There Is A Broad Consensus Among Afghans And International Observers That The Most I: Fill & Download for Free

A Pakistani political cartoonist, Sabir Nazar, made this during the whole Trump debacle and i think it captures the current situation pretty accurately:(Pakistan’s PM on the left)A lot of Pakistan’s strategic thinking around Afghanistan seems to reflect that we think the Afghan military mission in the War on Terror is about anything BUT the war on terror. The primary reason the US is parking so much troops, hardware and money in Afghanistan is a geopolitical ploy aimed at China in specific and the larger Eurasian economic integration involving China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia and so on in general. Or so the Pakistani viewpoint goes.A cursory view of American geopolitical thinking makes it clear that their interests in this region have long been defined by one, clear goal: To prevent the rise of a geographically large, Eurasian power with access to enough energy and raw material resources to challenge Western hegemony.>Origins of the Eurasian doctrineIt’s pretty strange to read world war 2 and pre-world war 2 era literature on American strategic thinking and see how it different it was from today’s Imperial paradigm.While American thinkers were quite clear that they wanted America to be the dominant power in the North American hemisphere (as demonstrated by the war with the Spanish), there was a strong element of restraint in their expansionary tendencies. This was partly due to the initial strategic leaders of America wanting to keep America a white majority nation, a goal that could be compromised by taking over too many territories with colored folk in them. And partly due to isolationism being a strong element in early American strategic thinking.It was around the time of the second world war, under Roosevelt that you can see the firm grounding of interventionism within American political belief:“There comes a time in the affairs of men,” he said, “when they must prepare to defend, not their homes alone, but the tenets of faith and humanity on which their churches, their governments, and their very civilization are founded. The defense of religion, of democracy, and of good faith among nations is all the same fight. To save one we must now make up our minds to save all.”-FDR Annual Address to Congress 1939Japan’s pearl harbor attack, solidified this belief into practice:The events of 1941 forced a fundamental reassessment not only of America’s global strategy but also of how to define America’s interests. Even as they waged the struggle against Germany and Japan, Roosevelt and his advisers during the war began thinking of how the postwar world ought to be shaped, and they took as their guide what they considered the lessons of the previous two decades.The first had to do with security. The Japanese attack had proved that vast oceans and even a strong navy no longer provided adequate defense against attack. More broadly, there was the realization—or rather the rediscovery—of an old understanding: that the rise of a hostile hegemonic power on the Eurasian landmass could eventually threaten America’s core security interests as well as its economic well-being. As a corollary, there was the “lesson of Munich”: would-be aggressors in Eurasia had to be deterred before they became too strong to be stopped short of all-out war.Superpowers Don’t Get to RetirePearl Harbour and the American experience in World War 2 were the genesis of a line of thinking in American circles that rising Eurasian powers must be dealt with pre-emptively before they become a threat to the United States or are in position to challenge it’s hegemony.As Roosevelt put it, to “end future wars by stepping on their necks before they grow up.”The role of the world economy and quest for control of strategic raw material resources like Oil by Eurasian emerging powers, economic crashes and military tension was also permanently imprinted on American psyche. Before, the US could rely on a fairly internalized economic system involving tolls, local resources etc and thus had little interest in shaping the world economy. Post WW2 however, the concept of enforcing a kind of stability on the world market (that favored the US of course) to prevent the rise of revisionist, warmongering demagogues came into mainstay.The economic philosophy would be that the developing world “specialize” in producing raw materials only while the core technical expertise and finished product capability remain solely under the 1st world nations in the capitalist market system. Unexpected successes like Japan, Singapore and South Korea were met with irritation is some US quarters initially but ultimately accepted as products of the Western, Capitalist systems superiority. There was also the fact that these tiny nations were satellites of the US during the cold war and presented no threat to their regional role, and hence were accepted as economic powerhouses.Evolution under Mackinder, Brzezinski and other thinkersIt’s important for us Pakistanis to dip a little into the vast and complex world of American strategic thinkers to get some more insight into what shapes US policy in Afghanistan. I’ve often found the works of Mackinder and Brzezinski (among others) to be quite illustrative of what exactly the US is trying to achieve in Asia at large, and the Afghan/Central Asian region in particular.Brzezinski is one of the most notable writers in this regard and his book, the Grand Chessboard almost seems like a playbook for US policy in the region.Eurasia is the world's axial super continent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy.Z. Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Importance (Basic Books: New York 1997) p. 223.Mackinder's main concern was to warn his compatriots about the declining naval power of the United Kingdom, which had been the dominant naval power since the age of the revolutionary maritime discoveries of the fifteenth century. He proceeded to expand on the possibility of consolidated land-based power that could allow a nation to control the Eurasian landmass between Germany and Central Siberia. If well served and supported by industry and by modern means of communication, a consolidated land power controlling the Heartland could exploit the region's rich natural resources and eventually ascend to global hegemony. Mackinder summed up his ideas with the following words: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island (Europe, Arab Peninsula, Africa, South and East Asia), who rules the World-Island commands the World.”Halford Mackinder, Democratic Ideals and Reality(London: Constable and Company 1919) p. 113.Mackinder’s treatise was further developed by other strategic thinkers as well who redefined some of the regions of interest that the US would need to control in order to prevent or contain the rise of such a Eurasian power but kept the central concept of preventing the rise of said power the same:Nicholas Spykman was among the most influential American political scientists in the 1940s. Spykman's Rimlands thesis was developed on the basis of Mackinder's Heartland concept. In contrast to Mackinder's emphasis on the Eurasian Heartland, Spykman offered the Rimlands of Eurasia – that is, Western Europe, the Pacific Rim and the Middle East. According to him, whoever controlled these regions would contain any emerging Heartland power.Brian W. Blouet, ‘Halford Mackinder and the Pivotal Heartland’, in Brian W. Blouet (Ed.), Global Geostrategy: Mackinder and the Defence of the West (London: Frank Cass Publishers 2005) p. 6.The core thinking of strategic thinkers like Mackinder would be reflected in the thinking of Cold War era strategists as they shaped US policy towards the containment and ultimate disintegration of the USSR. One of the most notable among these was Brzezinski, whose views can be found in his illuminating book The Grand Chessboard:That Eurasian “megacontinent,” Brzezinski observed, “is just too large, too populous, culturally too varied, and composed of too many historically ambitious and politically energetic states to be compliant toward even the most economically successful and politically preeminent global power.” Washington, he predicted, could continue its half-century dominion over the “oddly shaped Eurasian chessboard -- extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok” only as long as it could preserve its unchallenged “perch on the Western periphery,” while the vast “middle space” does not become “an assertive single entity," and the Eastern end of the world continent did not unify itself in a way that might lead to “the expulsion of America from its offshore bases.” Should any of these critical conditions change, Brzezinski warned prophetically, “a potential rival to America might at some point arise.”Chapter 2, The Grand Chessboard (Eurasia) by Zbigniew BrzezinskiThe Modern EraAfter the collapse of the USSR, the US enjoyed the role of being the sole superpower on the planet. Victorious, their goals shifted more towards the role of maintaining the new Western lead, neo-liberal world order of globalization, free trade, democracy, human rights and western ideals that were expected to sweep across the planet in the absence of any viable challenge to their adoption. After all, Communism had failed to withstand the test of time. The cold war had ended decisively in the US’s favor. And so the focus shifted more towards ensuring and maintaining a globalized system that would nurture the spread and adoption of western ideals of capitalism, free trade and democracy. US foreign interventionism, rather than ending, took on a different shape in areas like Kosovo, Somalia and so on.We ended up in a curious state where a Globalist bi-partisan platform for foreign interventions was forged: The Neo-liberal order wanted foreign interventions to spread Western ideals across the goal through regime change, covert operations and even military action. The Neo-Conservative order wanted foreign interventions to remove hostile regimes (mostly ex-USSR aligned satellite states), continue the US effort to control vital energy and trade routes in order to deny them to hostile powers and pursue the traditional course of ensuring no large Eurasian entity emerged that could challenge the US writ across the planet. But the Globalist platform agreed that US interventionism across the planet to ensure it’s “stability” was a must. Which is why we have seen the Democratic party under President Obama pursue the same regime change policies as their previous Bush administration, only with different methods, in Libya and Syria. The US “Deep state” establishment of strategic advisers, military officials and Pentagon bureaucrats who subscribe to roughly the same strategic mindset and advice elected officials on US foreign policy have largely ensured that US foreign engagements and activities subscribe to the same long term plan regardless of who gets elected. With some notable exceptions such as Obama’s push back against the generals leading his war effort and Steve Cannon's ultimately unsuccessful isolationist push against Imperial ambitions.As the only superpower remaining after the dismantling of the Soviet bloc, the United States is inserting itself into the strategic regions of Eurasia and anchoring US geopolitical influence in these areas to prevent all real and potential competitions from challenging its global hegemony. The ultimate goal of US strategy is to establish new spheres of influence and hence achieve a much firmer system of security and control that can eliminate any obstacles that stand in the way of protecting its imperial power. The intensified drive to use US military dominance to fortify and expand Washington's political and economic power over much of the world has required the reintegration of the post-Soviet space into the US-controlled world economy. The vast oil and natural gas resources of Eurasia are the fuel that is feeding this powerful drive, which may lead to new military operations by the United States and its allies against local opponents as well as major regional powers such as China and RussiaV. K. Fouskas and B.Gökay, The New American Imperialism: Bush's War on Terror and Blood for Oil(Westport, CT: Praeger Security