Talk:India as an emerging superpower/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

People Issues in India

India has the potential to become superpower provided the long pending people issues are solved. Ensuring a credible basic income guaranteed system for every one whether they work or not will bring in dignity instead of desperation for the working poor and imposing inheritance taxes will stimulate compassion instead of collusion among people living in India. Unsolicited 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thrid Nation in Space

  • In the science sector, it was the third nation to found a National Space Agency called ISRO, after the Soviet Union and the United States and was therefore the third nation to send satellites into space, starting with Aryabhata in 1975.

This is untrue. Canada was the third nation to luanch a satellite, with Alouette 1 in 1962. Kevlar67 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

India is not the first Asian nation to launch satelite either. Both Japan and China launched their first satellites with their own rocket in 1970, five years ahead of India. Please see Wiki articles "Chinese Space Program" and "Japanese Space Program" Drkyang 11:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, now feel free to change it, I just wanted an explanation. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Natural defences

Having the Himalayas and the Thar desert does add to India's national security. For example, if China decides to invade India, it has to transport all its men from Tibet to northern India. Himalayas' rigid terrian will not only slow down the advance of the invading army but will make mass movement extremely difficult. Look at the Battle of Longewala, all 50+ tanks of the invading Pakistani army were destroyed by Indian Air Force crafts. Why, because it was easy to spot them in the barren desert terrian. Please discuss before removing material from an article. Thanks --Spartian 20:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply - I agree you are absolutely right. In the days when war was more land based it did help. But will china or pakistan attack India any more when trade talk dominates over every other issue. Plus in age of missiles and ultra-tech aircrafts does himalaya help us. And sorry for removing without discussion. Its few days i started visiting in wiki. actually i did not even notice that people did discuss here. so sorry again.My one line argument is that in this article we are talking of india's future potential and i dont think that desert and himalayas will help us in war. a good high tech defence force will. I will recheck for you reply.

I am not saying that the Himalayas are the ultimate defence but yes it does play a role in the country's defence. In future, countries will have very accurate missile defence systems. In such a scenario, I don't see missiles playing a significant role in any future war. Also, as combat aircrafts improve, so do anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles. Land warfare will never loose its signifance. For a successful invasion of India, China will have to transport millions of men and to transport all those men across the Himalayas, they would need some special kind of a transport vehicle. Any suggestions?? --Spartian 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


reply- thats true, invasion is not complete untill you occupy the land. I will think - but mostly i agree.

Geographics positioning will always protect nations, even 1000 years in the future, deserts will always mean that tanks cannot be camouflaged, mountains will always mean long journey's in dangerous terrain, an island will always be protected by a strong navy (for example, the UK)
I think it's always true that an excellent geographical position does protect nations from enemy attacks for reasons mentioned above. However, I doubt that just because it is harder to invade India is actually a reason that enhances the argument of India being a potential superpower. In other words, while it's true that great geographical position protects you from the enemy, how does that strengthen the internal power of India?? I think the geographical factor is non-relevant to this issue and should be removed. Please comment on this, or I'll delete in the next week. Heilme 09:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that its not geographical 'power' but 'factor'. And there in no great mention of invasion point . if himalaya would not block monsoon India will not have as much rain as it does now. With the sun it receives it would be arid. so its mention is imp because in a way it helps india sustain its population. I think it is OK now. Oneearth 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Points Against the Rise of an Indian Superpower

Many of these points now have solutions or Counter POV that undermine the point against the Rise of an Indian Superpower. I think it is necessary to review each and every one of these points in order to reach perfect accuracy. Some of these counter POV are actually good points for India, including the points on nuclear reactors etc.

I don't think those are solutions that have been carried out. It's only solutions that could've been carried out, or is being carried out. So, those problems still persists. Heilme 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not humbly (& democratically) accept all POV on "points against" so long they are reasonable

Hello friends, I think the purpose of such an wiki article should not be to state that: " HEY WORLD - INDIA IS UPCOMING SUPERPOWER." Rather it should be to state all possible POV especially the ones of "point against". Why? Because we want all to know that inspite of 1000 advantages, these could be all possible scenarios that could upset India's rise and therefore people be cautious about them. I actually liked the POV and counter POV stay together because it helped to give all possible views that people have about indian growth....and they could judge for themselves. For a country like India we can never reach a accurate POV. All we can do is to look at it from every possibe(& ofcourse rational) POV. India will not suffer if there are more views , but it might if people dont scan its problems/weaknesses from every possible way. infact I was thinking that keeping an exhaustive list of "Points against" will be our little contribution via wiki to raise and add to the debate on which path should india follow for the greatest benifit of itself and the world. If you people still insist probably some one or me will start a separate link on a collection of POV's on India weaknesses and their solutions. Humility demands that one should look into and humbly state what all weakness india has, or may face, and what action is india undertaking to avoid it. All the "points against" items were not just figment of imagination but statements made in all possible POV's on the web. to provide references to them will indeed require making another article.

Great will not be that nation that drums its greatness and hides the POV's on its weakness, Rather Great will be that nation that accepts all POV and determines to find solutions to its weaknesses. Let India be latter.

If you people think i got it wrong...Sorry. I am really trying to think rational from my POV.--- oneearth.


