Why Is India so undeveloped compare to Latm countries.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

I know what you mean, but it is of relevance when half the potential workforce (i.e. women) are not being used to anything like their full capacity, and where a superstitious mindset makes many people in the country still impervious towards education and science. Furthermore, as is also the case in most of Africa, the attractiveness for companies of lower wages is at least in part offset by the higher transportation costs due to the poorer and slower infrastructure.

India has several gender gap problems but it is not like Saudi Arabia, right? You are making it sound like it is. As far as I know, at the state level, it does not put obstacles in order to prevent women from being able to work. On the contrary, it has invested a lot to reverse the gap with various campaigns and attempts to increasing women's literacy rates and its role in the workforce. Today they already represent about 30% of the workforce. The Global Gender Gap report puts India on the same range as China.



As for education, 54.8% of women over 25 had secondary education as of 2010 in China. In India it is about 41%. They are getting closer. I know China has a better education system but not all Chinese are highly educated, the majority is not. Just like in India, it varies greatly from region to region. What they both have is an minority elite of brains, some of the brightest in the world even, only China does a better job of keeping them at home (often through dubious practices), while in India they tend to head for Silicon Valley.

Keep in mind as well that higher education also doesn't matter much when you spend your day assembling telephones or sewing clothes. And it is these kinds of industries and services that China and India cater to, innovative homegrown technology is still a niche. The main competitive advantage that China has over India is in fact just as you said, infrastructure. India still has a lot to do but that's exactly why it has room to grow.

[Thambi]

India was actually worse off both socially and economically before the British came. They were ruled by local dynasties (in addition to the Mughals) who would parasite off the local wealth before the British came, built institutions, sped up infrastructure, imported human resources, etc. You don't think India was were a backwards dirty overpopulated region before colonialism?

I guess it wasnt equal distribution, which really isnt different from today in any major country's economy, but Indian subcontinent held 25% to 35% of the world's GDP prior to the British rule. Its also a similar reason why many invaders from central asia, etc came to india in the first place and used the tax systems especially to exploit through local population. Because it was such an affluent area. But unlike china, India unfortunately had easily accessible borders from the northwest and sea as well as subpar military.

[Mingle]

I guess it wasnt equal distribution, which really isnt different from today in any major country's economy, but Indian subcontinent held 25% to 35% of the world's GDP prior to the British rule. Its also a similar reason why many invaders from central asia, etc came to india in the first place and used the tax systems especially to exploit through local population. Because it was such an affluent area. But unlike china, India unfortunately had easily accessible borders from the northwest and sea as well as subpar military.

India's wealth didn't decrease after the British came, only the proportion of wealth that they owned decreased in percentage. But that wasn't cause India got looted, but because the wealth of European nations skyrocketed via the industrial revolution. India's GDP growth rate remained stable at around 20% throughout British rule. Brits started conquering India around the late 1700s (fully conquering it in the early 1800s) and India's share in the global GDP had begun to sink in the 1500s-1600s.

Wealth distribution among Indians was also more equalized under British rule. Middle class and poor Indians benefitted much more under British rule. And the elites under British rule (British officials and traders) redistributed back into the system (developing India) whereas the elites of India prior to British colonization were parasites hoarding the wealth for themselves. So the common Indian benefited a lot more under the British than under local rulers. And this isn't even mentioning the social improvements that the Brits did.

[turbosat]

I guess it wasnt equal distribution, which really isnt different from today in any major country's economy, but Indian subcontinent held 25% to 35% of the world's GDP prior to the British rule. Its also a similar reason why many invaders from central asia, etc came to india in the first place and used the tax systems especially to exploit through local population. Because it was such an affluent area. But unlike china, India unfortunately had easily accessible borders from the northwest and sea as well as subpar military.

Most of the time India was not one large empire, let alone one country. Therefore northwest borders or a single military (subpar or not) did not exist as in the modern age. The historical India was a region and not the same as the present country India from 1947.

Borders were well defined during British rule for their empire in "British" India. Moghul empire in India had different borders in north-west from the nw borders of British India.

[wvwvw]

India: From snake charmers to global superpower

Some time ago, an elderly German asked me a question that has stayed with me ever since. The gentleman, in his 70s, said, "I remember when I was in school, we were told that India was a third world country — a poor country that needed our help. So, we collected money and sent it there as aid."

With a curious look on his face he continued, "today I read in newspapers that India is an IT hub, a startup capital of the world. Did you Indians use up all our aid money to buy computers?"

The question — though naive in nature — was an indicator for me of how India's image has changed over the past seven decades.

It wasn't long ago that India was depicted in the West with pictures of snake charmers, cows walking on the streets and people riding on the backs of elephants. However, over the last 75 years India has made a mark in the fields of space technology, telecommunication, agriculture, energy production and biotechnology, to name a few. India has more than 750 million internet users, which also shows how quickly the country is progressing in the digital age.

