Can India defeat China?

Possibilities are there Cann't say but if the war or conflict would take place then the distruction would be both the side if chinese army have an ability to damage 50% region of india so india army have also a strength to damaging 45% region of china. But morally I hope India will win china. China is nothing more than factory of the world. A non democratic form of government can not create superpower.Moreover all data regarding China especially chinese economy and military may not be true because China have never allowed International evolution of it's economy.Data like growth at 9% is reported by Chinese government and it may not be entirely true.The world was predicting China to have largest army in the world but in it's white paper P.L.A. T to said that they have an army of 8 lakhs soldiers which very less than India's Army No, china is ahead China is ahead of India in practically everything like Healthcare, military, education, economy, tourism, space, technology, infrastructure, sports and living standards. China's GDP $8.2 trillion with 7.5% growth vs India's GDP $1.9 trillion with 4.5% growth shows you which nation is ahead. Also, India has 1/3 of china's land size and can it sustain a population of 1.2 billion people which will overtake china's population in 2025. India first have to defeat her inner problems India had the most number of rape cases. The rapists almost goes unpunished, as justified by the numerous protests of 2012-2013 on hanging the rapists. Corruption filled India's political structure, making it a low risk high profit arena, as a result India is one of the most corrupted country in the world. Terrorism problems. Osama Bin Laden sure is dead, but AL-Qaeda ain't dead. Slums in India are famous after the movie Slumdog Millionaire, unfortunately, 99.9999% are nowhere near being a millionaire. Poo Poo everwhere as India is too poor to even construct public toilets. Just compare the Commonwealth games of 2010 to Beijing 2008 Olympics. You will know India cannot defeat China. India cant even compare to other lesser countries like Germany, Britain, Japan and France. Like what, the above has mentioned, India is ranked 10th in GDP. China does not compare itself with India.

Thank you for your proposed argument, since the Proposition did not offer the definition of defeat, then may I define it for him. Defeat = Overcome or beat. In this context, will India ever overcome or beat China's status in terms of economy, society, governance and military. The This is answer due to is several no. reasons:

Economic-wise China ranked 2th in terms of GDP vs India's rank 10th in 2012. At present, China's economy overwhelmingly surpass India's, but can India ever catch up? This is highly unlikely given the average Chinese economic growth stays at 7.5% in comparison with India's average economic growth of 4.5%. China having a larger economic output and growth at a larger an faster rate only means that the gap between India and China will be larger as time pass. As such in terms of economy, standards of living and wealth, India will not be able to defeat China in the foreseeable Future. Society China produces 29% of all higher education graduates compares to India's 12%. The future of a country depends on how educated their younger generations are. Since China's graduates is twice of India's, it is easy to see that China will have a higher number of skilled working population to deliver better results than India. Governance Proposition have stated an absurd remark that a non democratic form of government cannot create a superpower nation. Perhaps he would want to explain how Rome Empire, Ottoman Empire, Imperial China and Mongol Empire became superpowers with their non-democratic governments. India may be nominally the largest democracy in the world. But it is ruled by the caste system. China on the other hand, has 2 terms of 5 years each for each leadership transitions. Which is highly effective when compared to western democratic systems. In democratic countries such as the United States, debates of each policies would be slowed down, by the time it is released, numerous problems have arose because of this ineffectiveness of governance. As such, China's form of decision making, a top-down system, in the politburo standing committe the 7 members are able to pass down policies timely, in the times of a financial crisis or natural disaster, the policies can be passed down swiftly and productively. Military wise China spent 166 Billion in comparison with India's budget of 46 Billion in military. In fact, under USA's estimation, China's budget is actually way higher. As such China does even not compare itself with India, it has way surpassed India, in terms of economic, education, military due to the highly disciplined Chinese Central

government. I thank everyone for their time and attention given to my post. Thank you NEW DELHI: Surpassing China, India will become the world's largest economy by 2050, says a report. "China will overtake the US to become the world's largest economy by 2020, which in turn will be overtaken by India in 2050," according to Wealth Report 2012 by Knight Frank & Citi Private Bank.

