"Indian polity revolves around those who believe that India went through single colonization (European) vs those who believe India went through double colonization (Islamic and European)"
*Everything* about Indian politics will make sense if one understands above statement.
I can give a link where 2 from first camp and 2 from second camp debate (in english) ==>
I spent 2-3 weeks per quarter for three years (2012-2015) in India on business ( I worked for a sustainability certification for IT at the time and was engaging Indian purchasers and brands to promote the certification as a way to identify more sustainable hardware). The rate of growth and wealth building was truly astonishing - showing up even between those quarterly visits in astonishing ways! The first time I visited the tech-brand-hub city of Gurgaon a woman was hoeing and a cow was wandering around in a big empty lot near the Dell building. By 9 months or a year later the whole area was crowded with tech brand HQ buildings and a huge mall was crowded with thousands of middle class people with money to spend on Friday afternoons and weekends. The Wipro tech services Bangalore campus was a manicured, sustainably landscaped space where thousands of well dressed young people ate in sparkling food courts during lunch hour. Hyderabad has an astonishing cluster of medical and other businesses, with a brilliant flyover highway making it possible to cross town in no time. (Despite my enjoyment as an outsider of traffic coming to a standstill for local festival parades to go by, it certainly slows down business!) Noida outside Delhi had literally dozens and dozens of residential apartment buildings going up - being built by hand by laborers in a much more labor intensive way than any construction in the US . The scale of rapid growth and increasing prosperity was visible every day - contrary to US perceptions of India as a dusty backwater. There is still immense, visible, intractable poverty, with ragged tents of laborers even in central urban streets and large swathe of the countryside still not fully electrified. But I have an enduring admiration for the grit, determination, cleverness and industry I witnessed in India - and for the creativity and initiative with which individuals pursue "the American dream" of finding a way to make a living, get an education, build a business, have a home. Some of the industrial stuff has yet to reach the Chinese pinnacle of sophistication - but I would never bet against India. Modi on the other hand is a divisive guy and while his government may not be directing the pogroms, they do happen with impunity, just as they did in Gujarat when he was in charge. And even if you view it with no moral judgment (not sure who that would be possible but...), riots and murders breaking out randomly are not good for business continuity
I’m glad this isn’t the usual “oh no my poor pet victims, MoDi Is HiTlEr AnD a PoPuLiSt WhAt AbOuT hInDuTvA aNd ThE rSs AnD gOdHrA” type of crap I usually see from Americans about India (bonus points for quoting Arundhati Roy).
That said, Modi hasn’t delivered all the reforms necessary. There’s still a very long way to go before India can reach its potential. Unfortunately, it still needs to heal the wounds inflicted by the INC and Nehru’s braindead economic policies (look up Uttam Nakate). Hopefully the BJP can implement them in the states it runs, and pick up more seats in the Rajya Sabha to make passing them at the federal level easier.
The current turn in Indian politics has all the hallmarks of a move towards competitive authoritarianism. On the other hand, if what we're trying to do is decouple more and more from China, India seems the natural place to turn, especially given what you note about their lack of industrialization; there's a lot of mutual benefit to be found there. And then perhaps by more closely aligning with them, we could help nudge them in a more liberal democratic direction.
There at least 2 Indias, one north of the vast fertile Gangetic Plain and one south of it nestled around the arid Deccan Plateau. The North is not as industrialized and population growth is well above replacement rate. The equally populated South is more urbanized and population growth is below replacement. How the people of this most complicated country handles this divergence will be shape the subcontinent's future.
Their train system, both freight and passenger, are something I envy as an American despite their status as a third world country. America had a missed opportunity both in the 70s and in 2009 to nationalize RoW and built a world class electrified system.
Why is Asian geography destiny? For the last two generations, Asia's given us one economic takeoff after another, and in weirdly geographical order. You can see a long chain of "growth miracles", a chain that starts with Japan and works south and west along Asia's coast. Now, as if by economic law, the growth miracle has come for Bangladesh and India.
But what's the underlying economic reason? Why do countries in the same region grow together?
It's not transport costs. The distances here are much larger than between London and Manchester; deliveries go by container ships on the ocean, not breakbulk cargo on railroads. If Taiwan's growth primed India more than Kenya, it's not because of the different prices in ocean shipment.
