Transcription
As promised, I want to share a second video from the famous professor one regarding India. But after receiving a lot of criticism from the first one, I think it is important for me to clarify a few things before my audience start to watch this video to avoid confusion and unnecessary anger.
First, uh, when Professor Wong described the problems faced by India, audience must recognize that these problems are often common in the global south, just appear in different form and ways, including in China as well.
Second, the professor is looking at all these problems from the angle of a Chinese scholar. So he provides his version of the explanation as to why China overcomes some of the problems and obstacles that other countries felt when trying to grow his country, including India, but also many other countries as well.
Final point, I had many audience from India who swing by my channel was very upset with what the professor said in the last video. Uh, one of the issue I face is that, um, of all the contents that I watch in the Chinese language regarding India from a geopolitical standpoint, Professor One's video is actually, I consider to be the least offensive to the Indian people. So all the other videos on India, I find them to be offensive, and I, if I find those video to be offensive, then an Indian audience will definitely find it even more offensive, right? So the hundreds and thousands of Indians audience in my channel, if you guys have Chinese friends in real life, you can ask them to see if they can find any informative video content from any Chinese source that are more correct than Professor Wong, more accurate. Okay, I can then translate and share them on my channel. But like I said, these set of videos is pointing out often the general problems in the global south as a whole. They are not unique to India at all, if you think about it. Okay, let's start today's clip.
Hi everyone, I'm Wentan. Let's explore this subject in greater detail. India as a distinguished and influential nation on the international stage. What is the historical and contextual background of its status as a significant power and its varied expressions of fulfilling an important role?
When we discuss the establishment of India in 1947, people might refer to the statistics from that time if those statistics are available. At that time, India's economic output was higher than China's. Indeed, it is advisable not to place excessive importance on this data. More than 90% of the populace resides in a sort of non-standardized condition, and that standard is not appropriate either. It is the one imposed by the colonizers. Therefore, living in their original society was a normal state for people. If we add a few explanations, everyone will understand better that it was because the colonizers were only interested in their own benefits. What they genuinely occupied was mainly to exert dominance over the trade routes for colonial commerce, and they constructed some infrastructure in port regions and major cities, establishing a normative framework for colonial benefit. Consequently, Indian society is not well adapted to the political, economic, social, and cultural systems imposed by the colonizers, and this has become the standard.
So why is India's position in the world so important? Now, of course, we have talked about this before. Historically, it has been an important country in trade routes. Land trade couldn't have such a large volume. So sea trade had to pass through it, whether for port supplies, refueling, or resting. In short, your trade must go through it.
Today, we merely mention that following the conclusion of World War II, the official commencement of the Cold War is generally regarded to have started in the year 1947, coinciding with India's attainment of independence. Few people discuss it this way, but because the Cold War resulted in a bipolar geopolitical division with the US and the Soviet Union each controlling parts of the world, and in 1947, India had just gained independence from British colonial rule. Therefore, it was not feasible for him to achieve complete control during the war. The western powers were defeated in the China, India, Burma theater, which consequently led to a significant number of developing nations forming what are referred to as independent sovereign states under the conditions of inheriting the political system legacy of the colonizers. The international order is not exactly what we imagine. It did not begin as a completely developed political framework, especially with India's significant geopolitical strategic importance. It transformed into a large and strategically vital country after World War II during the first year of the Cold War and was not included in the division and control by the two dominant superpowers. As a result, it's this, this, this important position becomes prominent. It created a sense among people that India must be controlled, especially by the two major powers.
Therefore, the Soviet Union's imperial dream, which began with Peter the Great, was always to move south to the South Seas. Why did it have long-standing Russo-Turkish wars? He always wanted to, as he was in a cold region. But why couldn't he use that passage? Because after World War II, Turkey was under the control of the United States, which controlled the Dardanelles Strait, effectively controlling both straits and directly blocking the Soviet Black Sea Fleet passage southward. He cannot enter the Mediterranean Sea. Thus, he cannot enter the Atlantic Ocean, and he can only move from the north. The Northern Atlantic Industrial Group controls all the northern ports. Now, for the Russian fleet to enter the world's major oceans, it is very difficult, and therefore he has always been thinking about opening up a southern passage which must pass through India.