India's growing influence

Gone are the days when poverty and despair were romanticized in popular culture. Today, India is working on becoming the world's biggest producer of renewable energy. In its aim to become a global superpower, India is growing trade ties with both the East and the West.

Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott recently wrote, "India has emerged as a democratic superpower, more than capable of providing the leadership that the world often needs. [..] If a free world has to have a leader after 50 years, it is likely to be India." ..

[wvwvw]

Most of the time India was not one large empire, let alone one country. Therefore northwest borders or a single military (subpar or not) did not exist as in the modern age. The historical India was a region and not the same as the present country India from 1947.

Borders were well defined during British rule for their empire in "British" India. Moghul empire in India had different borders in north-west from the nw borders of British India.

Historic Unity of a nation is a nation which goes through ups and downs, happy times and bad times together which experiences invasions and rebellions together, is a nation with historic unity. It means the shared common history.

There is a common history which binds Indians together because when they were the richest nation in the world, all parts of the country were rich, when there were Muslim invasions all parts of the nation were looted, when there was British colonisation all parts of the nation were enslaved and when they became independent all parts attained freedom.

So even if the map of India has gone through millions of changes and even if there have been billions of kings of kingdoms in India, there is a common history that binds Indians, and a common identity.

The changing maps of a country doesn’t break the identity of a nation. For example at the time of independence USA had only 13 states, other states were added later, but people do not question the existence of USA. Another example is Soviet Union. It broke down in 1991 and it’s map went through drastic changes, but no one says that Russia came into existence only after 1991. Even the German map has gone through many changes from the past 100 to 200 years but no one questions whether it existed before Hitler’s death.

[turbosat]

Historic Unity of a nation is a nation which goes through ups and downs, happy times and bad times together which experiences invasions and rebellions together, is a nation with historic unity. It means the shared common history.

There is a common history which binds Indians together because when they were the richest nation in the world, all parts of the country were rich, when there were Muslim invasions all parts of the nation were looted, when there was British colonisation all parts of the nation were enslaved and when they became independent all parts attained freedom.

So even if the map of India has gone through millions of changes and even if there have been billions of kings of kingdoms in India, there is a common history that binds Indians, and a common identity.

The changing maps of a country doesn’t break the identity of a nation. For example at the time of independence USA had only 13 states, other states were added later, but people do not question the existence of USA. Another example is Soviet Union. It broke down in 1991 and it’s map went through drastic changes, but no one says that Russia came into existence only after 1991. Even the German map has gone through many changes from the past 100 to 200 years but no one questions whether it existed before Hitler’s death.

Europe also has a shared strong common history, languages and religion which bound Europeans together closely, but we don't say it was a single nation from ancient times because it has not become a single country. Historical India was also a region similar to how Europe was/is a region.

I did not question existence of India as a country after 1947. We know when USA came into existence as a country. At some time there were no Americans in the world but now there are millions of Americans, and we know Russia existed before 1991, and we know Germany existed before Hitler died etc. Lets not mix up all these things.

[Universe]

India has one of the richest world economies 5th place but Its development Is on the same level as one of the poorest countries In Latin America such as Nicaragua

https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...elopment_Index

GDP and GDP / Capita are not the same thing. Wtf is this thread.

[Laredo]

GDP and GDP / Capita are not the same thing. Wtf is this thread.

Yes because despite having a rich economy doesn't seem really reflected on the general population thus only small group oligarchy group benefits.

Latin America has severe corruption but apparently not as bad as India sense the country developments Is similar to Sub Saharan African countries rather than let's say Mexico Colombia Argentina Panama Costa Rica etc

[arkas]

I’m not sure if India is necessarily more corrupt than most LATM countries, so I don't think that is necessarily a factor.

Latin American countries have a higher homicide rate than even Middle Eastern countries with active terrorist organisations. The danger on the street level in many LATM countries exceeds that of anywhere else in the world, including places less developed than most LATM like India, mostly I think it is due to drug related gang warfare but I imagine corruption plays a role.

I think the obvious answer is the lack of access to education which you see in the lower literacy rate and it correlates with a lower HDI. Anyone who has encountered the Indian diaspora living in Western countries like America know how education obsessed Indians are, because everyone knows it is how you escape poverty.

As for the racist narrative that Indians are less developed because of their indigenous genes, consider the fact that the least literate and lower HDI regions within India are in the North, not the South where people have darker skin and have less Steppe and Farmer ancestry on average. Additionally, I do not see the correlation with the regions that have the longest history of being a European colony, Bengal should've been much more developed than Punjab which was one of the later regions to become a British territory.