International 2005) p. 29.The first historical dimension of our strategy … is the conviction that the United States' most basic national security interests would be endangered if a hostile state or group of states were to dominate the Eurasian landmass – that part of the globe often referred to as the world's heartland … since 1945, we have sought to prevent the Soviet Union from capitalizing on its geostrategic advantage to dominate its neighbors in Western Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and thereby fundamentally alter the global balance of power to our disadvantage.National Security Strategy of the United States (April 1988)US Grand Strategy had the task of achieving nothing less than the shaping of new political and economic arrangements and linkages across the whole Eurasia. The goal was to ensure that every single major political centre in Eurasia understood that its relationship with the United States was more important than its relationship with any other political centre in Eurasia. If that could be achieved, each such centre would be attached separately by a spoke to the American hub: primacy would be securedPeter Gowan, ‘The New American Century?’, in Ken Coates (ed.), The Spokesman: The New American Century(Nottingham: Spokesman Publisher 2002) p. 13.And of course: the infamous pre-emptive doctrine. Signalling that the US would not wait to be attacked,nor would it await for a rival to rise against it.The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security … the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC: The White House Sept. 2002) p.15.The role of the Afghan war in geopolitical maneuvering against China’s OBOR and other Chinese-lead Eurasian economic integration projectsThe United State’s opinion of OBOR and China’s grand Eurasian Economic integration project has been dim at best.The political objective of the US government is to prevent energy transport unification among the industrial zones of Japan, Korea, China, Russia, and the EU in the Eurasian landmass and ensure the flow of regional energy resources to US-led international oil markets without any interruptions.The US Grand Strategy and the Eurasian Heartland in the Twenty-First Century, Emre İşeri 2009The US views China’s attempts to forge a continental economy in partnership with dozens of nations on 3 continents, partnership with key regional players like Russia, Iran and Turkey and development of Chinese lead international organizations like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (which is already supplanting the IMF in key financing projects in countries like Pakistan) and the SCO as nothing more than a geopolitical threat to American Hegemony across the planet.In a bid to realize Mackinder’s vision a century later, China has set out to unify Eurasia economically through massive construction financed by loans, foreign aid, and a new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank that has already attracted 57 members, including some of Washington’s staunchest allies. With $4 trillion in hard-currency reserves, China has invested $630 billion of it overseas in the last decade, mostly within this tri-continental world island.Tomgram: Alfred McCoy, Maintaining American Supremacy in the Twenty-First CenturyWe can go into the whole philosophy of great power politics and the complex interpretations of the Thucydides Trap of US-Chinese relations and how the established power will always fear a rising power, leading to tension and potential war between the two.But in short: The US views the large scale energy, transport and infrastructure investments of China and it’s increasing access to energy, raw materials and market resources across multiple continents and see the same “Large Eurasian hegemon” their Geo strategic doctrine warns them about. Their strategic doctrine advises them that if OBOR is completed successfully, China would become the large Eurasian power that has traditionally challenged Western hegemony by developing its control over the abundant resources of Eurasia. A re-incarnation of old Eurasian foes like the Imperial Japanese empire and the USSR.Borders have become increasingly ossified and not as prone to changing as they were before, so rather than seeing a singular geographical entity expand it’s borders across the planet, the US sees OBOR and SCO like large economic and strategic frameworks as the Eurasian level threat to it’s hegemony that it has traditionally guarded against.And it has guarded against such a threat through encirclement, denial of resources in Eurasia and fostering instability in it’s backyard.The Trump administration itself is quiet open about a lot of this citing China’s access to Afghan mineral wealth as a major irritant for US policy makers, almost echoing the Cheney era concern over Iraq’s oil and in whose hands it would end up if the US didn’t take action to control it.Oil and gas are not just commodities traded on international markets. Control over territory and its resources are strategic assets.M. P. Amineh and H. Houweling, ‘Caspian Energy: Oil and Gas Resources and the Global Market’, in M. P. Amineh and H. Housweling (eds.), Central Eurasia in Global Politics: Conflict, Security and Development (Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers 2004) p. 82.As the figure below shows, the US has managed to set up a limited containment of China on the south and east using her own naval power as well as US allies or partners in the region. The TPP too was, as a trading agreement, designed to cut down the Chinese economic footprint in the region by offering up a bit of the US’s economic pie to regional companies (by more outsourcing of jobs and industry from the US to South East Asia via business middle men) until the then anti-globalist Trump gutted the agreement under the auspice of Economic Nationalism.Source: Are China and the US doomed to conflict? | Kevin Rudd, TEDThe problem for the US of course is the vast South Western frontiers of China that are open for OBOR energy and transport investments and are too inland to be impacted by US naval forces.At which point the US military presence in Afghanistan comes into play. Sure we’ll get the neo-liberal narrative about Nation building for the Afghans, emancipation of women and fighting terrorism etc. But if you think the US spends trillions of dollars in a war to teach Afghans the merits of democracy and to fight cave rebels in a land thousands of kms away from the US homeland…well, then we just have a different perspective of things.Afghanistan is the US’s only major military deployment in the Eurasian region closest to China’s western near-abroad. And this is a key element of the difference in perspective between how the Afghan war is presented to western audiences and how it’s perceived in Pakistan. On this side of the border, people have long stopped believing the Afghan war is anything about terrorism and nation building. It’s a geo-political ploy to deny space and stability to the rising Eurasian powers. It’s a straight up, power play to disrupt the energy, infrastructure and raw material linkages being forged across Eurasia under projects like OBOR and to the benefit of major regional players like China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Turkey.As Pepe Escobar notes, “The lexicon of the Bush doctrine of unilateral world domination is laid out in detail by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), founded in Washington in 1997. The ideological, political, economic and military fundamentals of American foreign policy – and uncontested world hegemony – for the 21st century are there for all to see.” The official credo of PNAC is to convene “the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests”. The origin of PNAC can be traced to a controversial defence policy paper drafted in February 1992 by then Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and later softened by Vice President Dick Cheney which states that the US must be sure of “deterring any potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role” without mentioning the European Union, Russia, and China. Nevertheless, the document Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century released by PNAC gives a better understanding of the Bush administration's unilateral aggressive foreign policy and “this manifesto revolved around a geostrategy of US dominance – stating that no other nations will be allowed to ‘challenge’ US hegemony”.From this perspective, it can be assumed that American wartime (the US-led wars in Afghanistan ( The events of 11 September 2001 gave the US opportunity to impose its terms on Afghanistan to make oil business. The US acquired many things with its first strike of the war on terror to Afghanistan. It opened the way for an environment to build a ring of permanent US military bases from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, which are deep inside the post-Soviet space. Moreover, talks began between the US and Pakistan to build a north-south pipeline from the Caspian region to Pakistan's Arabia Sea through Afghanistan. A deal was quietly signed in early January 2003, with no international press fanfare - see W. Engdahl, A Century of War) and Iraq) and peacetime (political support for costly Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline project) strategies all serve the US grand strategy in the twenty-first century. A careful eye will detect that all of these strategies have a common purpose of enhancing American political control over the Eurasian landmass and its hydrocarbon resources.As Fouskas and Gökay have observed,“As the only superpower remaining after the dismantling of the Soviet bloc, the United States is inserting itself into the strategic regions of Eurasia and anchoring US geopolitical influence in these areas to prevent all real and potential competitions from challenging its global hegemony. The ultimate goal of US strategy is to establish new spheres of influence and hence achieve a much firmer system of security and control that can eliminate any obstacles that stand in the way of protecting its imperial power. The intensified drive to use US military dominance to fortify and expand Washington's political and economic power over much of the world has required the reintegration of the post-Soviet space into the US-controlled world economy. The vast oil and natural gas resources of Eurasia are the fuel that is feeding this powerful drive, which may lead to new military operations by the United States and its allies against local opponents as well as major regional powers such as China and Russia.”The US Grand Strategy and the Eurasian Heartland in the Twenty-First CenturyPakistan’s role in all of thisSo given this entire body of literature which seems to shed light on a completely different set of intentions on the part of the United states with regards to their objectives in Afghanistan, perhaps the question we Pakistanis need to ask is: “How do you REALLY feel, America?”When the Elephants lock horns in the jungle, the Fox has little say on that matter. At the moment, the US is locking horns with some extremely powerful countries like China and Russia over Afghanistan due to the larger power struggle taking place between the old, established power of the US and the rising power of China.Let’s eat some humble pie at this table and admit that Pakistan simply does not have the economic, military, diplomatic and political clout to affect the course of collision between these enormously powerful nations (And no, this isn’t the late 70s where we can pull off a geo-strategic coup like we did when we served as a gateway for a thaw between US-Chinese relations during the cold war).But what Pakistan can control in it’s limited capacity, and what would serve the most useful purpose in preventing cross border insurgent movement, is the fencing of the Afghan border:Army commences fencing Pak-Afghan border in trouble zonesPakistan Takes Unilateral Steps Toward Afghan Border SecurityBorder management: Pakistan starts fencing Afghan border to curb infiltration - The Express TribuneLeaving aside the buttload of military operations on our side of the border against the Taliban, Its almost funny how the world’s largest superpower, at the height of it’s 100,000 man