs) and not play to the Abrahamic playbook or the Woke Libtard playbook as Americans might wish for... Yes Indians wish to be friends of Americans...but not your preachiness, not your evangelists pouring money into India to convert Hindus to Xtians, not your support for Islamo-fascists in India....
Uh, Europe, Japan, and Korea aren’t vassal states either (though, granted, with their limited defense spending, Europe seems to want to be). They _are_ states with aligned interests with the US.
And India has the same market access China does so I don’t know what you are talking about there.
It challenges me to meld the older versions of who people where, who countries were, and where exactly intents actually settle in the high minded exchange of business. America has some past practices exposed in recent times that could qualify it as also aggressive...so wary collaboration is obviously prudent.
I never understood the China/U.S. business relationship except from a corporate level seeking cheap labor and higher profit margins than any genuine intent of poverty reduction albeit that globally has occurred ( with far greater gain for ‘their rich’ than their poor TOO...)
The Ghandi Philosophy is a residual feeling in my interpret of India. I dare venture their intents are more geared toward betterment of their country , maintaining neutral bases in ‘deals’ vs one upmanship , than ‘competing’.
Unification for ALL may sound an old UTOPIAN/Hippie goal ....but making the point.... if everyone had their own people’s betterment vs ego/control/king-of-the-mountain mentality ...things would be smooth , fair, and so beneficially ahead than the centuries have exacted.
The problem is that many leaders conflate “own people’s betterment” with ego/control.
In other words, Putin truly believes a Ukraine controlled by Russia is better for the Russian people and Xi truly believes a Taiwan controlled by China is better for the Chinese people.
An interesting, balanced read on an important topic that is getting nowhere near enough attention. That's what I pay the hard working staff at Drezner World for! My feeling is that dealing with an aggressive, cantankerous China is going to keep the US and India reasonably close for some time.
A discussion of India as a “strategic partner,“ or whatever we decide to call it, in the absence of any serious consideration of “shared democratic values” and Modi’s cancellation of multiple democratic norms and creation of a post-liberal society based on an emergent form of sectarian neofascism, is quite a feat for all of the analysts involved. Hats off…
Our intoxication with “size“ and our undying dream that countries which liberalize economically and “get rich” through export-led development will become more like us politically — as if the “hypothesis-generating cases” of Taiwan and S. Korea should still guide our thinking — has led to staggering errors of judgment and colossal policy blunders regarding both China and Russia during the last 30 years. It looks as if India is next in line for the same treatment.
The current fantasy-based views of “India rising,” and the impending flood of analysis suddenly triggered by that country eclipsing the population of China — as if some magic switch has been flipped — remind me of Samuel Johnson’s famous quote about second marriages being “the triumph of hope over experience.“ Only this will be our third in recent memory.
Here we go again…
India _is_ rising.
That’s a simple fact that has to be dealt with.
Rising, it is. But not in the way most people think.
Most of the breathless talk about India being “the next China,“ or whatever else people want it to be, is based on a poor understanding of (1) the structure of India’s economy (agriculture still constitutes a bloated proportion of the economy vis-à-vis industry, in particular manufacturing); (2) the effective participation of women in the open labor market (much lower than in China, where it has been critical to growth and poverty alleviation); (3) the role that erratic sectarian neoauthoritarianism will likely play as a brake on investor enthusiasm in what people are still somehow being told is a “democracy” (but which is quickly becoming an increasingly institutionalized hybrid system); etc.
Aside from its population and state-sanctioned bigotry under its current post-democratic leader, not much else at the moment is “rising” in India — unless you specifically look at things like the persecution of journalists and the violation of the basic human rights of religious minorities by local-level officials.
All “simple facts that have to be dealt with” as we contemplate the likely future
Jonathan, the key is to look at changes and rates of changes. Tell me what portion of China’s workforce was agricultural in 1978?
While there will be cultural bonds between the US and India, I’m a realist (but one in touch with reality instead of the pinheads who thought Russia is powerful) so yes, India and the US would pursue their own interests.
But what that means in practice is that it is far more likely that India and China will clash in a great power rivalry than that either will with the US (there’s a reason it’s called “geopolitics”; the geography part really does matter!) and India would be more aligned with the US than not, just as it was Germany that the UK clashed with instead of the US (and it was the UK that the US aligned with than Germany).
Always interesting to read American's views on an ancient civilisational state. They always have selective amnesia, being world's superpower. USA supported a genocidal Pakistani regime (genocide of Hindus and some Muslims in Bangladesh) while helping China reach where it is today via technology transfer, market access etc etc since 1970s. India won't be a vassal state (ally is the political correct term!) like Europe or Japan or South Korean. And so both the American pessimists and optimists are wrong about India (in USA context). India and her leaders will do what's best for her citizens and the Indic rootedness of her faiths (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikhs) and not play to the Abrahamic playbook or the Woke Libtard playbook as Americans might wish for... Yes Indians wish to be friends of Americans...but not your preachiness, not your evangelists pouring money into India to convert Hindus to Xtians, not your support for Islamo-fascists in India....
Uh, Europe, Japan, and Korea aren’t vassal states either (though, granted, with their limited defense spending, Europe seems to want to be). They _are_ states with aligned interests with the US.
And India has the same market access China does so I don’t know what you are talking about there.
It challenges me to meld the older versions of who people where, who countries were, and where exactly intents actually settle in the high minded exchange of business. America has some past practices exposed in recent times that could qualify it as also aggressive...so wary collaboration is obviously prudent.
I never understood the China/U.S. business relationship except from a corporate level seeking cheap labor and higher profit margins than any genuine intent of poverty reduction albeit that globally has occurred ( with far greater gain for ‘their rich’ than their poor TOO...)
The Ghandi Philosophy is a residual feeling in my interpret of India. I dare venture their intents are more geared toward betterment of their country , maintaining neutral bases in ‘deals’ vs one upmanship , than ‘competing’.
Unification for ALL may sound an old UTOPIAN/Hippie goal ....but making the point.... if everyone had their own people’s betterment vs ego/control/king-of-the-mountain mentality ...things would be smooth , fair, and so beneficially ahead than the centuries have exacted.
...
The problem is that many leaders conflate “own people’s betterment” with ego/control.
In other words, Putin truly believes a Ukraine controlled by Russia is better for the Russian people and Xi truly believes a Taiwan controlled by China is better for the Chinese people.
An interesting, balanced read on an important topic that is getting nowhere near enough attention. That's what I pay the hard working staff at Drezner World for! My feeling is that dealing with an aggressive, cantankerous China is going to keep the US and India reasonably close for some time.