UN and Manufacturing

In a unipolar world UN lost some significance, but in a multi polar world UN will have a significance. The membership of UNSC does have a value. Just because US didnt care about veto doesnt mean no one else will.Oneearth 18:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Also just because india grew by 7 or 10 % in manufacturing doest mean that it is not a likely problem. 7 or 8 % of what value. There is abundant news supporting this point. Indias manufacturing is yet small- thats a fact. Lets accept that. eg see on textiles, confessed by our own industry. Please discuss. i really this shoud stay What do you say?Oneearth 18:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have come back to this article in one day to see it completely changed. I believe yesterday's version was better but do not want to revert it without discussion. The thing is, points like Economic Growth, Benign and Increasing Literacy in Kerala/Punjab are so obvious points for India and are still being removed. We have removed all of the solutions entirely. Please let's discuss and consider reverting, please justify all these removals.Nobleeagle 06:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nobleeagle, I have added points to problems section such as illiteracy, manufacturing industry of India, and also UNSC issue. I have also "deleted" solutions from this problem. Well, actually I did not really delete it entirely. Here's my reasons. Those solutions that are provided to counter each problem are in my opinion POV. In the previous version, for example, some of the solutions has phrases such as:
"The Government should focus on trickling the nation's wealth among the poor."
So, this is more like a suggestion, or an advice on what the government is supposed to do. Therefore, it is POV. Some of the solutions to counter the problems are actually actions that are currently being undertaken by the government. And that, I DO NOT DELETE. Examples include:
"the Indian Government has started a mass employment program to help employ civilians living in rural areas."
I do not delete the above because it's being undertaken. Hence, not POV, rather it is a factual news.
Now, regarding the re-addition of the "Non-classical economic growth" point to India's potential problems. I re-added this point because although it is or may not be currently a big problem. It is a potential problem that cannot be ignored. Although India has very advanced tertiary/quartenary industry (i.e. services), this industry only employs a small fraction of India's working population. India's hi-tech economy are only concentrated in cities such as Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai, New Delhi, Calcutta for example. However, repeated history has shown that it is usually manufacturing that will have the most impact in employment. The service industry alone is not enough to employ a big chunk of the population. We need manufacturing (mass employment -- see Japan, China, United States historical cases). India's manufacturing industry has grown at an impressive rate over the past decade. However, one must take into account that despite the impressive growth rate, India's manufacturing industry is still small. India, for example, is barely the world's top 10 trading nations. India's industry accounts about 30% of its GDP (for 2004 -- World Bank). So, it is a potential problem.
Now, for the Benign point. I don't think the fact that India is a benign nation historically may add to its political power. Yes, true. People might appreciate India's history of pacificism. But to expect people until now to keep on believing the same pacifist trend may continue (see Pakistan-India conflict for example) I think is a little too far. Especially when India possesses nuclear weapons without having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
For the Economic growth point, personally I think it is obvious that India's economy is the world's second-fastest growing major economy. But it is still only the world's 10th largest measured by nominal calculation. It's rather ambiguous from my opinion, but if you really want to keep this point, I will just re-add it.
For the Literacy point. Now, you might say that India's literacy rate is improving, and it did. From 65% to 70%. However, with a literacy rate of just 70% (that's even lower than some African nations --> see this list, I think it is low enough to be considered a problem rather than an achievement. What I did is I removed this point from economic power to problem section because of low literacy. But I kept the statement whereby India is trying to increase its literacy rate. I think this is the fairest way to put it. Low literacy (a problem) but there's a serious effort to improve the situation.
Lastly, I also added problem point: Lack of international representation. Some would say that the UN is "useless" (such as USA bypassing it to invade Iraq anyways). However, I think that's POV. Although with respect to "arrogant" (now that's POV :P) USA, the UN is useless, for the rest of the world the UN is still alive and working. The current problem of Iran and North Korea are among few examples. And since India is not a permanent member yet (although it is trying to be one now), it lacks certain capability to extend its influence. Don't you agree?

Heilme 10:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


I think Heilme has very good points and I agree with everything, except the Benign point. I dont think signing/not signing the NPT is a test of whether a nation/govt is easily given to threatening others. Its past history is more important, which shows India has clean slate. All wars it fought was imposed on it or it was called for help(and I dont think thats a POV though one might claim it to be). India is not signing NPT because it feels discriminated. It knows that it has the potential to be one of the big powers of now. On what 'ethical' grounds is the world being divided into haves and have nots of nuclear weapons. NPT was a strategy to stop unstable/unpredictable regimes to start making weapons. India may be anything but unstable. Democracy/and its past record assures that if any sane body in the world were to make a list of "dangerous/threatening/unstable" nations India will be far down in the list. Oneearth 13:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Heilme for sincerely justifying your edits. But I am still not convinced with the Non-classical economic growth point. India's manufacturing sector grew quite fast in the last two years. Besides even if India's manufacturing industry isn't big, its tertiary industry is. I just don't understand why is this a point against India. As long as sustained economic growth takes place, who cares whether the economic growth is due to the primary, secondary or tertiary sector.. Thanks --Spartian 18:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should present all the information that is available to its users. So it is necessary to include Economic Growth as it may not be as obvious to some anonymous reader. Like Spartian and Oneearth, I think the fact that India is Benign is very important, I think if you have been watching the news you would know that George Bush has signed a nuclear deal with India yet refused similar treatment to Pakistan. So it still has a large effect on India. My point for non-classical growth is that in the past there was no IT Industries and Nuclear Deals that could change things, I'm saying that having non-classical growth shouldn't affect India at all. Literacy and National Representation are both points for and against India, so should get two sections detailing the bits for India (growth of Literacy in Kerala, Goa etc.) and points againt (lack of literacy in some states). Thanks Nobleeagle 08:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