deployment and all it’s technical wizardry for some reason decided NOT to secure the Afghan border with Pakistan using a fence, an action that would have gone a long way towards curbing cross border terrorism. It’s fallen on Pakistan to do so using her own limited resources. And the Afghans actually oppose this move diplomatically despite the clear cost it presents to Afghan and US forces in the region.It’s also curious how Pakistan offered to coordinate anti-terror operations like Zarb-e-Azb on their side of the border with Afghan and US forces on their side, they were met with refusal. The Paks wanted to form a vice around the terrorists factions with the Pakistan army pushing from the east and the Afghan/US waiting in the west to mop up fleeing rebels. The refusal of ISAF/Afghan forces to cooperate ended up with the result that when those groups were driven out of their hideouts in the tribal areas, they sought refuge in Afghanistan instead. And continued to attack targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan from there (some relocated to Syria as well).And of course, then we have the cases of Afghan intelligence palling around with some of the Taliban factions they deem as strategic assets to them.U.S. Disrupts Afghans’ Tack on MilitantsUS disrupts Afghan bid to court Pakistani militantsFar from convincing Pakistan to tackle militants, the US can’t even manage it’s own backyard and stop the Afghan’s nexus with militants. Some of whom are actively engaged in fighting American troops. With the ironic consequence that the US is trying to convince Pakistan to stop it’s support for the Afghan Taliban who are attacking the Afghan state while the Afghan state develops nexus with Taliban factions who are involved in attacks on Pakistan and US forces in Afghanistan…This had lead to the state of affairs where several in Pakistan not only doubt the US’s commitment to fighting terror in Afghanistan, but also to doubt whether the US wishes to have stability in the region in the first place. Their current military-focused mission has now introduced ISIS into the mix besides the Taliban and the insurgency is beginning to spread into Central Asia. It almost seems convenient how instability and violence would affect those very regions where China’s OBOR projects are being implemented.But Pakistan’s policy decision to ignore the Afghan Taliban and not tackle them directly in hopes of a long term political solution has its own problems.You see the same way the Pakistani Taliban factions have an allegiance to Afghan Taliban, the Afghan Taliban also have links to the Pakistani Taliban. There are limits to the level of cooperation one can expect from the Taliban. They have their own ideological and political goals that they have fought 16 years for against one of the most premier military powers on the planet. It’s doubtful they will compromise them for Pakistan, a fact that several ISI officers have admitted publicly: Pakistan has only limited control and leverage over the Taliban.Even the current “safe haven” doctrine that US officials love to throw at Pakistan is more of a “look the other way” doctrine. Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran are all stuck with the reality of the Taliban.If the US couldn’t defeat them with 100,000 troops and military hardware of an unparalleled scope, drone strikes across FATA (the very safe havens they claim unable to hit) and unparalleled covert intelligence capability cant bring them to the negotiating table, then what exactly are the rest of us supposed to do? Take up the US’s quagmire instead?Remember: The US can easily wrap up and walk away from the Afghan mission whenever they want. Look how many U-turns and doublespeak administrations engage in and how electoral cycles bring massive changes to US policy on a whim. And there’s precedent as well: The US walked away from Afghanistan after the first Afghan war ended in the late 80s, early 90s. Once the US public and US administration have lost interest or gained too much “fatigue” , they have a tendency to jump ship. The only thing keeping them in Afghanistan right now despite all the lost blood and treasure is their worry over the Eurasian level OBOR project and the growing economic and military nexus of countries like Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran under either economic cooperation frameworks or regional cooperation bodies like the SCO. Sure, they may talk about terrorism and nation building and Afghan women in miniskirts to sell the war back home. And to maybe get some neo-liberal votes on the Afghan mission and make it a bi-partisan effort. But the realist interpretation of the conflict is always about power and the attempts of nations to have more of it at the expense of others.The US has gone from one flawed strategy to the next in the Afghan war. Just as they grossly misread the situation in Iraq and insisted on de-Baathification and disbanding of the Iraqi military which sparked a civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives: the Afghan mission too was filled with blunders from the get-go. The Pakhtun majority were sidelined in favor of the Northern Alliance allies who were composed mostly of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. This however could have been easily resolved with a more devolved system of government in Afghanistan which would have given each ethnic group enough autonomy to not be threatened by the other.Instead, the US in a bid to rush their agenda in Afghanistan, pushed for a strong central puppet government in Afghanistan , something Hamid Karzai himself was quite supportive of given his micromanaging tendencies (he even insisted on appointing school headmasters himself). This bypassed the Afghan custom of a tribal jirga where tribal elders would sit together, discuss and come to a consensus on issues.When the US committed the faux pass of yet another political blunder due to lack of understanding of Afghan customs and bypassed Jirgas for their centralized form of government in order to concentrate power in the hands of a puppet, you can bet the Taliban exploited it.And of course: Rather than acknowledging these blunders that have fed the Taliban, Imperial hubris demands that Pakistan be blamed instead.Which leads us to the most overlooked fact in this conflict: The Taliban enjoy some significant levels of support within the Afghan populace. You don’t end up in control of nearly 60% of the country side without help from the populace. This was due to the political, cultural and social blunders committed by the ISAF occupation. The same kind of blunders they committed in Iraq which set off a decade of insurgency, civil war and instability in the region that would later spread to neighboring countries.We’ve seen the limits of military approaches to these problems. The Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan and Syrian Quagmires have demonstrated that political resolutions are imperative to end conflicts like this before they drag on to the point that instability spreads from one nation into the entire region.There’s the problem of “Fragmentation” as well: The longer the US fights the Taliban, the more the group fragments from a structure political entity into a more fragmented, radicalized entity that consists of more extreme militants and more extreme ideologies like ISIS that make the political solution exceedingly difficult.The US missed an immense chance in their newly announced Afghan strategy when they failed to make ISIS the center piece of it and just announced more of the same old Afghan war with higher troop commitments and longer time tables (also signalling that the commitment might be open ended with no end date). Nearly every regional player in Afghanistan, including the Afghans and even the Taliban are opposed to the growing ISIS presence in Afghanistan. ISIS is a beast that cannot be negotiated with. The US would have opened a platform for a fresh round of regional dialogue on resolving the Afghan war if they had made countering Daesh the center piece of their new Afghan strategy. The handing over of major foreign policy issues to War Generals in his cabinet has also meant that President Trump has militarized nearly all key foreign policy subjects in his domain from North Korean, Syria to Afghanistan, further driving away all regional partners in Afghanistan who believe only a political solution is the way forward.The inner turmoil of the White house with new, nationalist elements like Bannon being ousted has also not gone unnoticed. Bannon opposed the Afghan war (similar to Trump during the campaign) and wanted to pull back America from it’s globalist Imperial domineering to a more nationalist narrative and was critical of the Globalists who were in favor of the Empire Americia narrative that wanted Americian involvement in Asia to prevent Eurasian economic integration under China. Bannon’s ouster has signaled Americas intentions clearly: The US will remain committed to it’s global hegemonic role and will actively pursue policies that hinder the rise of any power that challenges their writ across the planet.This new policy has meant only one thing: Rather than Pakistan, America is increasingly isolated in Afghanistan. Only India, which supports Afghan regime has signaled their support for it. Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan are all in talks with the Taliban and pushing for a political resolution of the conflict. 16 years of constant war has dimmed their opinion of anny military solution in Afghanistan. When Xi Jinping spoke at the multi nation OBOR conference, he highlighted stability above all else as the key to achieving success in OBOR. A political solution which involves the willful cessation of hostilities by all sides is the key to achieving such a stable equilibrium.The “sanctuaries” in Pakistan are actually just Pakistan not taking up arms against the major Afghan Taliban factions because it knows that’s the quickest way to burn the political resolution bridge. The Americans can pack up and leave but we’re the ones stuck with the Taliban. If we attack them now at the US’s behest and 3 years from now Trump gets booted and a new administration takes place and decides on a pullout….we’re screwed. And not only that, if the US can’t handle the Taliban with all their super power gadgetry, what can the Pakistan military do in their place?As mentioned earlier, it was mostly political blunders that allowed a Taliban insurgency to gain ground in Afghanistan. It’s only going to be political weaponry that defuses the conflict as well. We’re not stirring this nest at the US behest only for the US to in turn: turn tail, refuse the use of military force in favor of a political solution, refusal to address the concerns of regional actors. This is cold calculation: Nearly every regional actor is now in favor for a political resolution and is talking to the Taliban: the Chinese, Russians, Iranians and even Turkey for some reason. What will we have to gain from attacking the Afghan Taliban except for when one of their factions attack us?The US, whether out of imperial hubris or geo-strategic calculation, still refused to acknowledge this and intends on pursuing the military option with the result that ISIS is finding a growing foothold here and spreading it's influence to Central Asia, The south western hinterlands of Pakistan, Iran’s northern borders and Chinas western flanks.One must wonder whether US policy makers are still viewing Islamist rebels as a foreign policy tool to be wielded as pawns for disruption hostile powers in Eurasia. Because that’s the only end result of a continued military mission in Afghanistan.ConclusionCurrently the Taliban have refused to negotiate till the US presence is withdrawn from Afghanistan (something a lot of regional actors in the region would like to see as well).In light of this, There are some criticisms and realities that Pakistan needs to accept as well in the way forward:We cannot control the Taliban. Not as proxies nor as paid thugs. They are a political entity with it’s own life force that has support from the populace in certain regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We should be wary of them.Pakistan must be aware that the ideology which lends support to to the Taliban has