To become a superpower country, first of all, it is important that India become a big power.
The big power in international relations is called the sovereign country, which has the potential to make its impact globally. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, America, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom can be considered as a superpower. These countries can influence VoO power in the Security Council on international events as well as their wealth and military power.
Of these, the military power is being deliberately reduced in some countries such as France and Britain, because today the likelihood of war between the two countries has decreased.
After these five countries, Germany and Japan are two countries which are economically influential at the global level but their image is not of military power.
Apart from this, some small countries like Spain, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Italy, Chile, Australia and Nordic countries are rich but are not as effective. India can be included in the queue of large populated countries which are not rich and do not have any military power either because of the lack of resources. These countries include South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil and Nigeria. Unbelievable to readers, I am raising India with Nigeria but per capita income in both countries is similar.
The large population of India is just because of which it seems more relevant. Let us try to understand this. India's gross domestic product (GDP) is much lower than Italy.
But Italy's population is only 20 million, which is 20 times less than the Indian population.
That is why India is producing less than five percent per person compared to Italy.
This situation has changed in our favor but very slowly.
In such a way, what else is needed to make India a superpower? According to me, there is nothing more for the government to do in this case.
If we look at business related newspapers, we will find that there is a lot of emphasis on 'improvement'. It seems to emphasize that if India has to succeed then the government will have to take important steps towards economic reform. Under improvement, it is generally emphasized to make regulation and simplify business.
The reality is that there are many countries that have already done economic reforms, but they are not superpower and there are also countries that have not made any economic reforms but are superpower.
The Soviet Union was a controlled economy. There was government control over everything and there was no economic reform of any kind. But the Soviet Union kept its growth rate between 1947 and 1975 in consecutive tenth digit. His per capita income was much higher than India.
No policy of regulation was implemented in Cuba, but in the Human Development Index (for health and education), he is on top of the world.
It is therefore clear that only economic reform is not necessary to become a super power. There were two such things in the history of all the successful countries.
First, the government should be able to control any kind of violence, people are willing to pay taxes without any pressure, justice and services are available efficiently.
If this is the case, then it does not matter that the country is a bourgeoisie, a socialist, a dictator or democratic. Indian governments have failed in this case many often times.
Second, the strength and dynamism in the society a progressive society is known for its tendency to do new thinking and charity. This is a complex subject and I will write about it again.
As far as the first question is concerned, there is no question of making changes in law or law in general terms. In other words, this is not the issue of 'reform'. This is a matter of way of governing. This is the issue of the government's ability to enforce the policy. In its absence, any kind of change in law will not matter.
That's why I found the speech of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Malaysia interesting to me. The specific things that he said somewhere, 'Reform is not ending. For me, there is a long way to reach the reform stage. The destination is the rejuvenation of India.'
He said that when he was elected in May 2014, there were serious challenges before the economy. The current account was going on in the deficit. Projects related to construction of infrastructure were stalled and inflation was steadily rising.
He said, 'It was obvious that there was a need for improvement. We questioned ourselves - for whom to improve? What is the purpose of reform? Is it just to increase the rate of GDP? Or to bring change in society? My answer is clear, we should 'improve for change'. '
I think they have raised this issue in the right direction. In my view, society is not changed from outside by the governments, rather it changes culturally from the inside. Yet it would be interesting to see if the prime minister is as clear in his words, the same clarity shows whether or not to implement it.