New Dead Line: India must try to become developed country by 2030: Jaitley

[Menthol]

What you are referring to is productivity. That's not being developed, it's only a very tiny part of it, and in some cases it is totally irrelevant. You don't have to be a developed country to be highly productive.

For example, in France, the cost of flying a Mirage-2000 is $8000 every hour. The same cost in India is $4000. This is the operations cost of the M-2000. It means the IAF and the MiC that supports the M-2000 is twice as productive as the French AF. The productivity in India is actually much higher than 2x because we have only 50 jets while they have 200. Does this mean India is more developed than France?

What I am asking is what defines a developed country in its entirety.

The cost of maintaining mig2000 is cheaper in India due to cheaper worker salary. Cheaper worker salary is an indicator of less developed country. I can explain it to you, why it so, in the process you will understand about the meaning of developed country.

To understand about developed country, you need to understand the basic of economy.

Economy is a human effort to fulfill his own need. Human needs like food, cloth, house, transportation, entertainment, etc. Human is a social creature too, to fulfill his needs, he need another human.

In the stone age, human doesn't need a lot of people to help him, as the needs is not so complicated. But modern human, he need much of people almost millions to billions just to fulfill his needs for computer, gadget, car, train, airplane (even though he just "borrowing" by buying the ticket), etc.

To fulfill his need of computer, it takes thousands or even millions of people to make it. It takes thousands of components, that created from multiple processes. From CPU, memory, HDD, motherboard, LCD monitor, etc. To create a CPU for him, it's perhaps need a iron mine, steel factory, another mines of whatever, some chemical components that extracted from many kind of plants, etc. It's so complicated. Not to mention if Intel company borrowing money from the bank, to make the CPU, it's add the complexity. The CPU is also need the packaging, made from plastic and papers. It also need good packaging design, it required designers. Designer need pencil, ballpoint, rulers, papers etc. To make a pencil for him, it needs wood from tree. To get the wood, people need to go to the forest, it need chainsaw and many things. Chainsaw need gasoline, gasoline came from oil, the oil is from middle east, it required oil tanker to bring it here. And oil tanker need steel, steel came from the mine, etc etc etc. Well, that is just for the cpu, not yet the other components of a computer.

As you can guess, which economy is more developed, stone age or modern age? The answer is clear.

It's quite amazing to see the process of how human from the stone age can became modern human that is so complicated like today. Or the process of undeveloped country who still live in tribalism or middle age, transformed into a modern developed country.


Why people in developed country have higher salary then like those French mig technician?

Well, to make a computer, it's so complicated. It required a lot of components and processes as we can see above. All generate jobs, jobs need workers.

In economy, there's so called bargain. As there are more jobs than the available workers in the market, company will rise their bargain by increasing the salary so they can get enough workers willingly to do the job.

The lack of workforces in entire country, created a national wide salary increase, as happened in China right now.

 

[randomradio]

The cost of maintaining mig2000 is cheaper in India due to cheaper worker salary. Cheaper worker salary is an indicator of less developed country. I can explain it to you, why it so, in the process you will understand about the meaning of developed country.

That is called productivity. This is not low end production, it is high-tech production, so you need an equally skilled and educated labour force to pull it off.

Economy is a human effort to fulfill his own need. Human needs like food, cloth, house, transportation, entertainment, etc. Human is a social creature too, to fulfill his needs, he need another human.

In the stone age, human doesn't need a lot of people to help him, as the needs is not so complicated. But modern human, he need much of people almost millions to billions just to fulfill his needs for computer, gadget, car, train, airplane (even though he just "borrowing" by buying the ticket), etc.

To fulfill his need of computer, it takes thousands or even millions of people to make it. It takes thousands of components, that created from multiple processes. From CPU, memory, HDD, motherboard, LCD monitor, etc. To create a CPU for him, it's perhaps need a iron mine, steel factory, another mines of whatever, some chemical components that extracted from many kind of plants, etc. It's so complicated. Not to mention if Intel company borrowing money from the bank, to make the CPU, it's add the complexity. The CPU is also need the packaging, made from plastic and papers. It also need good packaging design, it required designers. Designer need pencil, ballpoint, rulers, papers etc. To make a pencil for him, it needs wood from tree. To get the wood, people need to go to the forest, it need chainsaw and many things. Chainsaw need gasoline, gasoline came from oil, the oil is from middle east, it required oil tanker to bring it here. And oil tanker need steel, steel came from the mine, etc etc etc. Well, that is just for the cpu, not yet the other components of a computer.