a presence in some segments of Pakistan’s society, political parties and even the armed forces.Just as we do not want the Taliban to rule over us, we cannot force the Afghans to live under their rule as well.We cannot make our Afghan strategy “Security centric” or “India centric”. Look around our own neighborhood. Every time a foreign power tries to dictate how it’s weaker neighbors forge relations with other powers: it ultimately ends up alienating it’s weaker neighbor and drives them into their hostile power’s arms. We cannot make the same mistake and must acknowledge that the Afghans are free to forge relations with who ever they want, including India.The Afghan war’s resolution is linked to the Indo-Pak peace process the same way it’s linked to larger regional struggles liike the one between US and Russia/China/Irann. Pursuit of the Indo-Pak peace process hastens the resolution of the Afghan war as well.A dysfunctional political system that does not respect regional autonomy breeds political violence. A political system that imposes centralization and non-democratic means of political representation opens the doors for dissent and armed rebellion.Socio-economic problems at the grassroots level form breeding grounds for extremism. While a political solution must be pushed for, it must be accompanied with some semblance of socio economic progress as the Taliban exploit political dysfunction, lack of democratic culture and poverty to further their agenda.With this in mind, Pakistan needs to adopt an approach that emphasizes compromise, give and take and resolution of disputes in Afghanistan. We must continue a cautious approach of guarding ourselves against the Taliban while acknowledging that continued military action against them has limited effectiveness in the face of Afghan proxy wars and ineffective military campaigns.We must continue to push for a political solution to the Afghan conflict and oppose the US’s continue militarized approach in the country which is fueling instability and spreading terrorism to Central Asia, Pakistan, Iran and China.We must also push for regional actors to resolve disputes among themselves. The Quadrilateral Coordination Group of US-China-Pakistan-Afghanistan was a good start along with the Gulf peace talks. It needs to be expanded and should now consist of US-China-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India-Russia and Iran. Turkey and Central Asian neighbors can also have observer status. And of course, the Taliban will have representatives as well. The US must commit to a ceasefire for the duration of talks.I cannot emphasis this enough: All regional actors must negotiate their issues in Afghanistan to put an end to the constant proxy conflict in the region and put an end to the Syranization of the war. One of the key problems prolonging the conflict are the different competing interests of regional powers in Afghanistan. We have the Pakistan-Indian proxy war, the Russian and Chinese wariness of a US presence in their backyard, the Iranian hostility to the US regime. Until and unless all of these regional players work out a binding agreement between them that satisfies them all, this whole venture will be for nothing.The US must commit to an end to the military mission and the Taliban must commit to disarmament, following which they will join the electoral process in Afghanistan as a political entity rather than a military one. Pakistan must insist on this disarmament and integration into electoral politics. The TTP factions in Pakistan broke several political pledges when they were left armed and thus the Afghan Taliban must commit to disarmament failing which they should be acted against by all regional partners.Pakistan needs to delink its relations with Afghanistan from India. Looking at Afghanistan from a security lens only must end. The military has insisted on controlling foreign policy due to which we cannot see Afghanistan from a non-security perspective at all. This needs to end and firm civilian control over the foreign ministry needs to be established. The military must be a stake holder, not the sole arbitrator. Our Afghan policies problems stem too much from our political leaders refusal to take up their role in decision making in foreign policy and terrorism related aspects as they remain engaged in domestic electoral contests and vote gathering rather than keeping an eye on regional issues as well. Civilian leaders have completely abandoned policy making on the Afghan front to the security establishment which has also hindered Pakistan from playing a more effective role in the resolution of the Afghan conflict as it views the issue too heavily through a security lens.The Indo-Pak peace process must be pursued and at the same time a clear framework for Indo-Pak interests in Afghanistan outlined to prevent suspicion and conflict. Similar frameworks should be worked out between other regional partners as well.If the US insists on staying and pursuing their military policy, that’s on them. There is a growing nationalist sentiment in the US which opposes the globalist war in Afghanistan and want to re-assert their America first narrative instead, take America back to the pre-WW2 isolationism (the fact that they consist of White supremacists and Neo-Nazis is America’s problem not ours). This movement is growing stronger day by day whether the US chooses to acknowledge this or not and the momentum is against the Americans domestically which is why they are issuing such statements about Afghanistan at the moment, to push their agenda fast. American attempts to drawn in foreign partners like India into their military foray also don’t seem to be bearing fruit as the Indians have decided not to commit troops and money to an open ended military mission in Afghanistan. The death of the TPP also signals the limits of American Imperial power: The US public is tired of the strategic entanglements of the US Globalists who have gutted the economy through high defense spending, trade agreements with nations more for containment of hostile powers than any real benefit back home and constant wars that have exhausted precious blood and treasure. Trump is just the tip of the iceberg of this domestic push back against the globalist narrative that pushes for US entanglements abroad. The clock and public opinions are against the US in this regard should they choose to prolong the Afghan war further.In the mean time, all regional partners are coalescing around a common position to reach a political settlement with the Taliban and Afghan government on the sidelines, perhaps without the US.A stable Afghan state with a ceasefire between a disarmed Taliban and the Afghan state with a functioning democracy that the Taliban choose to partake in and a regional framework agreement between Iran, India, Pakistan, China, Russia and Afghanistan that forms the basis of mutual cooperation and respect for each other’s interest is the best possible way forward.Sure, blowing stuff up with drones and the mother of bombs sounds way cooler to some. It just doesn’t work as 16 years have shown.A stable and peaceful Afghanistan has always been in the best interest of Pakistan which has long suffered from refugees, terrorism and illegal drugs and weapons flowing from across its western border. The stabilization of the Afghan state under a political framework that establishes peace with the Taliban and peace between competing regional interests sounds dull as hell but it might be our only path at this point.The only problem of course would be the US’s refusal at this point. Which could mean that either the rest of us have to work around the US (as the world is increasingly learning to do from environmental change, trade agreements and defense cooperation etc) or the rest of us have to leave the Afghan war in it’s current momentum as it continues to leave the US increasingly isolated in the region.We’ve already seen from history, several key lessons in the Afghan context. The Soviets security paranoia about Afghanistan that lead to assassinating Afghan leaders and leaving a political void that fueled an insurgency in Afghanistan. The Communists pushing too hard and fast on reforms without compromise that ended up unifying the opposition. The worsening of the crises in Egypt and Syria due to the leaderships role of violently suppressing moderate Islamic parties rather than politically accommodating them as valid representatives of conservative portions of society. Pakistan’s attempts to impose a military solution in East Pakistan and Baluchistan and its dismal failure. How the political settlement and democratic resolution of Baloch issues under the PPP government lead to rebels laying down arms and joining the political process.Like it or not, but the Taliban have proven that they might be here to stay. Their rise has more to do with political dysfunction in the Afghan state, ideological opposition to US forces in a Muslim nation and socio-economic backwardness in many Afghan areas. The Taliban will never go anywhere till foreign forces agree to withdraw from Afghanistan and a resolution of ethnic political conflict and lack of opportunities is formulated for Afghanistan. In turn, the Taliban must disarm and join the political process of the Afghan nation. It might be time to re-consider the Call of Duty approach to the Afghan conflict and start to take a serious look at what’s driving Afghans into the hands of the Taliban. Does the Jirga system need to be incorporated into the Afghan political system? Is the election system widely accepted as free and fair? Is aid money and development projects actually improving the lives of Afghans? Are ethnic tensions being reduced in the country? Are foreign powers sabotaging the peace process? Will resentment over the occupation decrease if foreign forces are withdrawn?The answers to those boring questions will go a longer way towards solving the Taliban insurgency problem that a thousand Mother of all Bombs. If anything, this process might atleast splinter the insurgent movement and allow us to siphon off factions that want to rejoin the political process while isolating hard core militants that reject all offers of peace and political settlement(thus making them the sole focus of military operations amidst an increasingly more pro-state population under the light of political resolution to conflicts).We cannot remain trapped to the whims of a power that sits 2 Oceans away from us and whose changing domestic politics lend an air of uncertainty to their aims. At the same time, we cannot let the wounds of Afghanistan fester due to continuous war. We must not get dragged into a second round of war with the Taliban on the US’s whims which leads to nowhere and must press for a political solution not just between the Taliban and Afghans, but between regional players as well. We must not think the Taliban our friends or proxies but must isolate them if they violate political solution. Disarmament, joining the political process and ensuring stability must be cornerstones of the Taliban peace deal. ISIS must remain uprooted from the region. Indo-Pak and Indo-Chinese and other regional competitions must be resolved to end proxy wars in Afghanistan.Edit #1 Update on the situation:http://www.atimes.com/article/pakistan-trumps-new-us-strategy-afghanistan/Edit # 2: BRICS 2017 Summit. It seems atleast one of the regional proxy tensions in the form of China-India might on a track towards resolution. Could fresh round of Indo-Pak peace talks or negotiations under the Chinese be possible?BRICS summit: LeT, JeM ‘threat to regional peace’ - The Express Tribune

