Is India really growing faster than China?

[faithfulguy]

But the truth is that Brits made India a unified country. There was no india at the time but various kingdoms. in fact indian laws are copied primarily from British laws. i would argue that british was good for india and one time where the colonizer did good for the colonized.

I disagree. I believe most of India will thrive more if India is consist of nations base on political entity prior to the British conquest. They need their own country. India is still a colony.

 

[Echo_419]

In Chinese culture, "over promise but under delivery" is not considered a good trait. We learnt our share of lessons in recent history.

I agree comrade

 

[randomradio]

India has already used the SNA 2008, while China still uses the SNA 1993.

So India is growing faster because of accounting tricks only. Sad but true. The only benefit is for Indians to boast more in PDF.

India was pressured by global financial institutions to switch to 2008 because a huge chunk of the economy wasn't being calculated in the GDP. That may not be the case with China.

In fact we still do not know the scale of the informal sector.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com...ll-a-vast-informal-economy/article5282078.ece

But the truth is that Brits made India a unified country. There was no india at the time but various kingdoms. in fact indian laws are copied primarily from British laws. i would argue that british was good for india and one time where the colonizer did good for the colonized.

Indian empires have spread all the way from Central Asia to Indonesia at different times. There were many times when the borders were much larger than what it is today.

When the British left India, they attempted to balkanize India into small countries, like in Europe. Even during British rule, India was divided into many autonomous countries. It was actually the Indian leadership that used force and diplomacy after independence to unite India.

This was how the British Raj colonies looked in 1947. All the grey areas are the ones where the British had direct control. The British gave permission to over 500 princes and nawabs the option to not join either India or Pakistan.

They say the British united India, but they didn't. It was the Indian leadership that followed the British that united India.

Churchill even related India's attempts at unity with Adolf Hitler.

Some stuff that our first PM said.
In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India. In January 1947, he said that independent India would not accept the divine right of kings, and in May 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state.

 

[faithfulguy]

India was pressured by global financial institutions to switch to 2008 because a huge chunk of the economy wasn't being calculated in the GDP. That may not be the case with China.

In fact we still do not know the scale of the informal sector.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com...ll-a-vast-informal-economy/article5282078.ece



Indian empires have spread all the way from Central Asia to Indonesia at different times. There were many times when the borders were much larger than what it is today.

When the British left India, they attempted to balkanize India into small countries, like in Europe. Even during British rule, India was divided into many autonomous countries. It was actually the Indian leadership that used force and diplomacy after independence to unite India.

This was how the British Raj colonies looked in 1947. All the grey areas are the ones where the British had direct control. The British gave permission to over 500 princes and nawabs the option to not join either India or Pakistan.

They say the British united India, but they didn't. It was the Indian leadership that followed the British that united India.

Churchill even related India's attempts at unity with Adolf Hitler.

Some stuff that our first PM said.
In July 1946, Nehru pointedly observed that no princely state could prevail militarily against the army of independent India. In January 1947, he said that independent India would not accept the divine right of kings, and in May 1947, he declared that any princely state which refused to join the Constituent Assembly would be treated as an enemy state.

You said it yourself about Indian empires existed in Indian subcontinent. This is same as western European empires existed in Western Europe. Empires such as Roman Empire, German empire and Charlemagns empire. This does not make Europe a nation. Europe is a geographical expression, like India.

 

[randomradio]

You said it yourself about Indian empires existed in Indian subcontinent. This is same as western European empires existed in Western Europe. Empires such as Roman Empire, German empire and Charlemagns empire. This does not make Europe a nation.

Maybe so, but that was in the past. Today India is united, nothing you can do about that. The Indian identity has become deeply rooted in our ethos.

And China is no different. It is also composed of many different types of people and empires which have become one country. The Indian identity is as strong as the Han identity in China. So it's useless to argue about it.

Europe is a geographical expression, like India.

India is indeed a geographical expression because it is a subcontinent.

We have our own tectonic plate and we have our own ocean as well. In comparison, China is merely a country.

 

[Economic superpower]

Maybe so, but that was in the past. Today India is united, nothing you can do about that. The Indian identity has become deeply rooted in our ethos.

And China is no different. It is also composed of many different types of people and empires which have become one country. The Indian identity is as strong as the Han identity in China. So it's useless to argue about it.



India is indeed a geographical expression because it is a subcontinent.

We have our own tectonic plate and we have our own ocean as well. In comparison, China is merely a country.

"India is a geographical term. It is no more a united nation than the Equator." - Winston Churchill

I highly doubt by the end of this century, India will be in its present form. India already has dozens of separatist movements all across its territory. Tamils, Sikhs, Kashmiris, etc will eventually have their own country in due time.

India is an artificially created union like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. It will eventually break up.

 

[Shotgunner51]

@Economic superpower @faithfulguy @randomradio

Reminder: Guys please stay on topic, or create a new thread to continue debate, thanks!

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

India was pressured by global financial institutions to switch to 2008 because a huge chunk of the economy wasn't being calculated in the GDP. That may not be the case with China.

Nope, that's not correct. China's GDP in SNA 2008 will be higher than it is now.

PS, China never takes those small-medium business activities into account.

 

[randomradio]

Nope, that's not correct. China's GDP in SNA 2008 will be higher than it is now.

PS, China never takes those small-medium business activities into account.

Lot of new technology companies will be added. Will look forward to the change then. When do you think they will adopt the new method?

 

[CHN Bamboo]

I feel that India and China have nothing in common, except for the total population. So there is no need to compare China with India.

 

[AMCA]

The percentage at which India is growing is marginally higher than that of China but that means nothing in terms of actual growth and is not enough to get anywhere near china in the next few centuries. We missed the industrial revolution, caught the late bus by Make in India, which can at max make us self sufficient and nothing more.

 

[Menthol]

The percentage at which India is growing is marginally higher than that of China but that means nothing in terms of actual growth and is not enough to get anywhere near china in the next few centuries. We missed the industrial revolution, caught the late bus by Make in India, which can at max make us self sufficient and nothing more.

Today, with USA China trade war, it's actually a good opportunity for India to grab it.

But I don't think India is able to do so, as India is very disorganized.

They want to it too in the past, but they always ruin it, again and again.

Seeing they attitude of the government, it seems they are already giving up.

 

[AMCA]

Today, with USA China trade war, it's actually a good opportunity for India to grab it.

But I don't think India is able to do so, as India is very disorganized.

They want to it too in the past, but they always ruin it, again and again.

Seeing they attitude of the government, it seems they are already giving up.

Nothing wrong with the country as is, go out of PDF, breath some fresh air, you wouldn't find this country anything like how its being projected here. India's share of world exports rose to somewhere close to 2% this fiscal. Our trade with China and USA improved too, but if you ask, could India have done better? - Of course !

 

[obj 705A]

IMO India is doing fine, for sure they have no hope of competing with China & I laugh when some one says India will catch up with China but you dont have to beat the best in order to have a good future, if India maintains a growth rate of no less than 5% then that is all they need to stay relevant on the world stage (if I'm not mistaken their GDP growth is around 7%).