Can the lumbering elephant overtake the hyperactive dragon? What appeared unthinkable for decades, if not for more than half a century, may actually happen soon, perhaps as early as next year. In 2010, the Indian economy may grow faster than that of China. What is more, experts contend that South Asia could expand at a more rapid pace than East Asia. While there is no dearth of sceptics who believe that China will continue to grow faster than any other major economy on the globe in the foreseeable future, there are others who contend that the trend growth rates of the two most populous nations could change and that India could march ahead of the Chinese economy just a little faster than many predict. China and The economy of India started India, accelerating from the early 1990s onwards accounting as Delhi loosened bureaucratic controls for over industry, trade and services roughly 40% of the 6.5bn plus people on Planet Earth, are not merely the two fastest growing major economies in the world at present, but are among the few countries that have continued to expand at a time when the economies of most countries have contracted. In the early 1950s, in terms of per capita income and levels of economic development, there was little to distinguish between China and India. Half the populations of both countries were mired in abject poverty - in India's case after centuries of colonial rule. From the 1970s, the Chinese economy started growing at a fast rate while India's economy grew sluggishly at an average rate of 3.5% - sarcastically described by the late economics professor Raj Krishna as the "Hindu rate of growth". As China grew by doubledigits decade after decade for nearly 40 years, economists kept claiming the bubble The World Bank predicts India will grow by would 8% in 2010 burst, that data was doctored by smart statisticians in Beijing - but the metaphorical dragon continued to grow bigger and bigger defying all expectations.

As per the report, Indian economy will reach $ 85.97 trillion size in terms of purchasing power parity by 2050, while the Chinese GDP would be $ 80.02 trillion during the same period. The US -- currently the world's largest economy -- is expected to have a GDP of $ 39.07 trillion by 2050. Other nations in the top ten list of world's largest economies would be Indonesia (4th), Brazil (5th), Nigeria (6th), Russia (7th), Mexico (8th), Japan (9th) and Egypt (10th). In terms of growth from 2010-2050, India would be the second fastest with its economy growing at the rate of eight per cent in the period. With a pace of 8.5 per cent, Nigeria would be the fastest growing economy during the same period, the report said. In 2010, India was world's fourth largest economy with a value of $ 3.92 trillion compared to China's $ 9.98 trillion and America's $ 14.12 trillion. The report named Surat and Nagpur among fast-growing cities to watch in 2050. "We believe the cities to watch in 2050 are the 400 emerging market middleweights - fast growing cities with populations between 200,000 and 10 million. "This dynamic group includes many cities that are not household names today: Linyi, Kelamayi and Guiyang in China; Surat and Nagpur in India; Concepcion and Belem in Latin America," it said.

The economy of India, on the other hand, started accelerating from the early 1990s onwards as Delhi loosened bureaucratic controls over industry, trade and services. In the middle of the 1990s, for the first time since India became independent in August 1947, the country's economy expanded by an annual average of more than 9% four years in succession, that is until the impact of the ongoing international recession saw the Indian economy decelerate. Economists argue that one reason why India's economy can grow faster than that of China in the near future is simply on account of what statisticians describe as a "base effect". Following this argument, India's growth rate is higher because the base on which the rate is calculated is narrower. China's economy is roughly three and a half times bigger than that of India - Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measured in US dollars in 2008 for the two countries stood at $4.2 trillion and $1.2 trillion respectively. But there is an important reason why India's economy has been hurt relatively less by the ongoing international economic recession in comparison to China, whose growth has been largely export-driven in recent decades. Exports and imports put together (including "invisible" earnings from tourists, workers' remittances and exports of services) account for approximately half of India's GDP whereas the comparable proportion for China is over 80%. Forecasts revised Two years ago, China overtook the US as India's largest trading partner. In late June, the World Bank in its Global Development Finance 2009 report projected that in 2010, the rate of growth of India's economy at 8% would be faster than that of China, expected to be 7.7%. The bank's forecast for the current year was revised upwards for both China (from 6.5% to 7.2%) and India (from 4% to 5.1%) but these prognostications are lower than those made by the governments of the respective countries. The Chinese government claims a rate of growth close to 8% for 2009, while various agencies of the Indian government would place the comparable figure at somewhere between 6.5% and 7%.