Economic PolicyUltimately, this is something that will have to be evaluated on balance, not something for which we can point to a specific month or year of Singh's 10 years in office and say, "look, India's economy was bad this month/year." Certainly that says nothing about the broader effects of Singh's policies. Rather, what seems most prudent, is to look at his entire 10 years in office as a single block of time, and to analyze the economy and what occurred therein during that time as a whole.During those 10 years at Number 7 Race Course Road, New Delhi, Singh has made some absolutely fantastic economic achievements. "On his watch India’s economy more than doubled in size, as growth averaged over 8% until two years ago. The World Bank on April 29th ranked India’s economy as the world’s third-largest, replacing Japan’s (using purchasing-power parities). Elsewhere, a civil-nuclear deal with America brought benefits, notably imported uranium. And he had the grit to reduce huge subsidies on petrol and diesel," as well.Additionally, "poverty reduction is the greatest success story of the post-1991 period. Both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population, the number of Indians in poverty has fallen significantly, from 47% in 1990 to 22% in 2010. Singh deserves his share of the credit for that.Indeed, poverty reduction is one of Singh greatest triumphs."Helping the most impoverished had traditionally meant agricultural subsidisation...As prime minister, Singh has continued to rely on subsidies and handouts for the countryside, one of several aspects of economic governance that he has, ironically, been criticised for during the current election campaign...Even in the mid-1990s, few economists were predicting that India could achieve anything like China's growth rates within ten years...Yet by decade's end, growth was above 6%, and by 2003-04 it would hit 'tiger' levels of 8% and above...Now India is firmly in the club of booming emerging economies.The Finance ministry has been working towards relieving farmers of their debt and has been working towards pro-industry policies" that arguably have had important impacts on poverty reduction and rural development. [Ultimately, the facts speak for themselves. In 2011, 37.2% of India lived in poverty, but by 2013, that number was reduced to just 21.9% (alternative statistics place it at 29.6%, which is still a significant reduction in the space of just 2 years.) As Singh himself observed, "Measuring poverty is a difficult task. There are diverse views about what constitutes poverty. But whatever definition we may adopt, it cannot be denied that the pace of reduction of poverty has increased after 2004."Foreign PolicySingh "has overseen stable relations with Pakistan, despite Pakistan's reluctance to address Islamist terrorism, most notably in the wake of the 2008 attacks on Mumbai. At his farewell press conference on 3 January, Singh confirmed that he had come close to a peace deal on the Kashmir dispute before the departure of Pervez Musharraf in 2008. During a decade in which Pakistan has had moments of worrying political instability, Singh showed steady nerves and an ability to keep communication channels open. The BJP, which called on Singh to consider military action against Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks, appeals to its base by talking tough on Pakistan. Yet the Kashmir near-deal shows that Singh's softer approach offered the best chance for building trust and promoting the long term security of the subcontinent as a whole.""Sino-Indian relations have been in a phase of trust building, particularly in recent years, albeit with intermittent setbacks on the disputed border. On a visit to China last year Singh issued a joint statement on a strategic and cooperative partnership that included calls to resolve the border issue, pursue defence exchanges and cultivate enhanced economic ties. The Sino-Indian Border Defense Cooperation Agreement, also finalised during the visit, will in theory minimise the chances of conflict arising from unexpected movements in the contested areas. All this is framed by booming economic ties that have seen bilateral trade grow by a factor of 67 between 1998 and 2012. The BJP talks tough on China, but once again, Singh's diplomatic skill and flexibility has left India in a favourable position.""Another move that showcases Singh's capacity as a negotiator and his commitment to signaling India's peaceful rise was the Civil Nuclear Agreement with the US, finalised in 2008. The agreement brought India partially into the global regime to regulate nuclear technology by committing its civilian nuclear facilities to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. India has always sought prestige as well as deterrence through its nuclear weapons program, and gaining its exceptional status under the agreement supports that end...The deal has been the foundation for slow and steady gains, and the level of foreign policy cooperation between India and the US today is unprecedented. This has happened without compromising Indian trust building with Pakistan and China.""Relations with Afghanistan have also improved considerably, with India now becoming the largest regional donor to Afghanistan. During Afghan President Hamid Karzai's visit to New Delhi in August 2008, Manmohan Singh increased the aid package to Afghanistan for the development of more schools, health clinics, infrastructure, and defence." "Singh's government has also been especially keen on expanding ties with Israel. Since 2003, the two countries have made significant investments in each other and Israel now rivals Russia to become India's [largest] defence partner." Russo-Indian relations "remain strong with India and Russia signing various agreements to increase defence, nuclear energy and space co-operation."What all this underscores is simple: Singh has successfully positioned India in the global sphere, reducing tensions with its regional neighbors (China, Pakistan, Afghanistan) while building upon or forming new relationships with a variety of different partners (U.S., Russia, Israel.) India has also during Singh's tenure worked to capitalize on its status as a BRICS nation, building economic and social ties with Brazil and South Africa.Domestic PolicySingh, on the domestic front, can be credited with myriad successes, including, "poverty reduction, rural jobs and food schemes, polio eradication and the taming of a once-terrifying AIDS epidemic." [1] Singh's administration can therefore be credited with making major breakthroughs in terms of promoting health and sanitation within India.Additionally, Singh has pushed forward in the fight against terrorism, particularly after the Mumbai attacks. He realized that India needed a single agency to deal with terror-related issues, and so created the National Investigation Agency. [3] His government has been able to reduce terrorism in Northeast India, in particular. [3]Finally, Singh championed the Right to Information Act, which empowers any citizen to "request information from a 'public authority'...which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The Act also requires every public authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination and to proactively certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally." The act has proved instrumental in the fight against corruption.NARENDRA MODIDue to character limitations, I will only focus on one issue: the Gujarati Riots. I will add more in my rebuttals. Background on the riots can be found here."Summarizing academic views on the subject, Martha Nussbaum stated that 'There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law.' In 2012, Maya Kodnani, a former minister in Modi's Government...was convicted of having participated in the Naroda Patiya massacre during the 2002 riots...While initially announcing that it would seek the death penalty for Kodnani, Modi's government eventually pardoned her.Human rights organisations, opposition parties, and sections of the media all accused Gujarat's government of taking insufficient action against the riots, and even condoning it in some cases. Modi's decision to move the corpses of the Kar Sevaks who had been burned to death in Godhra...had been criticised for inflaming the violence.""Among Modi’s critics, concerns will persist about the future of India’s secularism and the fate of India’s Muslim minority...Some allege that his complicity in the deadly 2002 Godhra riots that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Muslims render him unfit to lead a country as pluralistic as India....The BJP as a whole is a Hindu nationalist party, influenced heavily by the often-militant Hindu organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)."

Long Read“Why is India's economic growth rate lower than China's?”Indian economy poised to pick up in 2019, do better than China's: IMFThe IMF's January World Economy Outlook update says India will remain the fastest growing major economies of the world.India continues on its remarkable economic growth journeyThe Indian economy is still performing well, with foreign investment and looser regulations driving significant growth in the country. However, low living standards and a host of socioeconomic issues are impeding its ascension to ‘developed’ market status“Let the whole world hear it loud and clear. India is now wide awake. We shall prevail. We shall overcome.”Those iconic words were spoken in 1991 by India’s finance minister at the time, Manmohan Singh, when the country embarked upon its most innovative economic reform yet. Since then, India has experienced extraordinary financial growth (see Fig 1), and is now the world’s sixth-largest economy by nominal GDP. The IMF predicts that by the end of 2018, India will have moved into fifth place, knocking the UK from the position that it has occupied since 2014Low standards of living, inadequate healthcare and corruption have prevented the country from escaping its emerging market categorisationIndia’s journey to economic ascendancy has been facilitated by a multitude of factors, including an influx of foreign investment and an end to the country’s highly restrictive licensing regulations. These changes have bolstered the country’s international economic standing, allowing it to compete with developed nations like the UK and the US for market dominance in sectors such as technological infrastructure and e-commerce.However, low standards of living, an inadequate healthcare system and high levels of corruption have impeded progress. These factors have prevented the country from escaping the confines of its ‘emerging market’ categorization and ascending to the highly coveted ‘developed’ market status.Road to modernityIndia’s autonomous economic story began in 1947, after it was granted freedom from British rule. Prior to independence, the country’s economy had been relatively stagnant, growing at around one percent per year. It began to expand slowly in the late 1940s, but any significant growth was impeded by the country’s centralised, socialism-inspired economic model.GDP growth in India remained at around 3.5 percent per year up until 1991, with per capita growth struggling at around 1.3 percent. This was down to the extensive nationalisation process that took place during the 1950s, which consolidated economic power in the hands of the state. The process began in 1951 with the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, which gave the government control over 38 key industries and 171 products, ranging from coal and precious metals to fans and sewing machines. Economic freedom in the country was extremely constrained and regional disparity was common, given that the government had the power to determine the location and size of certain industries. It was handed even more power in 1953 with the Air Corporations Act, which effectively turned the market-driven, consumer-centric civil aviation industry into a nationalised moneymaking machine.The state’s power was cemented further in 1956 with the Industrial Policy Resolution, which classified industry into three categories. Innovation and development of ‘category one’ and ‘category two’ industries was entirely driven by the state, while ‘category three’ industries were left to the private sector, although operational licences had to be obtained by citizens.