As you can guess, which economy is more developed, stone age or modern age? The answer is clear.

It's quite amazing to see the process of how human from the stone age can became modern human that is so complicated like today. Or the process of undeveloped country who still live in tribalism or middle age, transformed into a modern developed country.


Why people in developed country have higher salary then like those French mig technician?

Well, to make a computer, it's so complicated. It required a lot of components and processes as we can see above. All generate jobs, jobs need workers.

In economy, there's so called bargain. As there are more jobs than the available workers in the market, company will rise their bargain by increasing the salary so they can get enough workers willingly to do the job.

The lack of workforces in entire country, created a national wide salary increase, as happened in China right now.

None of this stuff means developed. The Gulf countries are seeped in tribalism and bronze age ideals. How would you call them developed?

In the 70s, Western Europe was developed as well. But the quality of life in many parts of the emerging markets is better than the quality of life that the Europeans in the 70s had because of technology, like new medicines, cellphones, computers etc.

There is only one definition of developed. It has nothing to do with technology or cultural ideals. It has everything to do with quality of life. Let's say you are an extremely poor person and your child needs medical attention that you cannot afford. The difference between a developed country and undeveloped country here is, in the developed country the govt will pay for the child's well being, while in an undeveloped country the child will fail to get medical treatment and will die.

Which means, a developed country is a rich country. And only a rich country can guarantee a good quality of life to all its citizens. It doesn't matter if the best technology produced by the country is only a bicycle or that the country beheads people for simple crimes, you only have to be rich.

Another word for rich is affordable. Now countries like India and China will take 100 years just to match the per capita of European countries. So the govt's objective is not to become rich, but to make services more affordable.

It is easier to make services more affordable through govt regulation than it is to become rich. For example, China is a 11.5T economy but still doesn't have universal healthcare. But India plans to have universal healthcare for the entire population in just a few years, long before India is a $11.5T economy. This is what it means to be developed.

So the idea of being developed in India is to make services so affordable through regulation and welfare that even the poorest person in India is given a life of dignity, where he can travel to any other part of the world and not feel less of himself, while also carrying with him the knowledge that his govt has his back during times of trouble. And this is achievable by 2030.

 

[Mista]

That is called productivity. This is not low end production, it is high-tech production, so you need an equally skilled and educated labour force to pull it off.



None of this stuff means developed. The Gulf countries are seeped in tribalism and bronze age ideals. How would you call them developed?

In the 70s, Western Europe was developed as well. But the quality of life in many parts of the emerging markets is better than the quality of life that the Europeans in the 70s had because of technology, like new medicines, cellphones, computers etc.

There is only one definition of developed. It has nothing to do with technology or cultural ideals. It has everything to do with quality of life. Let's say you are an extremely poor person and your child needs medical attention that you cannot afford. The difference between a developed country and undeveloped country here is, in the developed country the govt will pay for the child's well being, while in an undeveloped country the child will fail to get medical treatment and will die.

Which means, a developed country is a rich country. And only a rich country can guarantee a good quality of life to all its citizens. It doesn't matter if the best technology produced by the country is only a bicycle or that the country beheads people for simple crimes, you only have to be rich.

Another word for rich is affordable. Now countries like India and China will take 100 years just to match the per capita of European countries. So the govt's objective is not to become rich, but to make services more affordable.

It is easier to make services more affordable through govt regulation than it is to become rich. For example, China is a 11.5T economy but still doesn't have universal healthcare. But India plans to have universal healthcare for the entire population in just a few years, long before India is a $11.5T economy. This is what it means to be developed.

So the idea of being developed in India is to make services so affordable through regulation and welfare that even the poorest person in India is given a life of dignity, where he can travel to any other part of the world and not feel less of himself, while also carrying with him the knowledge that his govt has his back during times of trouble. And this is achievable by 2030.

So the US without universal healthcare isn't a developed country?

Universal healthcare means little if the quality is poor or the availability of hospital is scarce. Yes, technically the poorest can have access to healthcare. But so what when the nearest hospital is a 3 hour drive down the mountainous region? So what if you have universal healthcare when your life expectancy is still much lower than countries that doesn't have universal healthcare?