The bank report pointed out that the growth rate of all developing countries taken together had come down from 8.1% in East Asia is predicted to grow at a slower rate 2007 to than South Asia 5.9% in 2008 and is expected to be only 1.2% this calendar year. "When China and India are excluded, GDP (gross domestic product) in the remaining developing countries is expected to fall by 1.6%, causing continued job losses and throwing more people into poverty," the World Bank report stated. Justin Lin, the bank's chief economist, was quoted as saying that developing countries could "become a key driving force" in reviving the world's economy, "assuming their domestic investments rebound with international support, including a resumption in the flow of international credit". Mr Lin is not alone. Speaking at a recent seminar in Delhi, Ajay Chibber, Assistant Secretary General of the UN's Development Programme, said it would have unthinkable until recently that India could grow faster than China. "I never thought I would see it during my lifetime but South Asia could grow faster than East Asia," he remarked. Kalpana Kochhar, deputy director of the Asia Pacific department of the International Monetary Fund, told me that it was no longer improbable that India could grow faster than China or that South Asia would expand at a faster pace than East and South-East Asia. "I see these as distinct possibilities," she said. FDI in India, good or bad... There is a lot to be said for big retail to come to India, but we cannot simply be taken in and mimic something which is being pushed down our throats because those who make the policy appear to not have the faintest clue on how retail really works in India If there were clear answers in black and white to the question, there would really be no need for any debate on the issue, but the truth is that it is simply not that simple. On a philosophical and emotional level, the answer could be that any form of foreign participation in a domestic market is rife with dangers of the colonialism sort, but in

this day and age, while the core concept of being wary of foreign dominance may still be true, the fact remains that there are plenty of ways to ensure that it works on a winwin basis for all concerned. The main problem with the current status of foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail in India is that it does not provide a level playing field to other players of the domestic and small sort. In addition, it appears to take a rather naive and simplistic view on certain aspects, which like myths being repeated, tend to become urban legends. On the other hand, no country can afford to take on an isolationist approach. To start with, it may help to go through the background and policy note on the Cabinet decision on FDI in retail, as put up on various places on the internet. (Facebook, PIB) As this writer sees it, with a holistic view of the subject and not just based on jingoism of the burn down the malls (right view) and bad for farmers (left view) sort, but on rational evaluation of larger issues, there are some points which need to be straightened out. Large retail is inevitable, and that is a simple truth, but there has to be larger perspective for public good which seems to be missing from this policy. The people of India come first, including those who want a better product or service buying or selling experience, and at the end of the day it is their wallets which will decide where they go. But at the same time, the government, with the policy as outlined above, cannot sell the baby with the bath-water, and make things worse. Some suggestions: 1) The present Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act requires urgent revamp if we really want to help the rural and agricultural sectors with a better go to market scenario. This, along with rapid introduction of the goods and services tax (GST) as well as ease of inter- and intra-state movement of foodgrain, agri products and fresh produce, would do more to improve matters, as well as do wonders for our economy in a variety of waysmost of all in terms of controlling prices as well as reducing storage and transit losses. 2) The policy shown above makes a case that brands by big FDI retailers need to be carried across borders without in any way making it clear that the quality of those brands needs to be same across borders, too. As of now we see that with these manufacturers and retailers there is one lower quality for sale in India and there is a better quality for sale in developed countriescase in point being soft drinks, processed foods, confectionery, electronics, motor vehicles and others. If anything is by way of a different quality for India for price or other reasons, then let it be clearly marked as such. 3) Specifically in the case of packaged and processed foods, the policy does not say anything about adherence to best case scenarios in terms of labelling of ingredients and avoiding misleading marketing ploys, thereby leading to a situation where outright dangerous products are foisted on

