Student+Research+Findings+on+India

1 || Goldman Sachs implications of the Acronym BRIC || (What's wrong and how to fix it) ||
 * 2 || The I in BRIC: where India stands today (and how it got there) ||
 * 3 || Does Sachs have it right?: A look specifically at growth in India ||
 * 4 || Trends of Globalization and Oppurtunity in the 21st Century ||
 * 5 || A Concordance with Goldman Sachs ||
 * 6 || India's Major problem in the 21st Century: Education
 * 7 || Can India Sustain Growth in the 21st century? ||
 * 8 || Conclusion ||
 * 9 || Related Pages ||
 * 10 || References ||
 * 11 || External Links ||

1. Goldman Sachs vision of the BRIC nations: According to the Goldman Sachs website, “Over the next 50 years, Brazil, Russia, India, and China-The BRIC economies-could become a much larger force in the world economy” ([|1]). If we look at what they have chosen for an acronym, BRIC brings to mind the idea of a brick, a solid object, but one which does not do much good on it’s own. However, structurally, if we look at how bricks work when used with each other, they become capable of building large, solid structures. By choosing this acronym, Goldman Sachs has, implicitly and perhaps unintentionally, made a statement concerning the BRIC nations. It would appear that they cannot stand on their own, but they will be a force to be reckoned with if they ally themselves with one another. Whether or not the academic community at large would be in concordance with this extrapolation is beyond the bounds of speculation for this article, but it can be said that, geopolitically, it would be difficult in some respects for the countries to band together. India and China may be geographically adjacent, however, their shared border has caused far more strife than friendliness in the recent past, bringing to mind the issues over Tibet in recent years. Russia may be on decent footing with China, but not really with any of the other Bric nations, and Brazil is far to geographically removed to be an effective political ally, making it difficult to imagine as an economic ally as well. However, it could be argued that each of the BRIC nations are perfectly capable of standing alone, which seems to be true for the most part, with the most obvious objection being Brazil. China and Russia are well established for shaking world politics in the past, and Brazil seems as if it is only potentially pregnant with potential, as opposed to the other nations who have already given birth to theirs. This leaves India as arguably the most interesting case study of the BRIC nations, and it’s history allows us to see the colonial legacy which it can finally move to discard like an unwanted birthday present, claiming it’s place on the world stage and reversing it’s role in global politics from the abused colony to the 1st world country of the future.

 2. A brief history of modern India: The British Raj in India, established in 1858 and maintained for nearly a full century, defined India moving forward. In this section, it will be important to mold the terminology of Lloyd G. Reynolds, as quoted in D.K. Fieldhouse's __The West And The Third World__: Extensive and intensive growth(Fieldhouse 129), so that it suits our own purposes. For the purpose of this Wiki, “Extensive growth” is a growth of overall national wealth, but not GDP, whereas “intensive growth” is a growth in terms of GDP, usually accompanied by a country becoming more and more technologically advanced. In other words, regardless of what Reynolds had to say on the subject (he was wrong), Extensive growth is growth in a way that won’t help the country’s standard of living, and intensive growth is growth that will. Although the Raj did retard intensive growth and self-determination, it was important in terms of furthering extensive growth, and allowing India to utilize it's resources at maximum efficiency, albeit for the good of the British empire. India had never had the level of international connection that it had before the Raj, therefore, although they were exploited in the short term, it can be argued that at least one part of the colonial legacy had a positive effect, in that the Raj opened India's eyes to the world around them. As you are most likely familiar with if you have even a passing comprehension of world history, Mohandas K. Gandhi led the swaraj (Indian home rule) and quit india movements, and, despite some disputes with Jawaharlal Nehru, and the partition of India into Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, the majority of the movement went smoothly, and India became it's own nation, under the guidance of it's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The 1970's: Indira Gandhi and the Green Revolution: Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mohandas), the daughter or Jawaharlal Nehru, took India in a new direction when she came to power. Nehru had been forced to focus on keeping the country together as a cohesive whole, and as such, had been too busy to work on another long standing problem of the colonial legacy: foreign dependence. Due to Britain's presence in India, cash crops such as cotton were grown instead of foodstuffs, and so India needed to import the vast majority of their food. Indira fixed this problem with the so-called "green revolution": a movement that encouraged Indian farmers to grow more foodstuffs and less cash crops. This was a critical step in terms of making the transition from extensive growth to intensive growth, and allowing India to become a BRIC nation. Although Indira was murdered shortly after this, her son Rajiv was waiting to take power and finish her objectives. Rajiv Gandhi and the drive towards modernization: Rajiv Gandhi (the son of Indira) took power after his mother's death, and focused on modernizing India. It was this drive towards modernization, coming so soon after the green revolution, which delivered a real knockout blow to the economic part of the British colonial legacy. Although cultural parts of the legacy continue on, India was on it's own two feet economically after Rajiv's drive to complete his late mother's vision for an India not dependant on foreign aid was completed. Rajiv met the same fate as his mother (this time killed by a Muslim suicide bomber), but the economic power of India was clear to the world moving into the 1990s. Moving into modern times, India has a vibrant information technology capital in Bangalore, as well as a thriving business sector in New Delhi. Although most would not classify it as a more developed country, it can be classified as an MDC (more developed country), and, if it continues to grow, it will reach first world status before the year 2050.