In the initial days following India's attainment of independence, the nation stood firmly against Western colonialism. Consequently, India embraced the socialist ideology propagated by the Soviet Union during that period, declaring itself to be a socialist state rooted in nationalism on the global stage. Of course, in this way, ideologically, there was a thought integration completed by the Soviet Union. Consequently, the Communist Party of India was directly, well, not led, but coordinated by the Soviet Union as a major political party in India.
At that time, Nehru of India inherited Gandhi's legacy, which was anti-British and anti-imperialist. Moreover, Americans, the British, and the entire Europe at the time believed that Gandhi was not someone who could be accepted by their culture. Individuals, even when you examine American newspapers, they remarked that Mr. Gandhi ought to first attire himself like a proper individual before engaging in discussions with the Western world. Gandhi, due to his non-cooperation movement, personally spun cloth utilizing Indian cotton, draping it around his waist, and previously he was a lawyer who had removed his formal suit. Then there existed a slender individual with an uncovered upper body, correct? And with a piece of fabric wrapped around the waist, he would rest on the ground during the night. He was promoting for Indians to embrace traditional Indian culture. Nevertheless, that type of frugality initiated a non-cooperation movement, and his political approach to nation-building cultivated a culture among the Indian populace that was not extreme. That approach, when he first accepted Soviet aid, he was building the nation. Wasn't he anti-imperialist? Wasn't he anti-colonialist? He had inherent socialist, nationalist, and patriotic characteristics. So, he accepted Soviet aid. But sorry, he also had to consider India's national conditions. India is not a centralized political system. It is a federation with over 30 states, each having its own interests and demands. So when you accept Soviet aid, the Soviet aid, for instance, cannot be concentrated in the so-called industrial development zones or in places most suitable for industrial development. Even in the northern mountainous areas, they also have to set up factories. Industrial development was required to take place in port regions, major urban centers, and even in the capitals of northern states, which were approximately the size of our county towns. Consequently, the industrialization process was not thoroughly systematic. Thus, this development trajectory was indeed rather intricate, necessitating consideration of the societal conditions and public sentiment.
What did this result in? It resulted in a deficiency. China's development process, for example, is one of concentrated development, focusing on heavy military and heavy industries, followed by structural adjustments and so on. It follows this kind of development path. However, in India, each enterprise you establish may not necessarily align perfectly with the local resource conditions or the local social and cultural conditions. It follows the Soviet model of industry. It was fragmented and relocated to India, creating a dispersed condition of early industrialization within the country. From the perspective of contemporary economics, this leads to challenges such as underemployment and a sequence of similar objective issues.
So what transpired in India? An intriguing phenomenon emerged where individuals who conformed to the Western normative framework in India. A large number of them became immigrants because as long as you are educated, starting from high school, the official language is used, which is Hindi and English. Well, this English results in the fact that those who have received higher education have very few job opportunities in their own country. India is a populist nation. So even if only 1% of the population has received higher education, there are still a large number of university graduates who end up unemployed. So what do these people do? They go overseas. So you see, India's position is precisely formed by nationalist and patriotic sentiments to establish an independent government. However, without forming a complete industrial system, there is no so-called modern employment market domestically. As a result, a large number of these young intellectuals are seeking employment overseas. As you can observe, this is quite fascinating. Numerous high-ranking officials in Singapore are of Indian descent. In Indonesia, there are many Indians. And in South Africa, there are also many Indians. For example, Gandhi originally worked in South Africa. He was an Indian there. This was precisely due to the colonial expansion of the British. Since he spoke English, anyone who received higher education was trained under the British system and cultural framework. They would have afternoon tea like the British and organize club events like cocktail parties and so on. This is the way it is. The Indian upper class, made up of educated intellectuals, can enjoy activities like the colonizers. They are not any less adept at these activities than their colonial masters, and therefore they adapt very well.