Indian consumers. The amount of product detail available for consumers in developed countries must be matched for India, too. India cannot become a vast chemistry lab for processed foods or anything else. 4) More empirical data needs to be provided on subjects like improvement in supply chain. India is the country where the passenger rail ticket deliveries, fresh hot cooked food by dabbawallas and diamonds as well as other precious stones by angadias have set better than global standards in supply chains, so the same standards need to be quantified and applied to those seeking 100% FDI in retail. It is not too much to ask for them to match the Indian standardsunless those who made the policy are ashamed of our prowess. 5) The investments in retail by the FDI route, when they come, should come only through a short-list of recognised tax adherence countries. The misused option of FDI coming in through known or suspect tax havens needs to be blockedfirmly. Likewise, full disclosures of the strictest sort need to be made on who the investors areagain, these cannot be suitcase corporate identities hiding behind consultants and banks in shady tax havens or other countries. Unlike what happened in, for example, airlines, Indians need to know who is investing and from where. And in case there are legal issues, then we need to know who the faces are who will go through the Indian legal system, unless those who made the policy are ashamed of our legal system. 6) The payment processing and cash management as well as tax adherence part of this industry, both in terms of procurement and sale, need to be through the Indian banking system. And by fully transparent methods, so that float as well as control remains in India at all times, as is the case in developed countries. Proprietary payment processing and cash management methods of the sort that take this control out of India need to be firmly denied the FDI retailer needs to be on a level playing field here with other Indian domestic retailersinsistence on co-opting RuPAY needs to be part of this policy. 7) Since such huge benefits are being provided to these FDI retailers by India, it must be imperative that these large retailers subscribe and adhere to the RTI Act of India 2005 from day one, along with their first application. This will be in addition to all other requirements that other large retailers in India, like government controlled Canteen Stores Department (Armed Forces), Super Bazaar (ministry of urban development), central government and state government co-op stores, Khadi Bhandars, state emporia and others adhere toincluding best of breed hiring policies. 8) It appears that the policymakers subscribe to the view that more wastage is generated by the present retail system in India and that FDI will reduce wastage. Bearing in mind the huge problem that developed countries have with handling wastage especially of the packaging sort, it will be necessary to quantify this wastage from the outset itself,

instead of propagating further the myth that the Indian system generates more waste. And then control the said wastage, again, by defined means. 9) Supermarket design in India should be defined in such a way that fresh food and produce needs to be in front, unlike in other big box shops where it is right at the back or hidden along the sides, forcing people to walk through row after row of packaged and processed foods. This is very important if FDI in retail really means it when they say that they wish to bring the farmers produce to the customer with minimal transaction losses in between of the multiple middlemen sort. And finally, most importantly, 10) The big box FDI model in retail cannot be the reason to do away with the small shopkeeper earning his livelihood on the peripheries of the traditional marketplaces. The big retailer will have to, as policy, provide for space as well as timing to set up options like weekly haats and farmer's markets, either in parking lots or in specially designated stalls set aside for this. Certainly, there is a lot to be said for big retail to come to India, but we cannot simply be taken in and mimic something which is being pushed down our throats because those who make the policy appear to not have the faintest clue on how retail really works in India. The concept of big retail is inevitable, in some ways it is already there, but the way this present policy has been structured appears to be a sell-out of the worst sortdesigned to destroy the nations core competencies in trading. It will be a shame, as well as a major electoral issue, if the present policy is permitted to proceed along its current path. Because it is wide open and visible that it appears that the present retail FDI policy of the present government is to try and make big retail the only port of call for both seller and buyer. That, most certainly, spells death for the countrys independence. Advantages:-

Disadvantages:-

1. Domestic industries are seeking due to overflow of cheap products and monopoly which makes them uncomfortable to survive. 2. Political pressure always tries to control the flow of FDI to get advantages which create the obstacle in development. 3. Inflation is on high due to lower value of money, we have to pay high due to lack of money in the market because it is shifting to FDI companies. 4. Unethical behaviours like corruption, redtapism and selfishness is increasing day by day because of money matter for example Wal-Mart issue. 5. Our foreign dependency will be increased so it will affect our overall development in technology, agriculture, production etc. /

1. Sufficient flow of capital towards development in various sectors as well as revenue generation. 2. Improvement in technology and skill which reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of working process. 3. Increase in job opportunities in many sectors, resulted as uplifting in their life style and acceptability. 4. Infrastructure and administrative reforms which create effectiveness and accountability of nation. 5. Social and economic growth due to awareness from various sources like schools, colleges, constitutional body and information technology etc. which is possible due to FDI. 6. The healthy competition will increase, so at the end customer will be in profit.