This entire article is nothing but a giant ball of uncited claims and original analysis about india. It needs a serious going over to add references to justify its assertions. Night Gyr 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we seriously need some sources, I think news sources from George Bush and John Howard's recent visits to India would do us fine, as they have large amounts of information on the democracy. But I believe we should try and find references before considering the article as a candidate for deletion. Nobleeagle 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I see the OR tag got taken off, but I don't think the article's ready for that yet. Picking a random paragraph... "Far into the future, as technology develops cheaper ways to harness newer sources of energy, the world will slowly leave the "fossil-fuel age" / "nuclear-fission age" and enter the "renewable-energy age" or "fusion age" (only if fusion power is made economical)." This is a speculative conclusion about the future. Who knows if we'll ever leave nuclear fission behind?

Another unsourced conclusion: " India's democracy has indeed held this multi-ethnic country together. " This isn't a proven fact or obvious derivation, it's a conclusion based on analysis and needs a source.

Another: "The fact that these states are far apart means that good government can spread the literacy to their neigbouring states. Improving India's literacy rate." Not only is it bad grammar, it's sloppy analysis. Even if it was more refined, wikipedia still isn't the place for original analysis.

Also, the references don't always match the claims: "India is becoming one of the world's leading producers of computer software and with mushrooming R&D centres, it is experiencing a slow but steady revolution in science and technology" is supposedly supported by [1], a paragraph-long blurb that mentions growth of R&D outsourcing to india, but makes no mention of a "revolution."

I'm putting the tag back on. Night Gyr 09:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that removed the tag, after seeing a few of the sources and the sheer number of the sources. I did not, I can say, read all 130 of them. But after seeing your analysis I agree that the tag should remain. Nobleeagle 22:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself as a technologist with good training in both science and engineering. I am not aware anything that is happening in India can be called as "revolution" in science or technology. A revolution in science and technology requires characteristics that are significant and drastic change or unprecedent. Software outsourcing, call centers, or some R&D outsourcing can at most be considered as revolution in business practice but not revolution in science and technology. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, "revolution" means a sudden or momentous change in a situation. "slow but steady revolution" is self-contradictious. Drkyang 11:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a technological revolution can occur at the pace you seem to be implying. India has advanced greatly from 1995 to 2005, from a period in which it's computer technology was lagging to a period where it's professionals dominate the software market. So an I.T. revolution definitely took place. Not sure whether it would be similar for science and technology, more like a quick advance to the extent that it is quick catching up to the United States. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I would accept IT revolution but not science revolution. I believe that we have not seen any science revolution in the world for decades. Drkyang 02:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

References in Points For Indian Superpower

Are we going to delete an article because of these simple gaps?Nobleeagle 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Points That Need References

  • Distance to Population Hubs
  • English (kind of)
  • Arms Imports (done)Nobleeagle 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Bollywood

Nobleeagle 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Points That May/May Not Need References

These points are mostly based on logic or are too broad to have a single reference.

  • Foreign Relations
  • Energy (but this is common knowledge, just need to find one good website)Nobleeagle 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

References in Points Against Indian Superpower

Points That Need References

  • Poverty (such a heavy point that stats better not be a lie)
  • Technology (last bit)
  • Energy Dependence
  • Climate or Environmental Problems (also a very heavy point that stats better not be fabricated)

Points That May/May Not Need References

  • Resources
  • Infrastructure
  • Bad Government (it's obvious there is corruption in the Indian government)Nobleeagle 09:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So there's our outline let's get working.Nobleeagle 09:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wiki article "IQ and Wealth of Nations", the average IQ of Indian is only 81, which is significantly lower than that of American(98), European (about 100), and Chinese (100). I realize that it is still controversial whether the IQ is a crucial factor for a nation's development. Most likely, the Indian's low average IQ is caused by malnutrition and illieracy. Just like infrastructure, educaction and mental capability of the citizens should also be an important factor for a nation to become superpower. Should we add a little bit of discussion on the eduction and IQ issue? Drkyang 11:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add it with literacy then do so. But the IQ would be significantly higher in urban and metropolitan areas. These figures are generally brought down by thousands of small villages without proper education systems. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Literacy

I agree that literacy should not be shown as power. Literacy is indeed a human right...its not a point of projecting power. And most of the west and east asia is indeed ahead of south asia. Leave literacy for now in points against because india does need to improve in this front. Oneearth 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

literacy is a factor of power,peopol are more efficient-orginized-dissiplined when they are litterate.It increases quality.--Ruber chiken 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course. However, being an Indian by birth myself, I know the literacy issue. The fact is that most people on the West coast of India are very literate, that area being where the manufacturing and modernizing is going on. However, in rural areas, especially the eastern areas of India, literacy sharply declines. Literacy does not currently affect the burgeoning superpower that is India on account that the growth is in already literate areas. However, there are already feelings among the rural areas of not being able to participate in this economic growth. Rohan 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD

The deletion debate about this page and several others recently concluded. Although the debate did not reach a consensus for a particular course of action, there was a general consensus (about three-quarters of people involved) that the articles not remain in their present form. Please see the deletion debate for a description of the result of the debate and a suggestion for future action. --bainer (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll now ask for your opinions on the next course of action, we definitely have to trim the POV in these pages up and get rid of as much OR as possible. We'll do the same on the China and EU pages. But then again, we could summarize these points and simply put them in the India or Major power page. Any ideas? Nobleeagle 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The article has been saved from deletion now, I'm going to be trimming it in accordance to What Wikipedia Is Not. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps change the title of all to a more humbler one...eg emerging powers etc.