It's not "culture," either, at least not in the usual senses of the word, if we want to link Bangladesh and India to Taiwan and Korea. You have to torture your data a lot to explain why "culture" singles out India and Bangladesh rather than, say, the Latin American or East African countries with large Japanese or Chinese diaspora communities.
Is it human capital endowment? It might be. The East Asian countries were high in literacy before their economies took off, and I think you can make a case that India and Bangladesh were behind Southeast Asia but ahead of East Africa on that list.
But it still feels weird to see such a geographical chain in the order of economic takeoff, and not have much understanding why.
Regional agglomeration on the scale of a car ride or a railway delivery makes sense to me. But regional agglomeration on the scale of thousands of miles? That feels like something else.
>Equally big, or maybe even bigger. Unlike China, India doesn’t mount a massive government campaign to copy (or steal) the technology of multinational companies that invest there, then transfer that technology to state-supported domestic champions.
Do you think this is a good or bad thing, for India? Stealing technology seems to have worked out well for China (and for America, early in our history). Maybe spying and hacking would backfire too much in terms of relations with the US, but 'voluntary' technology transfer--conditioning investment on tech transfer, seems like a reasonable policy for national development.
One real limitation of empirical work in political science (and to some extent public policy and admin) is a lack of focus on Asia. This short piece should be part of syllabi going forward making the case as to why we should be examining that part of the world, and India in particular, more
Unmentioned is India's lack of port facilities. China has more port capacity than the rest of Asia combined. High valued products like iPhones can be sent by air, but for India to make any dent in China's exports, India must develop their port facilities. That was recognized when I lived in India 25 years ago and it remains true today. Or have things changed so quickly I've missed it?
A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, reacting to the news that India had the world’s largest population, recently sniffed that “Population dividend does not depend on quantity but also quality”
If India wasn’t significant, why would a spokesperson for China even bother to snark?
India has planted its flag in the U.S. -- heads of major corporations, thousands of small businesses, etc. -- so it seems appropriate for the U.S. to follow suit.
You make a great point about American perceptions of India and China. As someone who works in consulting and tech, I’ve worked with hundreds of Indians, including folks living in India and Indian-Americans. I’ve made good friends. I’ve gotten job referrals. They are a huge part of the tech ecosystem. My perception is that they are hard working and brilliant and hilarious. Compare to China- I don’t even have a perception of Chinese professionals because I have not worked with a single Chinese person in 12+ years in the workforce. My perception of China is that it is an autocratic country terrified of a free press and open internet. Not as evil as Iran or Russia but not far behind. India has a massive advantage in this regard.
It is interesting to contemplate that the competition between India and China may be determined by which country is more open and transparent. That is a lovely incentive that could improve life in both countries.
Noah, I almost never write comments before to you or others but would like to add one to your post. I am 74 years old (a woman, by the way!) and have a PhD in international economic development from University of Chicago (1979). I actually went there and had a National Defense Language Fellowship (when those things existed!) and was supposed to go to study what makes for healthy, economic growth in emerging, post-colonial societies. Well, first off, Nixon ended up freezing the NSF budget and then India didn't allow foreign researchers into India. I won't go into the boring detail about what I had to do, but it was interesting! In any case, I still follow actively international developments, and have always been intrigued with India developments. This is by way of a purely anecdotal comment about India and the US relationships. We have a nephew and wife who have lived in southern NJ between Princeton and Trenton smack in the middle of pharma country, and the resentment of Indians taking over the area is palpable on all sorts of levels. I could go into detail but won't, though the clear undercurrent is they stay to themselves, the kids are over-achievers academically, and don't participate in sports. It's insidious, and I hate it. But this is in blue America, not red America, and it is very, very concerning if more Americans think Republicans have an answer or solution. I am not sure I address anything here but I had to say something of what I think are emerging dynamics for someone who loves cultural diversity and still travel and hike around the world!
"Indian polity revolves around those who believe that India went through single colonization (European) vs those who believe India went through double colonization (Islamic and European)"
*Everything* about Indian politics will make sense if one understands above statement.