$39bn Annual e-commerce sales in India in 2017$200bn Expected annual e-commerce sales in India by 20262nd Largest global start-up hub5,700+ Number of start-ups across IndiaKnown as the Licence Raj, this series of policies strangled the economy by curbing entrepreneurship and putting the country’s fiscal future entirely in the hands of state bureaucrats. Dr Ruth Kattumuri, founder of the London School of Economics’ India Observatory, told World Finance: “1956 was the first consolidated industrial policy post-independence, and it reflected the government’s socialistic focus for the development of society. The policy structure allowed the state to exercise much more power, making the country much more inward-looking, which was detrimental to growth.”India’s economic narrative continued in that same vein for the next 35 years, with the insurance, banking and coal industries also undergoing the nationalisation treatment during the 1960s and 1970s. A significant shift came, though, with the government’s statement on industrial policy in 1991. In his book 70 Policies that Shaped India: 1947 to 2017, Independence to $2.5 Trillion, economist Gautam Chikermane remarked: “If the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1956 was the single most important policy that shut India down, the 1991 statement on industrial policy is the overarching architecture that opened all doors.” The statement abolished the Licence Raj, opened up state-controlled industries to foreign technology investment and regulated unfair trade practices: in effect, it set India on the path to becoming the modern open economy that it is today. Chikermane told World Finance: “This was the time that India became serious about GDP growth – it has been the landmark policy of the past 25 years. The India that you see today wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for this policy.”Unpacking the nomenclatureToday, India’s economy is caught somewhere between ‘emerging’ and ‘developed’ status. In some areas, it is nipping at the heels of its market neighbors; in others, it lags well behind.India’s economy is caught somewhere between ‘emerging’ and ‘developed’ statusIndia was first classified as an emerging market by former Goldman Sachs analyst Jim O’Neill, who coined the term ‘BRIC economies’. He decreed in 2001 that Brazil, Russia, India, and China’s economies were expanding at a much faster rate than those of the G7. O’Neill posited that the BRIC nations could become the four most dominant global economies by 2050, but would have to take certain steps – including political cooperation with regards to trade agreements – in order to progress beyond emerging market status.An emerging market is defined as a country that has some characteristics of an established market, but does not satisfy all of the demands for it to be categorised as a fully developed economy. According to MSCI, a provider of index data for global markets, the characteristics of an emerging market are: significant openness to foreign ownership and ease of capital flow; good and tested efficiency and stability of the operational framework; and a minimum of three national companies that meet certain market cap and liquidity criteria.A mixed bagIndia has embraced some emerging market characteristics more willingly than others. The country’s operational framework, including elements such as political leadership, health systems, educational opportunities and scientific research, has progressed rapidly since the economic reforms of 1991. By introducing sound fiscal policies of privatisation and tax reductions, the government has allowed industry to take off in cities including Bangalore, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad, which had a knock-on effect on unemployment and quality of living within the surrounding areas. The digital age has also greatly benefitted India, as it has given rise to a new generation of well-educated and highly skilled professionals across STEM industries. To further promote technological development, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has launched various campaigns, including Digital India and Startup India, to bolster digital adoption.Political corruption remains a significant concern, and one that continues to hold India’s economy backThe country is also becoming more receptive to foreign ownership, with Modi introducing changes to regulation in 2016 and 2018 to make it easier for international firms to invest in Indian businesses. Under these reforms, airlines, some defence industries and real estate brokerages may now be 100 percent foreign-owned, while investment rules in pharmaceuticals and food production have also been relaxed. The government claimed in a 2016 statement that India “is now the most open economy in the world for foreign direct investment”. Kattumuri reaffirmed this, observing: “There is a lot of variation between states, with some more open than others. Modi’s government has really pushed for FDI, in part because Modi himself comes from a state where people are really entrepreneurial, so he has invested his energy into driving private sector investment and FDI.”Political corruption, however, remains a significant concern and one that continues to hold India’s economy back. Transparency International, an NGO that works to combat global corruption, placed India 81st out of 180 countries on its 2017 Corruption Perceptions Index, due to complex tax and licensing systems, the prevalence of government bribing and state monopolisation on certain goods. According to a 2005 report by the same organisation, more than 92 percent of Indians had first-hand experience of paying bribes to public servants. The country is attempting to crack down on the practice, but the widespread nature of corruption in India means it is a lengthy process.Still on trackDespite some political reticence, India does fulfil all of the emerging market criteria. In certain categories, in fact, the country extends well beyond the confines of that definition and into developed economy territory. In order to progress to this higher status, a country must achieve a high GDP and GDP per capita, a high level of industrialisation, substantial technological infrastructure, sustainable economic development, and a high standard of living.India’s GDP is expanding at an exponential rate, having surged 8.8 percent between July 2017 and July 2018. The country is also performing extremely well with regards to other economic benchmarks including purchasing power parity, for which the World Bank ranked it third in the world in 2017. The country was also ranked first in AT Kearney’s Global Retail Development Index in 2017, and it has one of the world’s fastest-growing e-commerce markets, with sales expected to reach $200bn by 2026, up from $39bn in 2017.However, India’s per capita GDP trails well behind its other economic benchmarks. According to 2017 statistics from the World Bank, GDP per capita equated to $1,939 (see Fig 2), making it 140th in the world. That figure is a far cry from the $12,000-$15,000 benchmark that most economists consider to be the necessary GDP per capita for a country to be labelled a developed economy.“India is a very populous nation,” explained Chikermane, noting that the large population has a lowering effect on GDP per capita by distributing wealth over a vast number of citizens. “Our GDP is $2.6trn, which is approximately equal to that of the UK, but our population is 20 times theirs. Clearly in terms of per capita, we have a long way to go.” Inequality is also a particularly pertinent problem, as the gap between the richest and poorest residents of the country has widened significantly over the past 10 to 15 years. “The GDP per capita is an indication that India needs to focus on tackling inequality,” said Kattumuri. “This includes exploring how we can provide greater equal opportunities, and how we [can] enable more inclusive growth across different economic and social strata.”In certain areas, though, India is on par with the world’s developed economies. It is a major exporter of business process outsourcing services, IT infrastructure and software services, all of which drove $154bn of revenue in 2017. It is the world’s second-largest start-up hub, according to Startup Ranking’s latest data, with more than 5,700 such firms located in the country. India has a highly advanced technological infrastructure, underpinned by an efficient quotidian service and manufacturing economy. It has the second-largest telecommunications market in the world and, according to the International Telecom Union’s Global ICT Development Index, India will soon be in the top 10, having been 134th just two years ago.Faster and fasterIt’s clear that rapid growth is a prominent facet of the Indian economy, but the key concern for the country now is ensuring that this growth is sustainable. According to MSCI, sustainable economic development is the vital characteristic that sets an emerging market apart from a developed one. It is defined as growth that satisfies contemporary human needs, but in a manner that sustains natural resources and the environment for future generations. It is here that India falls down.Classification as a developed economy could provide India with a seat at some of the world’s most prestigious tablesThe country does not have the societal infrastructure to support the needs of its population, let alone its future citizens – particularly if population growth continues to gather speed. The greatest issue at present is lack of access to clean water, which affects more than 163 million people across the country – the highest proportion in the world, according to a new study from Water Aid. Some 64.3 million people live in extreme poverty with no access to housing or healthcare. India also has the third-largest HIV epidemic in the world, with 2.1 million people living with the disease at last count.Lack of sustainable development is also a major concern in the agriculture sector: India placed 33rd out of 34 countries in The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2017 Food Sustainability Index. While the country has taken proactive steps to reduce food waste in recent years, nutrition remains a significant problem, with an extremely high rate of malnutrition and nutrient deficiency. Water availability is also problematic, as crops and livestock take a heavy toll on India’s already overstretched water system, while there remains a distinct lack of water-recycling initiatives.“I think our healthcare, our education and the social infrastructure, the human development… They all need to be looked at and we need to work on them,” said Chikermane. “The good news is that we are. For instance, two years ago India had the world’s largest number of poor people, [and] that is no longer the case. Gradually we are pulling people out of poverty. There is also a new healthcare scheme that has just been introduced to try and reach the 100 million poorest households of India. So, one step at a time, we are getting there. However, any scheme needs a huge amount of money because our budget is allocated across a very large number of people. And there are many other needs – healthcare, education, infrastructure, security, defence and so on; all these are requirements that the Indian state needs to negotiate.”Knock-on effectWhile India does exhibit many of the characteristics of a developed nation, inconsistencies across the board and a lack of societal infrastructure hold the country back from attaining the corresponding status. That’s not to say that it won’t ever get there, as many economists have predicted. However, a 2018 report by SBI, the country’s largest lender, warned: “India has perhaps now only a limited window of a decade to get into the developed country tag, or stay perpetually in the emerging group of economies. Policymakers, wake up and smell the coffee!”If India is to drive up its GDP per capita, it must reconsider the pricing of those aspects of its international relationshipsThen there’s the question of what happens on a global level when India does rise to developed economy status. It would be the second Asian country, after Japan, to achieve that accolade, which could have major implications for international markets. “I think the rise of India will be good for the world,” said Chikermane. “India tries to be more inclusive – we are open to trade, we are accepting, we have really embraced globalisation.”It could also affect business relationships between India and western nations like the UK, which is notorious for using Indian amenities such as call centres as cheap alternatives to employing British workers. If India is to drive up its GDP per capita, it must reconsider the pricing of those aspects of its international relationships. This could have knock-on effects for other countries, as they may find themselves facing the decision of