Crystal Balling

After reading Wikipedia's policy on Crystal Balling, you would understand why I remove statements like these:

Some doomsayers are already predicting that, in the future, water scarcity may even incite a war in the sub-continent.

Makes me laugh. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Superpower Criteria

I hope editors understand that this page is based on the criteria presented on the Superpower page and headings such as Environmental Obstacles will lead to new headings being created that do not match that criteria. So I'm going to remove these headings and put the points in the groups that best suit them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Criteria is for points in favour. where is it written that the criteria also stands for points against. the social issues talks of things which are not all political but social. whats political about discrimination against girl child...its social problem and not political. Oneearth 16:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your point of view, I just think we should stick to the criteria and it's definitely more political than economic or demographic. I think that the internal religious violence is a very political topic. The main idea is that political things stunt superpower growth a bit more than social things. I just want to stop all these wierd headings come up in this article. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, I'm perfectly happy with the new Cultural Problems heading... Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations

Hey , whats the point writing about foreign reln in such detail in this article. all this details should go into Foreign relations of India and the link should be provided to it. Please discuss....Oneearth 14:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please post the same message in the Potential Superpowers - China article, to tell you the truth I intend for the info in both articles to end up in Foreign relations of India and China respectively, but at the moment I want to see the reaction of User:66.--- who has been getting on my nerve over the past few days. Accusing me of OR, Bias and Crystal-balling as well as implying that there is something wrong with me. Nobleeagle (Talk) 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Title Change

I have proposed that the title be changed to Emerging Superpowers - India on the Superpower page, please vote over there if you have an opinion to this change.Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote for "Potential Superpowers" becasue "Emerging" is more certain than "Potential". We don't know whether India will surely become a superpower yet. Drkyang 11:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the vote long finished at Talk:Superpower, if you see definitions of emerging listed on Talk:Superpower then I guess the move was justifiable too. Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Inotes

Does anyone believe this article should adopt inotes? I know that this method of referencing is becoming more adn more controversial, but to tell you the truth, will all these references lying around unorganized everywhere we should at least convert those that reference obvious things (like the fact it has the second largest population) to inotes. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

threre is a contradiction the photo says that india has the third largest muslim poupulation and the text says secend—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.32.159.25 (talk • contribs)
I'm going to have a go at inotes. In reference to your question, India's Muslim population is sometimes disputed as to whether it is larger or smaller than Pakistan. For convenience I'll keep it to second, as that's the view I have always believed. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've done inotes for the geography section, see if you like it and I'll do it for all the other sections as well. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Since there have been no objections I'm going to start working on it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Performance in Sports?

We just started a poll on whether Sports Power and performance in sports can be included under all of the nations listed on the pages Major power, Superpower, Potential Superpowers and Regional power. If you're interested in the topic, please come to Talk:Major power#Vote to express your views and cast your vote. : : : MainBody

No history of imperialism?

I think we need to revise the part about India having "no history of imperialism" to something like "no recent/modern history of imperialism", depending on how "India" and "imperialism" is defined. If we define India as being the state that existed since 1947, and define imperialism moderately, then I suppose you could say that India had no history of imperialism. If you define India to include the Mughals, Marathas, Dogras, Guptas, Mauryas and especially the Cholas under emperors Rajaraja and Rajendra, then the statement that India has "no history of imperialism" may not hold true. --SohanDsouza 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about this. The thing was that those ancient states weren't part of a united India. Now the India after 1947 is represented on the world stage by one banner, indicating that it is united. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion or merger with India

The article Major Power is under review, being considered for deletion. Also, this article is mainly Original Research.I would propose same treatment here, including establishment of appropriate tag. Please leave your considerations.201.1.154.57 19:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Guinnog 22:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you should first tell everyone what the problems are before going into deletion. This article has already survived deletion and cannot be merged with India which is FA and can't afford to be overloaded with this information. Guinnog, please mention in clear concise points the ORs that are presented in this article. In case you haven't noticed, there are over 100 sources and a number of other references relating directly to India's growth to Superpower status. The article is oversourced, what issues do you have with it???? Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the deletion debate officially reached no consensus, it "survived" because the default result is to take no action. Please read my closing comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potential Superpowers—India for a fuller explanation of what the result was. --bainer (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I warned about this. We will have no crusade. The people who have worked on these and want to keep it easily outnumber those who want it gone. A joint AfD is not Wikipedian and easily overturned anyways, so don't even bother Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I will give an example why this article is biased and not neutral. I live in Brazil. When people here talk about influence of India over South America - such as economy or cultural - I would say that is virtually zero. India has few economic relations with Brazil and no cultural influence. You cannot really compare Hollywood with Bollywood. Just to give the numbers of viewers and numbers of movies produced as an evidence of influence is just ridiculuous. It is same to say that Mandarin is a more important language than English. Almost nobody knows anything here about Bollywood and all eastern religions have small influence. This article is biased and shloud be merged with India. There is clear national pride behind this articleCloretti2 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would propose new afd for the possibility of deletion/merger of this article with India. As we can see, the last afd have not reached consensus.Cloretti2 15:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
How many times do I have to say that a Merge with India is impossible. Next, I think there was a bit of misunderstanding related to the Influence in S America section, it's meant to cover the good foreign relations. And while Bollywood may not be popular in S America, it is definitely popular in Australia, the US and the UK, with some cinemas showing Bollywood movies. In fact, in Australia, one channel devoted an entire month to Bollywood movies. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Bollywood movies are popular in the US? My american born indian friends watch absolutely zero bollywood movies a year. And there is absolutely zero indian movies in our local theatres. Just because bollywood sells a lot tickets in Inida doesnt mean it has any soft power internationally.