I can give a link where 2 from first camp and 2 from second camp debate (in english) ==>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dbG4IC7UOM&t=2790s&ab_channel=TIMESNOW
I spent 2-3 weeks per quarter for three years (2012-2015) in India on business ( I worked for a sustainability certification for IT at the time and was engaging Indian purchasers and brands to promote the certification as a way to identify more sustainable hardware). The rate of growth and wealth building was truly astonishing - showing up even between those quarterly visits in astonishing ways! The first time I visited the tech-brand-hub city of Gurgaon a woman was hoeing and a cow was wandering around in a big empty lot near the Dell building. By 9 months or a year later the whole area was crowded with tech brand HQ buildings and a huge mall was crowded with thousands of middle class people with money to spend on Friday afternoons and weekends. The Wipro tech services Bangalore campus was a manicured, sustainably landscaped space where thousands of well dressed young people ate in sparkling food courts during lunch hour. Hyderabad has an astonishing cluster of medical and other businesses, with a brilliant flyover highway making it possible to cross town in no time. (Despite my enjoyment as an outsider of traffic coming to a standstill for local festival parades to go by, it certainly slows down business!) Noida outside Delhi had literally dozens and dozens of residential apartment buildings going up - being built by hand by laborers in a much more labor intensive way than any construction in the US . The scale of rapid growth and increasing prosperity was visible every day - contrary to US perceptions of India as a dusty backwater. There is still immense, visible, intractable poverty, with ragged tents of laborers even in central urban streets and large swathe of the countryside still not fully electrified. But I have an enduring admiration for the grit, determination, cleverness and industry I witnessed in India - and for the creativity and initiative with which individuals pursue "the American dream" of finding a way to make a living, get an education, build a business, have a home. Some of the industrial stuff has yet to reach the Chinese pinnacle of sophistication - but I would never bet against India. Modi on the other hand is a divisive guy and while his government may not be directing the pogroms, they do happen with impunity, just as they did in Gujarat when he was in charge. And even if you view it with no moral judgment (not sure who that would be possible but...), riots and murders breaking out randomly are not good for business continuity
I’m glad this isn’t the usual “oh no my poor pet victims, MoDi Is HiTlEr AnD a PoPuLiSt WhAt AbOuT hInDuTvA aNd ThE rSs AnD gOdHrA” type of crap I usually see from Americans about India (bonus points for quoting Arundhati Roy).
That said, Modi hasn’t delivered all the reforms necessary. There’s still a very long way to go before India can reach its potential. Unfortunately, it still needs to heal the wounds inflicted by the INC and Nehru’s braindead economic policies (look up Uttam Nakate). Hopefully the BJP can implement them in the states it runs, and pick up more seats in the Rajya Sabha to make passing them at the federal level easier.
https://indiareforms.csis.org/
The current turn in Indian politics has all the hallmarks of a move towards competitive authoritarianism. On the other hand, if what we're trying to do is decouple more and more from China, India seems the natural place to turn, especially given what you note about their lack of industrialization; there's a lot of mutual benefit to be found there. And then perhaps by more closely aligning with them, we could help nudge them in a more liberal democratic direction.
There at least 2 Indias, one north of the vast fertile Gangetic Plain and one south of it nestled around the arid Deccan Plateau. The North is not as industrialized and population growth is well above replacement rate. The equally populated South is more urbanized and population growth is below replacement. How the people of this most complicated country handles this divergence will be shape the subcontinent's future.
Their train system, both freight and passenger, are something I envy as an American despite their status as a third world country. America had a missed opportunity both in the 70s and in 2009 to nationalize RoW and built a world class electrified system.
Why is Asian geography destiny? For the last two generations, Asia's given us one economic takeoff after another, and in weirdly geographical order. You can see a long chain of "growth miracles", a chain that starts with Japan and works south and west along Asia's coast. Now, as if by economic law, the growth miracle has come for Bangladesh and India.
But what's the underlying economic reason? Why do countries in the same region grow together?
It's not transport costs. The distances here are much larger than between London and Manchester; deliveries go by container ships on the ocean, not breakbulk cargo on railroads. If Taiwan's growth primed India more than Kenya, it's not because of the different prices in ocean shipment.