The British, being an empire on which the sun never sets, established this so-called order. Everyone knows about it. It's what we now refer to as the maritime law system. The roots of the maritime law system were developed by the British, and they were able to do so because Britain became an empire on which the sun never sets. Following in the footsteps of the colonizers, as everyone is aware, in the former Shanghai colony, individuals from India were frequently referred to as red-headed Assan. This was due to the fact that these individuals from India were under British colonial rule. They communicated in English, and they were affordable to employ. Consequently, they were utilized as foremen and overseers, wielding a stick and freely punishing the Chinese workers in the factories, which led to resentment towards them. Actually, they merely represent the power of the British colonizers. As the influence of British colonizers spread globally, Indians followed in the footsteps of their colonial rulers into the world. So, why do they have such a significant cultural impact on mainstream society worldwide? There is an abundance of participation because this entire process has evolved in this manner. Consequently, as a nation, it remains in the initial phases of political development domestically, or perhaps it has transitioned into the intermediate stage. But in the world, it is mistakenly believed to be a country with complete political sovereignty and a certain level of economic development. However, you can't entirely blame these people. They only interpret according to British textbooks, and there are very few Indians themselves. That is simply the way it is. Aside from a handful of unconventional scholars who truly comprehend the grassroots situation, the majority of intellectuals find it challenging to engage with the grassroots. However, this creates an objective situation where it's easier to go abroad than to reach the grassroots. And that's the reality today.
We all know that India has a significant voice internationally and its influence is substantial. Many staff members in numerous international organizations are Indians. Many in the business world are Indians, and in politics, there are many Indians. Their presence is global, but that is the early period of colonization along with the evolutionary developments following the conclusion of the Cold War has significantly shaped this landscape. So, let's analyze the issues of Indian social culture and India's status as a major power together. We might then understand why its voice in the international community is so loud, far louder than China's.
So the professor makes a few interesting points here. India has an elite class, or referred to in China as, you know, the evil landlords. They were the beneficiaries during the colonial era. After India's independence in 1947, India largely retained much of this class structure, which makes it more difficult to conduct land reform and centralized power. China, instead, went through a bloody revolution. A lot of the original elites escaped, uh, China and fled to places like Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United States. So China's wealthy elite class did not exist. The newer ones did not exist until the 1980s. The result here, and I want to be as unbiased as possible, right? Countries with untrenched elites often see slower redistribution of wealth and slower modernization of agriculture and industry. Uh, this is because those elites often work against central government reform which might harm their own interests. So it's much less efficient when the government tries to allocate resources of the country. I know some of my Indian friends will be saying that, you know, that's how democracy works, more freedom, we don't need to grow that fast, uh, India will grow at its own pace, and all those things, right? The thing is, if you look at many of the global south countries that enter a period of fast and consistent growth, almost all of them were under the rule of a centralized authoritarian rule. At one point, democracy, in my opinion, when applied to governing a country, it is more about sharing the rewards of growth. It is not efficient when a country needs to grow first in order to get to the point where there's enough things to be shared among the people, because the majority of the people, no matter which country you are from, are incapable of making complex decisions. Uh, for a country when it comes to growth and development, it, it might work to a certain extent when the country has a smaller population, very highly educated population. But for a country like India and China, a country with, you know, 1.4 billion people. In my opinion, definitely I will say that this Western-style democratic system is a burden to the country's growth, not a perk.
The second part of the video, Professor dives into the human resources of India and the potential problems. Have always had something called, when discussing the issue of India, a misconception or perhaps a blind spot or whatever it was called in the 1990s regarding India. The service industry or tertiary sector already had a high proportion then, sparking many internal discussions. Conversations within the nation believed that India's substantial proportion of the service sector was a significant indicator of robust economic development. During that particular period, our tertiary industry was not progressing. So there was a necessity to thoroughly study and comprehend what was occurring in India. Since the dawn of the new century, I have frequently pondered this question during my travels to India. However, when I actually used the so-called modern methods in India, I found that this seemed to be the case. The feeling compared to China is still quite noticeably different. For example, in China, we are already using a relatively advanced version of computers. Well, uh, when I went to India at research institutions there, they were still using computers like the 386 and 486. At that time, they were already rare. And today's young people hardly know about the 386 and 486. Our generation, which has grown up alongside computers, knows how we transitioned from single board computers and eventually evolved. At that time, using the 386 and 486 seemed very advanced, and then it moved on to ATX and later evolved further. So today, when our computer systems have been upgraded to a new high level, and both universities and research institutions are generally using new computers, the computers used by Indian research institutions and universities are still quite outdated. Back then, I thought India's service sector was huge, and the IT industry was considered India's pride. What was going on with him? After more interactions and visits, I slowly began to understand the high proportion of the service industry is precisely due to the objective reason that the manufacturing industry couldn't take off. This was my first impression. Then, upon further investigation, I discovered, oh, it turns out that the reason the IT industry occupies a relatively high proportion of the service sector is that it does not serve domestic needs. Due to the absence of a domestic industrial sector, there is naturally a deficiency in demand. Consequently, the demand for this so-called information technology and high-tech systems is not particularly robust.