Caste System

I'm well aware of the caste system divide in India but the true story isn't presented in this article. You see, the dispute created here originated from the views of Mahatma Gandhi at elevating the lower castes to higher roles. There is therefore a quota presented in many professions that allow lower caste people to get jobs that they may not deserve. Therefore:

Low-caste Indians have faced years of social discrimination and are poorly represented in leading professions

Is incorrect in modern society. In fact the BBC Article you quote says that Lower castes have become politically influential in recent years. It also says that caste violence occurs at regular intervals throughout the country, however I'd say religious violence occurs more often. No-one really cares much about castes anymore (but this is the first-hand view of someone that has not been open to rural or village life). But most importantly, it's going a bit off topic and presented a point against India that has nothing relating to India's growth to superpower status. So I'm removing it for now. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it is referenced and is a current affairs topic. Some Indians may think it is no longer a problem, but then again, some may not realize it is still happening in other parts of the country. As long as there is discrimination issues against caste system (which still do exist and not completely eradicated yet), I think it presents a challenge for social unification in India. A strong nation cannot be a nation that discrimates one another. Maybe another second reference to highlight the problem can be found. Heilme 08:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Have rephrased so that it represents the true topic: the quota system. There are no instances of caste violence though that I have seen in the news. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It is wrong to say that the caste system poses a problem to India's superpower goals. There was racism in early 20th century America and Russia as well as class discrimination in Britain and other European nations during the colonial-period. For that reason it should be removed unless there is major and current documented evidence of riots or something like that. GizzaChat © 09:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Nup, I don't think caste riots have occured for ages. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Casteism has baiscally disappeared from India. 210.11.188.15 23:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
But I am sure there is still caste prejudice in India, even though it has officially been eliminated. Heilme 03:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
To 210.11.188.15: Stop removing well-sourced info!202.40.137.197 08:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The source doesn't really say much, read the entirety of this discussion. And by the way, Heilme, that is your view of things, and that's not for Wikipedia. Small bouts of caste prejudice do not disunite the nation nor affect India's growth to superpower status. In India, religion divides, not caste. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes me laugh. Its funny and hypocritical that you dont even cite source to support you own "view" on Caste. Anyway, removing sourced-contents from any article is highly disrespectful on wikipedia. I believe articles from BBC, India Daily and Express India have higher credibility than any POV pusher/vandalist like you202.40.137.197 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not just my view of things, Nobleeagle. I read it from the news article. Caste prejudice still happens in India. It's no different than religious prejudice, or racial prejudice. It's a prejudice based on different issues. Heilme 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Right keep it there, I don't care, nothing that is written here affects India at all. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement "The measure has helped the lower-caste Indians to pursue higher education and alleviate their standard of life" would classify as POV and should be removed. There is a raging debate on in India whether the quotas actually help those that they are meant for. The Knowledge Commission has also given its verdict against the quota policy (Pls see the following news item: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1524989.cms) and one point of view is that introducing quotas is just vote bank politics. Lost 18:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the sentence. Please check now. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks better now. I have changed a few words to improve the grammar. I hope they dont change the intended meaning. Lost 08:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks better now, and nothing about caste violence and discrimination. It's more confusion in eliminating the caste system that is causing problems. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way to the anons, why don't you create an account. Go to the top-right corner. It makes working Wikipedia much easier. GizzaChat © 11:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Further Rewording Needed

Deepujoseph, thanks so much for your POV-removing, but, no offense, the article still needs rewording. Thus, you further assistance is needed.

  • OR/POV: Foreign relations - India has developed relationships with the present world powers like the EU , the U.S. , Russia, Japan and also with the African Union, the Arab World, Southeast Asia and Israel. In order to make the environment propitious for economic growth India is improving its relations with the China .It has also expanded its political influence in Western Nations and signed a landmark nuclear deal with the United States in March 2006. and Pakistan .

Obviously OR, what has developing relations got to do with the status of emerging superpower.? what political influence specifically?