The main problem in developing countries isn't universal healthcare, but proximity to affordable quality healthcare. Universal healthcare only solves the affordability aspect.

And in this area I think China did a great job. Their life expectancy is only around 2 years behind the US even though they have far lower GDP per capita. The idea that universal healthcare solves everything is a very simplistic idea from the West. It only works for developed countries like them with well developed infrastructure, not developing countries. China did the right thing to move the poor from mountainous region to somewhere more accessible and build the infrastructures connecting them. Hospitals, like schools, need a certain level of population density to operate.

If you ask me what's my yardstick on which is a developed country, I say that HDI is pretty reliable. It combines life expectancy, education, and income.

 

[my2cents]

Questions to Indian members: If there is no universal pension plan for all Indians, how Indians live their retirement life? What is the legal retirement age for Indians?

Only the govt. employees have pension plan in India. Others have to save for their retirement.

 

[randomradio]

So the US without universal healthcare isn't a developed country?

Universal healthcare means little if the quality is poor or the availability of hospital is scarce. Yes, technically the poorest can have access to healthcare. But so what when the nearest hospital is a 3 hour drive down the mountainous region? So what if you have universal healthcare when your life expectancy is still much lower than countries that doesn't have universal healthcare?

The main problem in developing countries isn't universal healthcare, but proximity to affordable quality healthcare. Universal healthcare only solves the affordability aspect.

And in this area I think China did a great job. Their life expectancy is only around 2 years behind the US even though they have far lower GDP per capita. The idea that universal healthcare solves everything is a very simplistic idea from the West. It only works for developed countries like them with well developed infrastructure, not developing countries. China did the right thing to move the poor from mountainous region to somewhere more accessible and build the infrastructures connecting them. Hospitals, like schools, need a certain level of population density to operate.

You must not be aware that the completion date for being developed that the govt is talking about is 2030, not today.

And I did explain about affordability. Universal healthcare equates to affordability. What India has to worry about is quality, and there's been a huge change in the system after Modi came to power. So he will naturally need one or two more terms after his current one to fix the system, ie 2030.

If you ask me what's my yardstick on which is a developed country, I say that HDI is pretty reliable. It combines life expectancy, education, and income.

Yeah, that's basically the fancy term for quality of life.

Like Kerala. It has a HDI of 0.8 compared to India's figure of 0.55. But per capita is much lower than all the provinces of China, let alone other countries with similar HDI scores like the US or France. So they managed to do it through affordable methods instead of wasting decades to get rich in order to raise their HDI.

In 10 more years, Kerala would match countries that are much more ahead, but will still have a very small per capita income compared to them.

So Modi wants to emulate Kerala's success all over India, which we know for a fact that it's possible.

 

[Mista]

You must not be aware that the completion date for being developed that the govt is talking about is 2030, not today.

And I did explain about affordability. Universal healthcare equates to affordability. What India has to worry about is quality, and there's been a huge change in the system after Modi came to power. So he will naturally need one or two more terms after his current one to fix the system, ie 2030.

And you think it's possible for India to be developed by 2030?

Affordability is only one aspect of it as I have explained. Quality is another. What developing countries usually lack are geographic accessibility (nearest hospital, infrastructure) and health resources (hospitals, doctors, medicine, etc) per capita.

Like Kerala. It has a HDI of 0.8 compared to India's figure of 0.55. But per capita is much lower than all the provinces of China, let alone other countries with similar HDI scores like the US or France. So they managed to do it through affordable methods instead of wasting decades to get rich in order to raise their HDI.

Google tells me that Kerala has a HDI of 0.721, which is still below the national average of China.

France have a HDI of 0.897 while the US's is 0.920.

That's a huge gap. They are not similar. Stop boasting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_Index

 

[Menthol]

That is called productivity. This is not low end production, it is high-tech production, so you need an equally skilled and educated labour force to pull it off.



None of this stuff means developed. The Gulf countries are seeped in tribalism and bronze age ideals. How would you call them developed?

In the 70s, Western Europe was developed as well. But the quality of life in many parts of the emerging markets is better than the quality of life that the Europeans in the 70s had because of technology, like new medicines, cellphones, computers etc.

