Will India surpass China economically and militarily in the future? Twenty years? Fifty years? 100 year?

There seems no need to pay attention to this.

In fact, the economy is not only important in total quantity, but also its quality, health and the speed of development compatible with them. What do you think of the Japanese economy? We finally surpassed it. But it has some core industrial capabilities, which we don't have now and we don't want to have in the future. The United States ranks first in the world in military power, but they say, "If American missiles do not include Japanese chips and precision machinery, they will be paralyzed." There is no need to care about the Indian economy. Instead, we should focus on our own economic quality and health, because China's status as a big country cannot be supported by real estate and plush toys alone. So, what happens if the Indian economy surpasses China? Didn't China rank first in the world economy for a long time in feudal times? (The proportion once exceeded the world 1/3, even better than the current 2% in the United States. ) However, Eight-Nation Alliance's musket team, with only a few thousand people, defeated an "economic power" in the world at that time, ceded land for reparations and surrendered. Therefore, the economy depends on (or even mainly depends on) quality. Moreover, there is no indication that India will surpass China, even in total.

India missed the opportunity to develop a "hard industrial" economy. At the high end, the western developed industrial countries (or former industrial countries) who have played enough with the virtual economy and played with fire are now shouting "return to manufacturing", just like Obama shouting "return to Asia".

Re-occupation of high value-added cutting-edge industrial manufacturing is its goal, which is not only a reflection on its previous "virtual fire surplus", but also a solid economic foundation for future great power competition and the relief of a large number of domestic employment pressures-this pressure can not be alleviated every time through war, especially today when the international prestige of the United States has declined after the Iraq war in 2003. The middle end of the industry has long been destined to be a "red sea"-it is not only the foundation of small developed countries (such as second-tier industrial countries like South Korea), but also the way to survive. It is also a firm development strategy and goal of emerging developing countries (especially China). A life-and-death industrial struggle, survival of the fittest, opened the curtain of Xu Zhan. To be polite, India does not have the strength and target plan to participate in this competition. Low-end industries, to be honest, China, as a "factory of the world", has no idea of relaxing this market at all, let alone giving up. China's industry should be upgraded, but this is limited to coastal and developed industrial blocks. Low-end industries can (and are) completely transferred to the inland areas of the central and western regions. Otherwise, why did China invest so many "railway companies" in recent years? Moreover, the low-end manufacturing industry has absorbed so many employed people, which has made great contributions to accelerating China's road to becoming a powerful country through urbanization and industrialization. For foreign capital, labor costs are actually not that important. The efficiency of the local government, logistics and transportation, even foreigners' leisure and entertainment, children's enrollment, social security and the long-term stability of the big political environment are all on the investor's consideration list. The most important thing in doing business is to see if you can make money by investing and building factories here. The idea of building a factory near China, a vast market with a large population and great commercial value, has made many leaders of Fortune 500 companies want to stop. Yes, India also has a population, so there is a future market. However, we should also clearly see that India's purchasing power is mainly concentrated in a few rich groups. More than 72% of the population is in rural areas, of which more than 50% are landless farmers, and a large number of poor people flow into urban slums. 38% people in Mumbai, India's largest city, live in slums. India's birth rate is 2.7%, which is much higher in rural areas (but lower than 1.3% in emerging industrial countries such as East Asia, China, Japan and South Korea). Therefore, it is unrealistic for foreign investors to get high returns in the Indian market at this stage.

Strictly speaking, India is still a country in transition from agriculture to industrialization, which is in the "crawling area" with slow industrialization, that is, the middle part of the initial area (urbanization rate is 20-35%). Now China is in the high-end part of the accelerated period of industrialization and urbanization (the urbanization rate is 35-50%), and it is preparing to transform into an industrialized country in the era of industrialization 2.0 (they are characterized by innovative high-tech and high value-added industries). During this period, industrial efficiency will increase exponentially. If China successfully completes this transformation, the gap between China and India will not narrow, but widen. By the way, this is also the internal reason for the recent intensification of the South China Sea-when China completes its transformation into a developed industrial country, they will be even more desperate than today. Therefore, it is more practical to pay attention to whether our country can go well next and make suggestions than to stare at the followers behind.

As the secretary of the "World Office", India relies on the bosses' faces and economic conditions, which is no different from China's low-end export processing industry. But the difference in China is that the processing and manufacturing industry can be upgraded-to be its own boss, or at least to be the boss of the China market first, to produce and sell itself. And you can also develop your own "Chinese office" service industry to support your own industry, which is a business that an "English secretary" like San Ge can't take away.

India's real industrial strength is not strong, because more than half of GDP has been cut by agriculture and services. Its defense industry has been hovering between primitive and primary because it has no orders for a long time. To surpass China militarily, Indian defense industry must first stand on its own feet. Foreign rapid procurement is like an installed prosthesis: the fake is always fake, not to mention expensive and inconvenient to use. If the key parts are broken, they should be removed for external repair, otherwise they will have to be in a wheelchair. China's national defense industry was forced out in adversity, but the hardships we experienced made us embark on the broad road. There is a joke circulating in the western military industry: "If you only show China engineers 1/3 of western products, they can produce another two-thirds of products with the same performance and lower price;" Indians, even if you give it to him, may not be able to produce products that meet the requirements of the factory. "This may be a little underestimating India, but they do need improvement, but this improvement will take time. Unfortunately, Indians' concept of time is not very strong, at least not as urgent as China. In 47, India became independent, two years earlier than China. Several populations and territories are equivalent to China. They didn't interfere with the Cultural Revolution, and there was no island chain around China and the surrounding countries established bases for military containment. There is no threat, no embargo, no division, no internationalization of the occupied territories ... Recently, Indians are keen on western propaganda about surpassing China, but don't forget that China is the real pursuer. We not only surpassed India, which was founded in 1947, but also caught up with Germany and Japan, and the road of catching up continues-our goal is the United States.

India is a strange country. It occupies an undetermined area of 90,000 square kilometers in southern Tibet on the Sino-Indian border, but every day it clamors that China will "invade" it in the past, present and future. As we all know, Nehru's "forward policy" led to decades-long disputes between the two neighboring countries. But only in India is it still sealed and kept secret. Packaging the wrongdoer himself as a victim-state behavior, media pioneer, participation of the whole people, living in the illusion of being victimized all day. Afraid of China, but clamoring for war. In any case, the attitude of the United States is likely to regard it as a big Israel-it is also willing to return what it occupies with the support of the United States. We all know that it is not so difficult to trip over "Israel", but it is the United States hiding behind. Therefore, our goal is the United States. We might as well regard him as a large-scale Israel, Vietnam and the Philippines, and attach importance to him tactically and despise him strategically. The key to this lock is in the hands of Americans and us in China.