See Foreign relations of India where all the detailed info along with their sources were moved. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That article mentioned nothing about specifcally the "emerging superpower" status, only talked about (Indian PM) paying visits to other countries...blahblahblah. You seems drawing the attention away by refering to those off-topic wikiarticles, diplomatic relations doesn't nessessarily leads to "emerging superpower" 219.79.29.47 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
In case you didn't know, half that article used to be in here, while China may operate with Hard power, India operates more generally with Soft power. Political relations are a strong aspect of a superpower, just see the United States. If everyone hated the US, it would not survive economically let alone politically. By the way, if your comparing the NPOV in Foreign relations of India to the POV in China as an emerging superpower, Wikipolicy states that one should not use bad examples. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
As you said it is just "may operate", and I dont see any elaboration about the actual (soft)Power projection of India. Factually, China(including HKSAR..etc) does process power projection of both soft and hard power, the difference is that China processes much broader scale for the latter.219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The inotes given in the para cite two websites — One of them with the title - "India finds US wants to be its new best friend", and the other about the EU seeking to enhance co-operation with India. Developing relations with other countires, gives it allies. And in today's global scenario, allies are an invaluable asset — a boost, in fact, for an emerging superpower. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 11:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Factually accuracy: Candidate for Security Council - India has been pressing for a position in the Security Council (as part of the G4 nations ) has received backing from the UK , France , Russia and China . However, the U.S has not been supportive of the bid. With improved Indo-US relations, there has been indications that the US is only waiting for a more suitable time to allow new members to UNSC

Updates: G4 has already withdrawn its bid after China and US jointly expressed opposition last year.[2] And the last sentence is misleading/crystal-balling, it only said "Allow new members", no evidence shows that it has anything to do with New Delhi.

It's true though...just need to find a source. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Cite sources when u add something Per Wikipolicy 219.79.29.47 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
ONCE AGAIN you attempt to mislead us by saying cite sources, take a look, this small paragraph is accompanied by no less than SEVEN sources. I believe it conforms to Wikipolicy. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont think so, info you added is outdated, G4's bid had fail....and I rather saw the sourced article with title: "US won’t back India’s bid for UNSC"(???)219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


  • OR: Economic Growth - India's current fast economic growth (as the world's second-fastest growing major economy) has improved its standing on the world's political stage, even though the country remains one of the poorest in the world. Many nations are moving to forge better relationship with India.

Better relationship and then?

Nuclear deals etc... Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Flat fact: There are many Nuclear deals in many other countries. e.g. Japan and even Pakistan 219.79.29.47 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It's called scale...India can use their foreign relations on a much larger scale than nations like Pakistan or Japan. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
no, Japan has been developing foreign relationship in a broader scale intercontinentally, much of it is are regarded as Tokyo's counterbalance to China.(e.g., energy, natural resources)219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont see how this is OR. The foreign relations section gives the sources to this claim. Many countries, including superpowers are trying to forge better relationship with India — a poor, third world country. I dont see the US befriending poor African nations. Therefore, it is in fact a recognition of India's growth, and an acknowledgment of India as an emerging superpower — which, by the way, is what the article is about. If I add such a reasoning to the article, then it would be OR. The interpretation of the statement is up to the reader. Right now, I dont see how it can be termed OR when the claim is backed by solid sources.-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 13:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • POV: [photo showing Indian PM and MX's president, notes]India is extremely keen on improving its ties with other developing countries and is often regarded as the leader of the Third World

Needless to say! crappy POV!

Perhaps needs a source, not POV though... Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Cite sources or I will remove/edit it in the near future. "Often"? Read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words219.79.29.47 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't add this caption, thus feel free to edit it to NPOV. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
ok219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • POV: Mass Transit System - The Indian Mass Transit System is comparable to the best in the world. Mass rapid transit systems, known in India as Metros, are common in cities such as Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai and are under construction or about to begin construction in Noida, Goa, Thane, Pune, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Kochi. . India's rail network is the longest of any country [11] spanning all Indian states and Union Territories and transporting millions. Other public transport systems, such as buses, are improving but are not yet comparable to the best in the world.......[photo showing New Delhi metro] operational since 2002, is seen as a model for other metros. With growth in economy and technology, India is welcoming modernization.

The worst Indian-POV I have ever seen.....has that POV pusher ever visited the systems in other Asian regions like Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Shanghai and even Shenzhen? Borrowing Korean technologies doesn't mean New Delhi's subway can rival the Koreans!

Subway?? Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is the question of logic. Borrowing others countries' IT/nuclear/railway technologies means India rivals the best of the world? 219.79.29.47 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Borrowing other countries IT?? India's a leader in IT, that means it is ahead of other nations. To import arms means that one can keep up to date with the latest technologies, being technologically advanced is a quality of a superpower. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


I raise _NO_ question on India's I.T. industry being one of the best on this planet. But I am talking about Railways! Kindly elaborate, using sources, India's mass transit systems benifited from its expanding I.T. industry.219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
My comment was based on the fact that you said India borrow's others IT. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's misunderstood, as I said its a question of logic, ** If ** Country A borrowing technologies from Country B... 219.79.29.47 06:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Better not raise a question regarding India's nuclear technology either, lol . India is the only country in the world to successfully develop the technology to build nuclear reactors functioning on plutonium. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK 13:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OR: History - India has a long history of cultural intercourse with many regions of the world. Its cultural influence has spread through the philosophy of religions like Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Buddhism (particularly in East and SE Asia). Many foreign religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Bahá'í Faith - have found followers in India. Indian culture has spread to foreign lands through migration.

...BlahBlahBlah, so what the bloody hell has it got to do with Emerging Superpower?