paying inflated bills or risking an internal labour shortage. Moreover, if nations turn elsewhere for cheaper service in sectors such as business process outsourcing, India would lose a significant proportion of its import revenue – and the country doesn’t have many other highly developed industries to fall back on as yet. Such a move could see it knocked back down the global rankings in no time at all.There’s also the geopolitical aspect to consider. Classification as a developed economy could provide India with a seat at some of the world’s most prestigious tables, including the G7. At those summits, discussion does not solely centre on economic factors, but also incorporates political values. Although India is steadily becoming more closely aligned with the values of G7 nations, particularly with regards to LGBTQ rights, it has not wholly caught up just yet: it has come under scrutiny in recent years for purchasing weapons from Russia, and its crime rates – particularly with regards to rape, kidnapping and domestic violence – are concerningly high. Being considered a developed economy comes with wider sociocultural responsibilities: the economic aspect will not be treated in isolation, but rather as part of a holistic view of the country.Chikermane is confident that India will “rise to the occasion” in fulfilling the responsibility that comes with being a global economic power. “Given things today, I don’t see India as an aggressive player – it will be an all-embracing, peaceful power, catalysing other countries with regards to trade, FDI, and so on,” he said. With regards to India’s technological prowess and democratic values, there’s much cause for international optimism. First, though, the country must get its house in order.IndiaThe Indus Valley civilization, one of the world's oldest, flourished during the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C. and extended into northwestern India. Aryan tribes from the northwest infiltrated the Indian subcontinent about 1500 B.C.; their merger with the earlier Dravidian inhabitants created the classical Indian culture. The Maurya Empire of the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C. - which reached its zenith under ASHOKA - united much of South Asia. The Golden Age ushered in by the Gupta dynasty (4th to 6th centuries A.D.) saw a flowering of Indian science, art, and culture. Islam spread across the subcontinent over a period of 700 years. In the 10th and 11th centuries, Turks and Afghans invaded India and established the Delhi Sultanate. In the early 16th century, the Emperor BABUR established the Mughal Dynasty, which ruled India for more than three centuries. European explorers began establishing footholds in India during the 16th century.By the 19th century, Great Britain had become the dominant political power on the subcontinent. The British Indian Army played a vital role in both World Wars. Years of nonviolent resistance to British rule, led by Mohandas GANDHI and Jawaharlal NEHRU, eventually resulted in Indian independence, which was granted in 1947. Large-scale communal violence took place before and after the subcontinent partition into two separate states - India and Pakistan. The neighboring nations have fought three wars since independence, the last of which was in 1971 and resulted in East Pakistan becoming the separate nation of Bangladesh. India's nuclear weapons tests in 1998 emboldened Pakistan to conduct its own tests that same year. In November 2008, terrorists originating from Pakistan conducted a series of coordinated attacks in Mumbai, India's financial capital. Despite pressing problems such as significant overpopulation, environmental degradation, extensive poverty, and widespread corruption, economic growth following the launch of economic reforms in 1991 and a massive youthful population are driving India's emergence as a regional and global power.EconomyIndia's diverse economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts, a wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of services. Slightly less than half of the workforce is in agriculture, but services are the major source of economic growth, accounting for nearly two-thirds of India's output but employing less than one-third of its labor force. India has capitalized on its large educated English-speaking population to become a major exporter of information technology services, business outsourcing services, and software workers. Nevertheless, per capita income remains below the world average.India is developing into an open-market economy, yet traces of its past autarkic policies remain. Economic liberalization measures, including industrial deregulation, privatization of state-owned enterprises, and reduced controls on foreign trade and investment, began in the early 1990s and served to accelerate the country's growth, which averaged nearly 7% per year from 1997 to 2017. India's economic growth slowed in 2011 because of a decline in investment caused by high interest rates, rising inflation, and investor pessimism about the government's commitment to further economic reforms and about slow world growth. Rising macroeconomic imbalances in India and improving economic conditions in Western countries led investors to shift capital away from India, prompting a sharp depreciation of the rupee through 2016.Growth rebounded in 2014 through 2016, exceeding 7% each year, but slowed in 2017. Investors’ perceptions of India improved in early 2014, due to a reduction of the current account deficit and expectations of post-election economic reform, resulting in a surge of inbound capital flows and stabilization of the rupee. Since the election, the government has passed an important goods and services tax bill and raised foreign direct investment caps in some sectors, but most economic reforms have focused on administrative and governance changes largely because the ruling party remains a minority in India’s upper house of Parliament, which must approve most bills. Despite a high growth rate compared to the rest of the world, India’s government-owned banks faced mounting bad debt in 2015 and 2016, resulting in low credit growth and restrained economic growth.The outlook for India's long-term growth is moderately positive due to a young population and corresponding low dependency ratio, healthy savings and investment rates, and increasing integration into the global economy. However, long-term challenges remain significant, including: India's discrimination against women and girls, an inefficient power generation and distribution system, ineffective enforcement of intellectual property rights, decades-long civil litigation dockets, inadequate transport and agricultural infrastructure, limited non-agricultural employment opportunities, high spending and poorly targeted subsidies, inadequate availability of quality basic and higher education, and accommodating rural-to-urban migration.ChinaFor centuries China stood as a leading civilization, outpacing the rest of the world in the arts and sciences, but in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the country was beset by civil unrest, major famines, military defeats, and foreign occupation. After World War II, the Communist Party of China under MAO Zedong established an autocratic socialist system that, while ensuring China's sovereignty, imposed strict controls over everyday life and cost the lives of tens of millions of people. After 1978, MAO's successor DENG Xiaoping and other leaders focused on market-oriented economic development and by 2000 output had quadrupled. For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically but political controls remain tight. Since the early 1990s, China has increased its global outreach and participation in international organizations.Economy"Since the late 1970s, China has moved from a closed, centrally planned system to a more market-oriented one that plays a major global role. China has implemented reforms in a gradualist fashion, resulting in efficiency gains that have contributed to a more than tenfold increase in GDP since 1978. Reforms began with the phaseout of collectivized agriculture, and expanded to include the gradual liberalization of prices, fiscal decentralization, increased autonomy for state enterprises, growth of the private sector, development of stock markets and a modern banking system, and opening to foreign trade and investment. China continues to pursue an industrial policy, state support of key sectors, and a restrictive investment regime. Measured on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis that adjusts for price differences, China in 2016 stood as the largest economy in the world, surpassing the US in 2014 for the first time in modern history. China became the world's largest exporter in 2010, and the largest trading nation in 2013. Still, China's per capita income is below the world average.After keeping its currency tightly linked to the US dollar for years, China in July 2005 moved to an exchange rate system that references a basket of currencies. From mid-2005 to late 2008, the renminbi appreciated more than 20% against the US dollar, but the exchange rate remained virtually pegged to the dollar from the onset of the global financial crisis until June 2010, when Beijing announced it would allow a resumption of gradual liberalization. From 2013 until early2015, the renminbi (RMB) appreciated roughly 2% against the dollar, but the exchange rate fell 13% from mid-2015 until end-2016 amid strong capital outflows in part stemming from the August 2015 official devaluation; in 2017 the RMB resumed appreciating against the dollar – roughly 7% from end-of-2016 to end-of-2017. From 2013 to 2017, China had one of the fastest growing economies in the world, averaging slightly more than 7% real growth per year. In 2015, the People’s Bank of China announced it would continue to carefully push for full convertibility of the renminbi, after the currency was accepted as part of the IMF’s special drawing rights basket. However, since late 2015 the Chinese Government has strengthened capital controls and oversight of overseas investments to better manage the exchange rate and maintain financial stability.The Chinese Government faces numerous economic challenges including: (a) reducing its high domestic savings rate and correspondingly low domestic household consumption; (b) managing its high corporate debt burden to maintain financial stability; (c) controlling off-balance sheet local government debt used to finance infrastructure stimulus; (d) facilitating higher-wage job opportunities for the aspiring middle class, including rural migrants and college graduates, while maintaining competitiveness; (e) dampening speculative investment in the real estate sector without sharply slowing the economy; (f) reducing industrial overcapacity; and (g) raising productivity growth rates through the more efficient allocation of capital and state-support for innovation. Economic development has progressed further in coastal provinces than in the interior, and by 2016 more than 169.3 million migrant workers and their dependents had relocated to urban areas to find work. One consequence of China’s population control policy known as the “one-child policy” - which was relaxed in 2016 to permit all families to have two children - is that China is now one of the most rapidly aging countries in the world. Deterioration in the environment - notably air pollution, soil erosion, and the steady fall of the water table, especially in the North - is another long-term problem. China continues to lose arable land because of erosion and urbanization. The Chinese Government is seeking to add energy production capacity from sources other than coal and oil, focusing on natural gas, nuclear, and clean energy development. In 2016, China ratified the Paris Agreement, a multilateral agreement to combat climate change, and committed to peak its carbon dioxide emissions between 2025 and 2030.The government's 13th Five-Year Plan, unveiled in March 2016, emphasizes the need to increase innovation and boost domestic consumption to make the economy less dependent on government investment, exports, and heavy industry. However, China has made more progress on subsidizing innovation than rebalancing the economy. Beijing has