There is only one definition of developed. It has nothing to do with technology or cultural ideals. It has everything to do with quality of life. Let's say you are an extremely poor person and your child needs medical attention that you cannot afford. The difference between a developed country and undeveloped country here is, in the developed country the govt will pay for the child's well being, while in an undeveloped country the child will fail to get medical treatment and will die.

Which means, a developed country is a rich country. And only a rich country can guarantee a good quality of life to all its citizens. It doesn't matter if the best technology produced by the country is only a bicycle or that the country beheads people for simple crimes, you only have to be rich.

Another word for rich is affordable. Now countries like India and China will take 100 years just to match the per capita of European countries. So the govt's objective is not to become rich, but to make services more affordable.

It is easier to make services more affordable through govt regulation than it is to become rich. For example, China is a 11.5T economy but still doesn't have universal healthcare. But India plans to have universal healthcare for the entire population in just a few years, long before India is a $11.5T economy. This is what it means to be developed.

So the idea of being developed in India is to make services so affordable through regulation and welfare that even the poorest person in India is given a life of dignity, where he can travel to any other part of the world and not feel less of himself, while also carrying with him the knowledge that his govt has his back during times of trouble. And this is achievable by 2030.

What you said is economy too. Quality of life can only be achieved with economy development. Just go out from the house and see Indian people around you... what are they lacking that prevent them to have high standard of living like those in USA? If the answer because they don't have money or being paid so little? Why is that? Or... Why is not enough affordable goods in the market that can make them have high standards of living like people in Japan for example?

Lack of money, lack of goods (including infrastructure)... It's an indicator of less developed economy. Economy is the thing that very close to us. It's a human nature and needs, to be materialistic, materialistic is economy. Healthcare and education are economy too.

Saudi Arabia has oil and joined global economy. It sell oil and import developed countries goods.


Indonesia also have national wide healthcare system called BPJS. But I can't call Indonesia as a developed country. A lot of indicators that Indonesia economy is far from being developed. And you won't get a USA like healthcare service in Indonesia using BPJS.

To develop the economy, human need to work harder and being very discipline. Being hardworking and discipline it will depend on the human itself.

 

[rambro]

In truth India makes other developing 3rd world countries like Indonesia, malaysia, thailand look 1st world already.

In terms of infra, hygiene, sanitation etc

 

[TruthTheOnlyDefense]

Having travelled to India, China etc, I think India is far behind, but things are slowly improving. The main thing holding India back is the lack of infra, education in India is a shambles. health care is even worse, if you are lucky and you have the money then private health care is top notch in India, and the lack of sanitation is another issue. Pollution is extremely bad, people just burn garbage etc, add to that all the other pollution, I'm not surprised the 12 most polluted cities are in India?

Of course this is just my point of view and my opinion, India is a very pretty country, but I think Indians don't respect their country enough, Indian people are extremely hospitable and will go out of their way to help you, that's one of the reasons I loved India.

But it will take a long, long time for India to get where they want to go, this post is in no way a put down of India, I actually loved my trip there, and will go again, you have to have a lot of patience in India, things don't work like they do in the West, in India everything is a hassle, but if you have the patience then India has a lot of amazing things that will come your way.

 

[randomradio]

And you think it's possible for India to be developed by 2030?

Affordability is only one aspect of it as I have explained. Quality is another. What developing countries usually lack are geographic accessibility (nearest hospital, infrastructure) and health resources (hospitals, doctors, medicine, etc) per capita.

HDI score = quality.

Google tells me that Kerala has a HDI of 0.721, which is still below the national average of China.

France have a HDI of 0.897 while the US's is 0.920.

That's a huge gap. They are not similar. Stop boasting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_states_and_territories_by_Human_Development_Index

You haven't understood.

Let me make it simpler. China and Kerala have similar HDI scores.

Kerala's per capita income in 2016 is $3100.
China's per capita income in 2016 is $6900.

Do you see the difference here? Less than half the per capita but similar HDI scores.

So 15 years later, Kerala may compete in HDI with the US and France with possibly 1/5th the per capita income. That is called affordable development.

Similarly I'm sure China will compete with US and France in HDI scores with less than half the per capita income in the next 10-15 years.