Soft power my friend...
I've read that article many times, nothing was mentioned specifically about how come multi-religious background will leads to emerging superpower? ELABORATE, not REFER me to other irrelevant wikiarticles 219.79.29.47 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well all followers of these religions therefore have a connection to India. Making it a melting pot of various cultures. It is similar to diaspora. This leads to wider cultural attention to India, which gives it soft power. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


India has an extremely strong diaspora, but not by religions. For example, I have never seen India spread Hinduism, Jainism, Christianity to many other regions successfully. Most of the believers of those native-Dharmic religions are mainly overseas Indians.219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


The case of Buddhism is disputed. Thats why you can see my previous reply in which I mentioned Jainism, Christianity and Hinduism but not Buddhism. But, for example, how was Buddhism spead to China, which has the world's largest Buddhist population currently, and further the Northeast Asian Nations of Japan and Korea? Then-Indians didn't participate much in sending missionaries, in other words Buddhism seemed more likely brought by local (East Asian) peoples, travelling India, instead of people from the Indian states. 219.79.29.47 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But it's still cultural influence then. If many East Asian people follow a religion founded in India by an Indian...And my other point was on South East Asia, in which Hinduism was spread (by Indians) in the medieval ages. See articles like the Sri Vijaya Kingdom. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hinduist elements, as cultural influence, exists, but S.E. Asia forms only a small portion of the world. How about, excluding overseas-Indian communities, influence beyond SA/SEA? e.g., There is also unique Roman Catholic influences over small portions like East Timor and Macau, but logically I would not say that Italy/Rome or Portugal is now a cultural power over the whole East Asia(SEA included) region. Right? Furthermore, mentioning Jainism and Christianity in the cultural case of "Indian-Emerging Superpower", is even exaggerating. 219.79.29.47 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OR: Cinema - India's film industry produces more feature films than any other [14]. In a year, it sold 3.6 billion tickets, more than any other film industry in the world (In comparison, Hollywood sold 2.6 billion tickets in a year).

Quality, not quantity. And I dont see Indian movies have any cultural influence over East Asia, North America, Latin America, Russia.....etc

They do spread Indian culture to North America, Australia and Europe, not sure about the other nations but the Western Hemisphere is getting them...Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Cite sources per Wiki's policy 219.79.29.47 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Unsourced: Unity in Diversity of world view - India has a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious society cohabitating together. The subcontinent's long and diverse history has given it a unique eclectic culture. It is also often associated with spirituality. India's diversity forces it to either evolve strong foundations of tolerance and survive, or face break-up. The Indian public is now also accepting western influences in their society and media - and what is emerging is a confluence of its past local culture with the new western culture ("Social Glocalisation"). For some futuristic social thinkers, the miscegenation of diverse ancient culture with modernity, spirituality with science/technology, Eastern with Western world-view is potentially making India a social laboratory for the evolution of futuristic global-unity consciousness . If, and only if, everything evolves right, then South Asia could emerge as a soft super-power, by being the biggest melting pot of human ethnicities, languages, cultures, religions, ideologies & world view. Soft Power - India — a melting pot of human ethnicities, languages, cultures, religions, ideologies and world view — has produced much cultural influence, and has the potential to re-inforce the massive influence on world culture through modern trends such as entertainment.

crystal-balling !!!!

Need a source then, maybe a bit of POV removal, but otherwise it's all fact. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will add POV/OR tag if nothing was improved in the near future as those ORs/POVs listed above have already existed on this article for a _long_ time, and now you just tell me "Need to find a source", "Need a source then"? Dont tell me you have ever been aware of those wikipolicies I mentioned before. 219.79.29.47 05:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
There are 4 sources in that paragraph my friend, do you want me to find 10 or something per line? Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Unity in Diversity of world view? What is the use of telling me they are many sources cited while we are basially talking about _Crystal-balling_? Its still crystal balling even you got bunch of references.219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you please point out the crystal-balling specifically, just because there's a sentence of crystal-balling doesn't mean you delete the entire para. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete? Read my first reply to User:Deepujoseph:
the article still needs rewording. Thus, you(r) further assistance is needed
219.79.29.47 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, my bad, but still point out specific sentences of crystal balling. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The Indian public is now also accepting western influences in their society and media - and what is emerging is a confluence of its past local culture with the new western culture ("Social Glocalisation"). For some futuristic[?] social thinkers, the miscegenation of diverse ancient culture with modernity, spirituality with science/technology, Eastern with Western world-view is potentially[?] making India a social laboratory for the evolution of futuristic global-unity consciousness. If, and only if, everything evolves right, then South Asia could emerge as a soft super-power, by being the biggest melting pot of human ethnicities, languages, cultures, religions, ideologies & world view.
It's simply a crystal-balling / whatif situation comes with weasel words but not existent FACT. Potentials itself can not be classified as a factor. 219.79.29.47 07:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Many editors have helped improve this article, it now has over 100 sources. You can't tell me that I don't know about the Wikipolicies relating to sourcing articles. But...this is a special case, considering a source exists and yet you still complain about it being unsourced! Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Referring me to other wikiartcles is not 'Quoting Source'!(The Wikipolicy says so: other [wiki-]article can not be quoted as sources) You should also carefully note that I've decided not to readd the POV/OR tag, it means I find this article, as part of the encyclopaedia, is still very useful and informative. I've seen someone(Anon? I forgot) has proposed Afd for this "India-Emerging Superpower", this is what I dont want to see.
Thats why I complain219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! 219.79.29.47 18:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :D... Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome 219.79.29.47 09:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

demographic problemme

If every indian had the same level of life than americans,we would need several planettes,just for india.So ,the strong demographic of india(and china) is a factor against superpower status,feeding a billion peopol is one thing,but on top of that have hi level of life and be a superpower seems imposible.Natural resources have limits,they aren't infinit,having more peopol,simply redusses the shares.I'm saying that india(and china?) is more or less doomed in poverty because of hi demographics,and not in superpower status(seence is the primary reson to consider it as a emerging superpower).The curant midel class looks like the product of a huge inecaulity than of a sustainable trend.--Ruber chiken 18:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The big problem with this type of article

Look at this sentence:

"The Republic of India is considered as one of the possible future superpowers of the world."