committed to giving the market a more decisive role in allocating resources, but the Chinese Government’s policies continue to favor state-owned enterprises and emphasize stability. Chinese leaders in 2010 pledged to double China’s GDP by 2020, and the 13th Five Year Plan includes annual economic growth targets of at least 6.5% through 2020 to achieve that goal. In recent years, China has renewed its support for state-owned enterprises in sectors considered important to ""economic security,"" explicitly looking to foster globally competitive industries. Chinese leaders also have undermined some market-oriented reforms by reaffirming the “dominant” role of the state in the economy, a stance that threatens to discourage private initiative and make the economy less efficient over time. The slight acceleration in economic growth in 2017—the first such uptick since 2010—gives Beijing more latitude to pursue its economic reforms, focusing on financial sector deleveraging and its Supply-Side Structural Reform agenda, first announced in late 2015.China and India have differed markedly in growth performance over the past seventeen years. There are several reasons to explain such diverging trends, the most obvious being the success of China’s economic reforms. Compared with India, China has been able to attain and maintain very high savings and investment rates. Furthermore, China initiated the process of economic reforms as early as 1978, while India did not commence its reform push until 1991. In addition, initial conditions in China were much more conducive for higher growth. In fact, because India’s reforms were crisis induced, the initial conditions in the two countries were quite dissimilar.The economies of India and China are among the largest economies in the world. However the differences in the size, composition and other quantitative and qualitative features stand in stark contrast when comparing China and India. India, has a much smaller economy, about only a fifth of China’s. Its exports are a fraction of China’s, as are its imports. India’s economy is mostly dependent on its large internal market with external trade accounting for just 20% of the country’s GDP. This is a huge difference from China, given just how large a part of Chinas economy is due to International trade. In fact, India’s balance of payments (BoP) on its current account has been negative. However this is probably due to its ever increasing oil import bill and its overall Balance of Payments (BoP) was positive since the late 60s due to remittances from Non Resident Indians and increased foreign direct investment.However, the darker side to blistering growth rates achieved by China is captured by indices of inequality. While the current Gini Index, a measure of inequality of income/wealth, of India is 36.8, the same for China is 46.9, which is remarkably high. However China has successfully reduced the proportion of population living below the poverty line to 10% while India has 22% of its population living below the poverty line. given the sizes of both populations, the difference is massive, and finding the causes of this difference is crucial.A significant question that many economists have tried to answer is the reason behind China’s superlative economic growth. Consensus is now broadly reached with the explanation that it was a combination of several factors, not least the proactive actions of the government, coupled with already favorable historical circumstances that are responsible. China’s very strengths in these areas have been India’s weaknesses.Political EconomyThe histories of China and India have been very different and critical in explaining the growth contrast. China has been by and large a stable, centrally run state through its history with limited periods of instability and lack of a single authority. India’s history has been exactly the reverse.Since 1949 the government, under China’s socialist political and economic system, has been responsible for planning and managing national economy. Foreign trade is supervised by the Ministry of Commerce, customs, and the Bank of China, the foreign exchange arm of the Chinese banking system, which controls access to the foreign currency required for imports. Ever since restrictions on foreign trade were reduced, there have been broad opportunities for individual enterprises to engage in exchanges with foreign firms without much intervention from official agencies.INFRASTRUCTURECompared to India, China has a well developed infrastructure. Some of the important factors that have created a stark difference between the economies of the two countries are manpower and labor development, water management, health care facilities and services, communication, civic amenities and so on.. Although India has become much developed than before, it is still plagued by problems such as lack of civic amenities. In fact unlike India, China is still investing in huge amounts towards manpower development and strengthening of infrastructure.EDUCATIONIn Education, 99.1 % of Chinese children attend school for 9 years, ensuring a high level of literacy. In India, literacy is 50 to 60% . China and India face similar challenges in their higher education sector with intense competition for admission to the best institutions and universities. But China is far ahead on the supply side with nearly 100 high quality institutions and is investing heavily in creating many more, leaving India far behind. As a result China is turning out many more top quality students than India. China has opened up higher education for both private and foreign investment. Foreign investors can come in by tying up with local Chinese partners.Unlike India, China is experiencing a great deal of two-way international student traffic. China has become one of the world’s great study-abroad destinations. Currently more than 60,000 foreigners study in Chinese universities, and that number is swelling each year. China is the number-one choice for U.S. students who want to study in Asia . China is active and aggressive about becoming a major player in international education.HEALTHIn general, for both countries, infectious diseases of the past sit alongside emerging infectious diseases and chronic illnesses associated with ageing societies, although the burden of infectious diseases is much higher in India. Whilst globalisation contributes to widening inequalities in health and healthcare in both countries there is evidence that local circumstances are important, especially with respect to the structure and financing of health care and the implementation of health policy.For example, India has huge problems providing even rudimentary health care to its large population of urban slum dwellers whilst China is struggling to re-establish universal rural health insurance. In terms of funding access to health care, the Chinese state has traditionally supported most costs, whereas private insurance has always played a major role in India, although recent changes in China have seen the burgeoning of private health care payments. China has, arguably, had more success than India in improving population health, although recent reforms have severely impacted upon the ability of the Chinese health care system to operate effectively. Both countries are experiencing a decline in the amount of government funding for health care and this is a major issue that must be addressed.In China earlier extensive public provision of health and education: universal education until Class X, and public services to ensure nutrition, health and sanitation. In India the public provision of all of these has been extremely inadequate throughout this period and has deteriorated in per capita terms since the early 1990sA Close Look: Special Economic Zones (or SEZs) in India and ChinaChina pursued an inward-looking developmental strategy from the 1960s to the late 1970s.From late 1978 onward, Deng started to exert a critical role in Chinese politics and the opening of China. In May, fourteen coastal cities became “open cities.” Deng and other top leaders approved the setting up of the first SEZs in Guangdong and Fujian; they enjoyed geographic proximity to neighboring advanced economies and are coastal cities with access to sea-ports.In addition to picking the right locations for SEZs, Deng and other reformists also carefully appointed leaders to head the major SEZs. In general, these leaders tended to be open minded and possessed a wealth of political experience. Their dedication to work and their upright and honest styles helped them to avoid scandals that could tarnish the reputation of reform. Liang also cracked down hard on official corruption to defuse accusations against the SEZ.Under Liang’s leadership Shenzhen created a number of benchmarks in China’s economic reform in the early 1980s. One was the so-called “Shenzhen efficiency,” exemplified by the completion of one floor of a high-rise office building within only three days. In addition three new offices responsible for economic policies in the SEZ were placed under the jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Office: the General Office of the city government, the SEZ Development Company, and the SEZ Construction Company. This centralized and efficient economic decision process in the hand of local leaders paved the way for rapid formation and operation of the SEZ, which was much needed for the newly established zone in its very early years.First, joint ventures and foreign-owned enterprises were allowed in the SEZs, but needed special approval outside them. Second, prices and distribution of goods were not regulated by the market within the SEZs, but by central plans outside the zones Third, SEZs had jurisdiction in approving much larger investment projects than non-zone localities. Fourth, SEZs enjoyed preferential treatment in tax and tariff reductions and exemptions. For example, the corporate income tax at the SEZs was set at a preferential rate of 15 percent, even lower than the 18.5 percent in Hong Kong.25 Finally, SEZs were granted preferential fiscal arrangements.Fiscal autonomy generated tremendous fiscal incentives and exerted heavy pressure for Shenzhen to reform and develop. These privileges enabled investors to enjoy the lowest corporate income tax rates and tariffs on imports and exports, as well as a freer play of markets in SEZs. SEZs become the premier place in China for attracting FDI.Initially, Shenzhen was short of funds necessary for building streets and urban infrastructure. However, within four years, the city accomplished urban development worth 100 million yuan with only 18 million yuan of loans. It built two industrial districts as well as fifty-five streets of a total length of 100 kilometers. In comparison to India we find that Indian SEZs lack in precisely the areas in which Chinese SEZs seem to have an advantage, such as infrastructure, tackling bureaucracy, corruption, etc.While SEZs in India are generally set up all around the country SEZs in China are mostly on the coast, along one side of the country due to better connectivity to the outside world and advantages in exports.ConclusionPopular opinion is that India cannot catch up with China in the near future, at least in the next few years. China leads India in foreign investment, a key contributor to economic growth, by a margin of 10 to 1, because foreign investors, who can place their money anywhere, see more opportunities and fewer obstacles in China. Ironically, Indian democracy is viewed as a hindrance vis-a-vis the stability of China’s authoritarian regime on its liberalizing market and docile unions. India also lacks a Hong Kong and a Taiwan, next-door technology, and capital hubs that when combined with the mainland’s abundant, cheap, and productive human resources create powerful complements. China dominates in manufacturing and has the market size and spending power domestically The constraints on the growth of India’s GDP appear to be insufficient investments according to most economists, including FDI and investments in infrastructure. The most commonly cited constraints on investments is the confusion and slowness of policy change as well as confusion and tardiness at the bureaucratic levels, as contrasted with the “single mindedness” of the Chinese state.