It's not "culture," either, at least not in the usual senses of the word, if we want to link Bangladesh and India to Taiwan and Korea. You have to torture your data a lot to explain why "culture" singles out India and Bangladesh rather than, say, the Latin American or East African countries with large Japanese or Chinese diaspora communities.
Is it human capital endowment? It might be. The East Asian countries were high in literacy before their economies took off, and I think you can make a case that India and Bangladesh were behind Southeast Asia but ahead of East Africa on that list.
But it still feels weird to see such a geographical chain in the order of economic takeoff, and not have much understanding why.
Regional agglomeration on the scale of a car ride or a railway delivery makes sense to me. But regional agglomeration on the scale of thousands of miles? That feels like something else.
>Equally big, or maybe even bigger. Unlike China, India doesn’t mount a massive government campaign to copy (or steal) the technology of multinational companies that invest there, then transfer that technology to state-supported domestic champions.
Do you think this is a good or bad thing, for India? Stealing technology seems to have worked out well for China (and for America, early in our history). Maybe spying and hacking would backfire too much in terms of relations with the US, but 'voluntary' technology transfer--conditioning investment on tech transfer, seems like a reasonable policy for national development.
This is so good.
One real limitation of empirical work in political science (and to some extent public policy and admin) is a lack of focus on Asia. This short piece should be part of syllabi going forward making the case as to why we should be examining that part of the world, and India in particular, more
Great post. But you missed one key indicator of an emerging ‘Indiamerica’ - a U.S. Vice President who’s mother was born in Chennai.
Unmentioned is India's lack of port facilities. China has more port capacity than the rest of Asia combined. High valued products like iPhones can be sent by air, but for India to make any dent in China's exports, India must develop their port facilities. That was recognized when I lived in India 25 years ago and it remains true today. Or have things changed so quickly I've missed it?
Three snarks for Muster Mark! (ala Joyce).
A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry, reacting to the news that India had the world’s largest population, recently sniffed that “Population dividend does not depend on quantity but also quality”
If India wasn’t significant, why would a spokesperson for China even bother to snark?
India has planted its flag in the U.S. -- heads of major corporations, thousands of small businesses, etc. -- so it seems appropriate for the U.S. to follow suit.
Interesting article. Americans’ general ignorance of Indian culture shows up on how they are currently being taken for a ride in their caste policies and laws: https://quillette.com/2023/04/29/the-fragility-of-the-caste-oppression-hypothesis/
You make a great point about American perceptions of India and China. As someone who works in consulting and tech, I’ve worked with hundreds of Indians, including folks living in India and Indian-Americans. I’ve made good friends. I’ve gotten job referrals. They are a huge part of the tech ecosystem. My perception is that they are hard working and brilliant and hilarious. Compare to China- I don’t even have a perception of Chinese professionals because I have not worked with a single Chinese person in 12+ years in the workforce. My perception of China is that it is an autocratic country terrified of a free press and open internet. Not as evil as Iran or Russia but not far behind. India has a massive advantage in this regard.
It is interesting to contemplate that the competition between India and China may be determined by which country is more open and transparent. That is a lovely incentive that could improve life in both countries.
Noah, I almost never write comments before to you or others but would like to add one to your post. I am 74 years old (a woman, by the way!) and have a PhD in international economic development from University of Chicago (1979). I actually went there and had a National Defense Language Fellowship (when those things existed!) and was supposed to go to study what makes for healthy, economic growth in emerging, post-colonial societies. Well, first off, Nixon ended up freezing the NSF budget and then India didn't allow foreign researchers into India. I won't go into the boring detail about what I had to do, but it was interesting! In any case, I still follow actively international developments, and have always been intrigued with India developments. This is by way of a purely anecdotal comment about India and the US relationships. We have a nephew and wife who have lived in southern NJ between Princeton and Trenton smack in the middle of pharma country, and the resentment of Indians taking over the area is palpable on all sorts of levels. I could go into detail but won't, though the clear undercurrent is they stay to themselves, the kids are over-achievers academically, and don't participate in sports. It's insidious, and I hate it. But this is in blue America, not red America, and it is very, very concerning if more Americans think Republicans have an answer or solution. I am not sure I address anything here but I had to say something of what I think are emerging dynamics for someone who loves cultural diversity and still travel and hike around the world!