What you said is economy too. Quality of life can only be achieved with economy development. Just go out from the house and see Indian people around you... what are they lacking that prevent them to have high standard of living like those in USA? If the answer because they don't have money or being paid so little? Why is that? Or... Why is not enough affordable goods in the market that can make them have high standards of living like people in Japan for example?

Lack of money, lack of goods (including infrastructure)... It's an indicator of less developed economy. Economy is the thing that very close to us. It's a human nature and needs, to be materialistic, materialistic is economy. Healthcare and education are economy too.

It can be replicated in 15 years.

The thing is unlike most small countries, India has the potential to create world beating companies that can attract money and talent, like the US does.

Indonesia also have national wide healthcare system called BPJS. But I can't call Indonesia as a developed country. A lot of indicators that Indonesia economy is far from being developed. And you won't get a USA like healthcare service in Indonesia using BPJS.

To develop the economy, human need to work harder and being very discipline. Being hardworking and discipline it will depend on the human itself.

Can't compare the technology levels of Indonesia with India.

Since countries like India and China are large, development can happen at a much larger scale with a smaller per capita. For example, both India and China have started building bullet trains with a low per capita income. While small countries can do so only when they have 2x the per capita income because they do not have the population advantage.

Having travelled to India, China etc, I think India is far behind, but things are slowly improving. The main thing holding India back is the lack of infra, education in India is a shambles. health care is even worse, if you are lucky and you have the money then private health care is top notch in India, and the lack of sanitation is another issue. Pollution is extremely bad, people just burn garbage etc, add to that all the other pollution, I'm not surprised the 12 most polluted cities are in India?

Of course this is just my point of view and my opinion, India is a very pretty country, but I think Indians don't respect their country enough, Indian people are extremely hospitable and will go out of their way to help you, that's one of the reasons I loved India.

But it will take a long, long time for India to get where they want to go, this post is in no way a put down of India, I actually loved my trip there, and will go again, you have to have a lot of patience in India, things don't work like they do in the West, in India everything is a hassle, but if you have the patience then India has a lot of amazing things that will come your way.

If policy changes are robust and actually work, then we will see a transformation to countries like Thailand and Malaysia are today by 2025.

For example, the govt wants universal healthcare, they want to triple and then quadruple healthcare spending by that time, while also reducing the cost of healthcare by more than half.

Then they have started a housing development scheme where every single Indian family will have a house. It started in the mid 80s, but it's got a new booster dose under the new govt. That takes care of sanitation.

Education is undergoing structural reforms as well.

 

[Menthol]

HDI score = quality.



You haven't understood.

Let me make it simpler. China and Kerala have similar HDI scores.

Kerala's per capita income in 2016 is $3100.
China's per capita income in 2016 is $6900.

Do you see the difference here? Less than half the per capita but similar HDI scores.

So 15 years later, Kerala may compete in HDI with the US and France with possibly 1/5th the per capita income. That is called affordable development.

Similarly I'm sure China will compete with US and France in HDI scores with less than half the per capita income in the next 10-15 years.



It can be replicated in 15 years.

The thing is unlike most small countries, India has the potential to create world beating companies that can attract money and talent, like the US does.



Can't compare the technology levels of Indonesia with India.

Since countries like India and China are large, development can happen at a much larger scale with a smaller per capita. For example, both India and China have started building bullet trains with a low per capita income. While small countries can do so only when they have 2x the per capita income because they do not have the population advantage.



If policy changes are robust and actually work, then we will see a transformation to countries like Thailand and Malaysia are today by 2025.

For example, the govt wants universal healthcare, they want to triple and then quadruple healthcare spending by that time, while also reducing the cost of healthcare by more than half.

Then they have started a housing development scheme where every single Indian family will have a house. It started in the mid 80s, but it's got a new booster dose under the new govt. That takes care of sanitation.

Education is undergoing structural reforms as well.

Er... I think you should visit one of the developed country and China too. Then you can make a comparison with India. It's a truly a jaw dropping and eyes opener moment and you will never saw India as before. Just like I never see Indonesia as what I saw before.

 

[RowdyRathore]

We don't have to achieve western standards of living for everybody by 2030, we can't, but the current middle class can easily reach western standards by 2030. And we are talking about more than 400 million people, that's more than the population of the US.