Further discussions with acquaintances from India revealed that the English-speaking intellectuals who receive their education in India, especially those from technical departments, are unable to secure employment within their own country due to the lack of industrial demand. As for the talent, there was no employment space for them. But coincidentally, after the United States entered the 1990s, it converted its computer and network systems, originally used for military research and development, into commercial and civilian use. Many ordinary people also started using it. When everyone began to play online, connect, communicate, and so on, problems would often arise. Those of us who have been using computers all along have experienced these things, playing and the computer crashes, or it suddenly freezes while you're working. So what do we do? We need services. The submarine cables have already been built because the internet needs to connect. And at that time, during this phase in the United States, various types of service industries were also developed. However, once they were established, people realized that the salaries of those working in IT were quite high and unaffordable. To continuously improve the software for these computers, a large number of people were needed to do the grunt work in the software industry. It's about programming, those programmers. They are called programmers, and they are very tired. So, this kind of work, gradually, people in Europe and America didn't want to do it anymore. So, where did they transfer this work? It was transferred to the English-speaking country of India.
India, as everyone is undoubtedly aware, possesses exceptionally robust mathematical and English language skills, which have become the foundational prerequisites for the advancement of its IT industry. Consequently, its IT sector provides programmers to developed nations. To carry out the initial stages of programming, these specific tasks were delegated by software corporations from advanced nations to India for completion. Subsequently, the software that was developed is sent back to the software companies in these developed countries, where their programmers and IT professionals package it. It became software and was then used in their computer systems to drive their upgrades and replacements. This process spurred the development of India's so-called IT industry. So you see, in the late 1990s, as Western computer technology was continuously becoming more civilian-oriented, advancing and transforming into the IT industry, high-tech industries, and the IT industry were all developing during this stage. It boosted India's IT industry.
So what's this show? It's a simple conclusion. It was not the domestic industry demand or the domestic market demand, but rather the overseas market demand that drove this development process in India, primarily in the IT industry. Since it serves overseas, it is naturally counted as part of the service industry. Consequently, India's service industry significantly increased, reaching over 56%, surpassing 55% at the beginning of the new century. Oh, this is often a level only found in developed countries. So, under conditions where India's level of industrialization is relatively low, a very important phenomenon has emerged. First, a large number of people have moved to the cities and become part of the slums, leading to a high urbanization rate. Second, the IT industry has a significant share, and the IT industry has a high proportion. Simultaneously, it significantly enhanced the service sector, which also experienced substantial growth. Moreover, when the internet evolved into a widely utilized system, particularly in Western regions, it resulted in numerous consulting industries being outsourced to nations that are still developing.
In the United States, it is quite common that if you encounter issues with your computer or require financial guidance, such as investment strategies or tax-related advice, or even medical and health consultations, when you reach out for assistance, the operator who responds and delivers service might be an individual from the Indian subcontinent. Their English might not be entirely standard, so you might have to request them to slow down if they speak too rapidly. Otherwise, it can be challenging to comprehend. You can hardly understand them if they talk a bit fast. So, you need to ask, please slow down to get them to speak slower, or else you won't get it. This type of service has mostly moved to India. Moreover, India has trained many doctors and uses these intellectual property protected patented drugs from the West without paying patent fees. The production without paying patent fees has driven the development of its medical services. Therefore, many people in the West, especially those in the lower and middle classes who can't afford medical care there, go to India for treatment. Even Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and some others, which have basically reached a middle-income level, are gradually considering India as a place that can provide services.