This is presented as a statement of fact but it is clearly an opinion. At best, it should be rendered "X considers the Republic of India as one..."

This is a problem of essay-style articles. An expression of opinion does not cease to be an expression of opinion simply because it is sourced! That would be like writing an article called All foos are idiots and saying: All foos are idiots(1), and making 1 a note in which you source the statement to some guy who said foos are idiots.

In sum, this whole article falls foul of WP:NOR. It creates a thesis -- not in itself a novel one -- by bringing together various threads and making a case with them.

I recognise the difficulty of getting rid of bad articles like this one. Even though it flatly breaches a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, there is no way to delete it, because too many interested parties simply do not care what the policies are or how they apply here. Fundamentally, because Wikipedia's policies are descriptive, this sort of thing will destroy the basis for the encyclopaedia. Because, frankly, if you can have India as an emerging superpower, why can you not have America as the Great Satan or The United States going to hell in a handcart or Why China will own the world in 50 years. Grace Note 07:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No this article despite his problems have his place in wikipedia.It reports a fact,many think that india has potential superpower status.The problem of this article is that it's not neutral and gives manly one side.Hey America as the Great Satan,thats a great idea i'll start it right away.--Ruber chiken 08:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Republicanism vs Democracy

Although democracy's definition has changed over the years, republicanism is still a better term. Please read: [3] if you have any questions. Simply put democracy is linked to the Athenian model where the mob rules. A republic is a better term than democracy, no matter the article. India is a republic so it should make no difference. Don't put what you feel is right, put what IS right. 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The thing is most sources cited in this article use the term democracy...the United States president once described India as the "World's most fascinating democracy", not republic. There is a difference and thus we shouldn't go by OR and stick to the sources. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many people use the term democracy as if it is the same thing as a republic. The problem is that this term is being misused into something that they aren't. For example check out this [4]

"Many great American statesmen have made the mistake of referring to our form of government as a Democracy. It was never intended to be a Democracy, but a democratic Republic. There are major differences. Still, ask any 100 people you meet on the street or any 100 students in America’s schools what form of government we have and you will likely get 100 responses of, “a Democracy.”"

So I am not suprised of Bush said the term democracy. It still isn't accurate. Also read my last article. Although media sources and other sources use the term "democracy" it doesn't mean the term is accurate. So I will change it. 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

MEDICAL SERVICES of india are not of first world standard .

I am a doctor in India .Anyone claiming that medical services in India are of first world standard is either ignorant of medicine or ignorant of Indian medical facilities. In indian public hospitals patients sleep in the hospital floors hospitals dont have basic medical equipments .Most people die of Preventable diseases .India has a third world standard of health care system .

Medical Tourism in India is due to few Private hospitals in India . Those Rich hospitals have good and modern facilities no doubt but they are in no way equivalent to first world facilities. Even those Hospitals lack many advanced facilities available in the west .Moreover the state of hygine is very poor in those hospitals compared to the first world.

So medical outsourceing may be good for India. But I disagree with the term [b]"First world treatment at third world prices "[/b] neither the treatment is of first world standard and the prices are far far higher thaan being of third world standard.

I have removed the changes made by two anons yesterday if that is what you are talking about. I agree with you largely, there are some world class hospitals in India but they are not widespread enough. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that the so called .."world class" hospitalss in India are advanced but but in no way they are "world class" -they may be compared with gerneral hospitals in west .

Infact today inspite of all these economic boom India still dosent have a single hospital that may be tearmed as "world class"...I am saying this because I have worked both in one of the best Indian Hosps (CMC , Vellore ) as well as so general hospitals in USA UK and Russia.

Truth is truth ...India still lags far behind.Even the best Indian hospitals have almost no facilities for Stem cell replacement , complex transplant operations and many other advanced complex diagnostic and therapeutical facilities .Apart from that even India's Advanced Hospitals has almost zero contribution in Research and Development when compared to the hoispitals in the first world.

The opinion expressed in the article are too much biased ,Indian centric opinions with minimum research about the real facts.

Moreover Institutions like AIIMS IITs etc are excellent Institutes no doubt but its too baised to call them "one of the best" in the world ...had they been one of the best in the world the students would have come from all over the world to study there but the fact is that most Graduate Students from those institutions try their best to get a seat in Werstern American and Russian Universities ...and only those who cant find a place in the western Universities do their Post Graduation in those institutes.

When its an encyclopedia I request all to give up their pseudo-patriotic egos and be a bit more realistic.This is not a web forum for articles like India Vs China etc

emerging superpower want to solve the problem of Kashmir.

emerging superpower want to solve the problem of Kashmir.
vkvora 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

India and AIDS.

I added some paragraph on AIDS in India. Strangely, nobody here even mention this major problem of India. As everyone knows, India have the most AIDS patients in the world.