3. In India, the GDP is currently growing 8% faster than it was even a year ago (The Economist). As GDP continues to increase, the country is obviously prospering, but is it truly the growth that Goldman Sachs predicts? Going back to the section two, with the comparison between extensive growth and intensive growth, we know that an increase in GDP may or may not mean development. So, is India’s growth extensive or intensive? To answer this question, we must look at the accompanying population increase, and see if the GDP increase outstrips it or not. On March 1st, 2001, the population of India was approximately 1,027,000,000 people. This made India only the 2nd country in the world (after China) to cross 1 billion (3). In July 2008, the population was estimated to be 1,148,000,000 (CIA world factbook). Therefore, the population has increased only about 12% in the period from 2000-2008, whereas the GDP has increased far more than this, on the order of 6% a year (over the previous year). This would indeed indicate that India is undergoing intensive growth, or, in other words, India is developing, not merely growing. This would seem to conclude that Sachs has it right, at least in terms of the BRIC nations (they certainly didn’t have it right about the domestic market, or they wouldn’t be in an SEC hearing right now…)

4. Trends of Globalization and oppurtunity: Distinguished Scholar Fareed Zakaria wrote __The Post-American World__ specifically about the “rise of the rest”, or the so-called BRIC nations. As an Indian expatriate himself, it is understandable that he would ask these questions, however, the title of his book belies it’s true message: that the U.S. will be stepping down to an equal platform with the rest of the world (at some point). He does not mean to say that, like previous empires before the us, we are on a decline. He only wishes to express the sentiment that it is time for other parts of the world to step up to the plate (or, as is possibly more appropriate for this simile, the wicket) and take their turn at swinging global forces their way. India has the oppurtunity to turn itself into a first world country in the 21st century, however, there are some obstacles to overcome. Yet the worst is behind them, no longer are they an oppressed nation of cash crop farmers slaving away for white masters. Their time of oppurtunity is now.

5. For the rest of the BRIC nations, Goldman Sachs predictions may or may not be correct. However, considering how they are being opposed on all sides right now by both the SEC and the common people in general, it should be conceded that their ideas for the growth of India’s economy are correct, and everything which they have published has been well-researched, so it is recommended that you go to their website for further information. I have included a link in the references section.

6. India’s major problem in the 21st Century: Education: In Goldman Sachs article “50 things India needs to do to achieve it’s 2050 potential”, improve education ranks at number 2, only very slightly behind “improve governance”, which is a problem that they are starting to adress, according to Sachs, India spends less of it’s GDP on public education than any other BRIC nation, as you can see in source #1. India has also scored lower on the United State’s GES exam than any other BRIC nation. According to Sachs, only about 80% of Indian children get any schooling in the first place, at the primary level. Imagine if one in every five children in the United States never even set foot inside a kindergarten classroom. This is the case in India. Proximity to school isn’t an issue for most of the students, the problem is that they simply don’t go because mandatory education isn’t enforced in the same way as it is in the United States. Therefore, the fix is simple: India needs to pass mandatory education laws and enforce them strictly. Another drawback is that India has a large shortage of teachers. To solve this problem, India must incentivize teaching more to train more teachers and decrease it’s student:teacher ratio. Corruption is a major problem in the classroom, many days, teachers get paid for not showing up to class. To fix this, India needs roving patrols to check (randomly) and see if teachers are in school, and have strict penalties if they find teachers outside the classroom when they should be teaching. Higher education is a more difficult problem to adress, but the government needs to find some way to have quality higher education in the country so that India’s talented, higher educated elite don’t leave the country for work. If India can begin to adress these problems in the near future, the prognosis for their growth into a world power by 2050 looks good. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh needs to clean up Education in India. (4)

7. C an India Sustain growth in the 21st century? I believe so. India is rich in natural resources, and has a bustling information technology sector. In the near future, these two key things will set them apart from other countries who are struggling to sustain growth. After a while, the percentage increase from year to year will go down, and the graph will begin to level out, but if India fixes the ten things which they need to fix according to goldman sachs, they should be in a favorable position to continue to grow throughout the 21st century.

8. In conclusion, Goldman Sachs has nearly everything right in their ideas about India, at least for the forseeable future. India must continue to do well in the information technology sector, as this will continue to grow, but it also must fix it’s ten problems. If it can do these things, I believe that India will become a world power by 2050, possibly before.

References: 1.[] 2. 3. [] 4.

External Links: 1. []