India has the potential to lead the world
please want something against the topic
Yes, as you can see
We can say that Iindia is leading the world India for past 100 years the invention of zero and so on....But we slept for sometime but now we are awake.India is moving at fast pace towards development. The country has changed upside down in last decade . Growth is almost twice every year.
Today, Indians are leading in almost every field. Leaders from India are getting top positions in companies and even companies of Indian origin are growing.
There is no doubt that India has what it needs to lead the world. If things goes on at the present pace, I m pretty sure that India would take over a a leader of this world in a decade or so.. as an indian we all shoud contribute towards growingness
Dont assume a line leading from now into the future. The future is unknown and there are plenty of stumbling points for India. There is the potential for renewed conflict with Pakistan or less likely China. Of the Naxalites crontinuing and creating chaos. Of india finding it lacks the infrastructure to grow or many other possible 'unknown unknowns' that we have no idea about yet.
Remember Japan in the 1980s was being touted as being likely to overtake the USA and become a superpower itself[[John Greenwald, Barry Hillenbrand, Japan From Superrich To Superpower, Time, 4/7/88, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967823,00.html?promoid=googlep%5D%5D, it did not happen. This is not to say that India and Japan are at all similar, they are not in almost all respects. But it does show that predictions can be wrong. Similarly was the break up of the Soviet Union which almost no one expected.[[Moises Naim, Europe After the Berlin Wall: 4 Surprises, 10/11/09, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/10/europe_after_the_berlin_wall_4_surprises%5D%5D Say for example India broke up then it would not be in a position to lead anywhere (except the process of devolution).
It may not even be something catestrophic but a change in the global economy. In 1700 would people have predicted an industrial revolution in the next 100 years making a small European Island a superpower rather than immensely greater powers such as Mughal India? (still around in 1700 but not for particularly long)
Largest population in the world
OK not quite true, but it soon will. India has a rapidly expanding population whereas the current number one China is close to stagnating. China may have been growing rapidly during most of the 20th century but has now slowed due to its one child policy. China's dependancy ratio is beginning to rise. Its growth over the past couple of decades has been due to having millions of new workers entering the labour market and this is going to slow and eventually by 2050 be well into reverse. Like Japan, South Korea and much of Europe China will have too many old people to pay for by those of working age so slowing the economy.[[Andy Mukherjee, China Needs to Get Rich Before It Gets Too Old, 15/2/06, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahPt4W0FJy34&refer=columnist_mukherjee-redirectoldpage%5D%5D India is on the other hand blessed with a similar situation to that which has powered China through its unprecedented growth. India's population growth wont go down to zero until more than two decades after China and will in the process overtake China as the most populous. Equally this means that India will be much younger so more dynamic and capeble of sustaining economic growth that is needed to create a superpower.[[Amitendu Palit, Is China Or India Aging Better?, Forbes, 30/6/10, http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/30/population-india-china-markets-economy-economic-growth.html%5D%5D
Numbers are not everything. This is obvious as is shown by the current balance of power in the world where India and China are still inferior in economic power to the US. A country with a fifth of their population.
Not yet sure it wants too.
Like the USA was between 1900 and 1940 India does not seem to know itself whether it has the potential to lead the world and if it does then does it wish to? India has often been unwilling to take a leading role. India has prided itself on being non aligned, somehow different from other great powers. This may have sometimes made them leaders in the non aligned movement but does not propel them further. Being non aligned or as neutral as possible automatically means that India is not willing to lead, simply be between the two leaders in the world (presumably now China and the USA).
India is therefore most of the time building relations with both sides (intemittantly with China as there are still many obsticals such as their border dispute). But it is not putting itself in a position to lead. It has allowed China to take the spoiler role in areas such as climate change, allows the US to fight for secutity in its immediate neighbourhood but does not get much say out of it - the US is still as close to Pakistan as India. While this mindset of playing it safe, being between two sides on most issues and not leading continues India will not become the top power.
India does not have the power
The USA holds an arguably hegemonic position for several reasons: it's high military spending compared to other countries, friendly neighbours and economic might. India does not yet have any of these assets. It's military spending is much lower, it borders Pakistan with whom relations are not friendly and while it is rising on the world economic stage, it lacks the innovation and education structure of many Western countries.
This depends very much on the question. It asks whether india has the 'potential'. This rather implies whether it will in the future lead the world so the USA's current hegemonic position may not matter than much if we are talking about fifty or a hundred years hence. Also the question does not specify that India has to lead on everything. So it could simply be asking whether India can lead the world on anything which makes it almost a certainty. India could, and has in the past taken the lead in the Non aligned movement and of the developing world more generally. More recently it took a lead in derailing the Doha trade round (topic did not specify it had to be a lead for good!)
What do you think?