If we see western definitions we wont reach their even in 100 centuries.
Our country can't sustain western lifestyle for that much people, there ain't much resources left to support that luxury for our population, we need to set our own definitions.

 

[Mista]

You haven't understood.

Let me make it simpler. China and Kerala have similar HDI scores.

Kerala's per capita income in 2016 is $3100.
China's per capita income in 2016 is $6900.

Do you see the difference here? Less than half the per capita but similar HDI scores.

So 15 years later, Kerala may compete in HDI with the US and France with possibly 1/5th the per capita income. That is called affordable development.

Similarly I'm sure China will compete with US and France in HDI scores with less than half the per capita income in the next 10-15 years.

LOL. Haven't understood what? What happened to your boastful rhetoric that Kerala has similar HDI with France and the US? Now postponed by 10-15 years? Kerala only has the HDI of Guangxi, one of the poorest province in China, and yet you think it has similar development as France or the US.

There are so many countries with HDI above Kerala and I don't see them boast like you do. You're giving your fellow countrymen a bad rep by having such disillusion.

 

[randomradio]

If we see western definitions we wont reach their even in 100 centuries.
Our country can't sustain western lifestyle for that much people, there ain't much resources left to support that luxury for our population, we need to set our own definitions.

That's incorrect. You can even call it as propaganda or perhaps even ignorance.

The world can sustain a human population many times more at the same level as western population. What we lack today we will have tomorrow. For example, we need clean energy and much more advanced recycling technologies.

Er... I think you should visit one of the developed country and China too. Then you can make a comparison with India. It's a truly a jaw dropping and eyes opener moment and you will never saw India as before. Just like I never see Indonesia as what I saw before.

I think you should reserve judgement until you visit India in 2030. Today's India is still a 3rd world country. The article speaks of 2030.

India is now going through the same kind of aesthetic transformation of cities that developed countries have gone through.

LOL. Haven't understood what? What happened to your boastful rhetoric that Kerala has similar HDI with France and the US? Now postponed by 10-15 years? Kerala only has the HDI of Guangxi, one of the poorest province in China, and yet you think it has similar development as France or the US.

There are so many countries with HDI above Kerala and I don't see them boast like you do. You're giving your fellow countrymen a bad rep by having such disillusion.

Meh, there are different ways HDI is calculated. I think I saw inequality adjusted HDI figures for US and France and compared it to Kerala's HDI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

Big deal. It has not changed the point. Kerala's going to have a lower rise in per capita compared to the US but will see a major boost in HDI anyway over the next 15 years.

Kerala's HDI was 0.62 in 2011, today it appears to be 0.72, probably last year's figures. It shows that you don't need to be very rich to have high HDI. And also that improvements can be made very quickly. So Kerala will achieve western HDI figures first in India and that will happen with a very low per capita income.

In 2011, India's score was 0.55.
http://www.kseboa.org/news/india-ranks-low-134-in-human-development-index-2011-02111895.html

In 2015, the score was 0.62.
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/Nc...global-Human-Development-Index-Norway-No.html

If India continues to increase at this pace, we will reach 0.83 in 2027. With a modest per capita growth of 6.5%, India will only be worth less than $4000 by 2027.

 

[Mista]

Meh, there are different ways HDI is calculated. I think I saw inequality adjusted HDI figures for US and France and compared it to Kerala's HDI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

Big deal. It has not changed the point. Kerala's going to have a lower rise in per capita compared to the US but will see a major boost in HDI anyway over the next 15 years.

Kerala's HDI was 0.62 in 2011, today it appears to be 0.72, probably last year's figures. It shows that you don't need to be very rich to have high HDI. And also that improvements can be made very quickly. So Kerala will achieve western HDI figures first in India and that will happen with a very low per capita income.

In 2011, India's score was 0.55.
http://www.kseboa.org/news/india-ranks-low-134-in-human-development-index-2011-02111895.html

In 2015, the score was 0.62.
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/Nc...global-Human-Development-Index-Norway-No.html

If India continues to increase at this pace, we will reach 0.83 in 2027. With a modest per capita growth of 6.5%, India will only be worth less than $4000 by 2027.

Yeah the same old disillusioned terms. Future, growth, 2030 etc. You're no different from those Indians back in 2008 who boast India will be a superpower in 2012.

Why not extrapolate further and say that India will reach 1.00 HDI in 2050?