Consequently, so what exactly has India transformed into? It has essentially evolved into the world's largest office, in essence, the global office. Meanwhile, the factory is situated in China, which is the colossal manufacturing powerhouse. As for the service sector, it predominantly serves the entire globe, encompassing developed nations and even those with moderate levels of development, and that is largely centered in India. Therefore, when discussing India's economic progress and considering India as this significant nation, I believe we must examine its its internal evolutionary progression. From this evolutionary progression, we can observe that it has transformed into the world's most expansive office. This assertion is indeed valid because the domestic demand within the nation is not particularly robust. Thus, it has gradually evolved into a developmental process that effectively serves the global demand. However, we observing this situation, it is a phenomenon in its form, raising the question of whether this particular development model genuinely benefits India's ascent. In other words, throughout the process of globalization, India indeed permitted its moderately educated middle class to partake in the advantages of India evolving into the world's expansive office through the process of globalization. However, it remains relatively not at an exceedingly high level. Naturally, employing terms like high and low to characterize it is not my intention. I believe it still hasn't efficiently propelled the domestic development of the nation, particularly in sectors concerning the general populace, especially in circumstances like this. It involves a select group of elite individuals or the middle class or intellectuals who might potentially reap benefits. Yet these benefits cannot realistically extend to the wider public. Consequently, the societal division in India is structured in such a manner that when you attend an international conference, you will observe that individuals possessing a certain level of knowledge and capability are gathered in New Delhi's international exchange centers. They engage in activities such as enjoying coffee and socializing in a manner quite similar to Westerners, exhibiting virtually no difference. The group above the middle class basically has no difference. They have integrated into the Western-led globalization. Whereas the lower social strata, the local community embodies an entirely unique and distinct world. Is there a method to effectively integrate it? That is also likely a question worth considering. It is a topic worthy of further research and discussion. Therefore, when we talk about the economy, we must pay attention to the fact that the economy cannot exist independently, completely detached from society, culture, and the way of life of the general populace. So from the beginning, we have emphasized this diverse structure when discussing economic development issues, and when talking about its IT and service industries, I must emphasize again, it's not something that benefits the public. The improvement in overall quality of life is not in a relatively isolated state that is conducive to sustainable development. Therefore, this is also something worth further analysis. Well, I'll stop here. Thanks all.
According to the professor here, India's industrialization lacked central planning. Uh, the limited resources were spread out over many provinces, uh, for fairness, right? And lack of infrastructure, uh, to effectively connect them together, resulting in low competitiveness. And then the IT business exploded worldwide, and many of the educated Indians went into that sector instead, which is a service sector. And because of this, a lot of the well-educated Indian population, not educated for that service sector, uh, have to often seek a career in other countries, uh, around the world, resulting in what we refer to as "brain drain," right? Uh, you educate the population, and they did not end up serving the benefit of its own country. This is the consequence again, leading back to the lack of central planning, and young people with talent cannot find a suitable position domestically.
One other thing Professor, uh, Wong mentioned here, which did not explain in great detail, is that in China, we have a robust manufacturing sector. Whether you are in the manufacturing sector or not, you benefit a lot from industrialization of the economy. Let's say you are not in the manufacturing sector. You're in, let's say, service or agriculture, and you earn a certain amount of income. You also benefit from this manufacturing sector because you can now buy a lot of domestic manufactured goods at a lower price, which will raise your standard of living, and it also creates this healthy internal economic circulation within the country itself. In the case of India, a lot of people are in the service sector, running certain operations for foreign companies. Yes, you can earn, let's say, US dollars too through that way. But in order to raise the standard of, uh, living for many other people, including the people in the service sector, they, they have to buy manufactured goods from other countries like China or Vietnam or South Korea. So your wealth ends up circulating out to other countries, and your lower class, uh, middle classes also, and poor people receive less benefit from this arrangement. Normal poor Indians cannot benefit from a few million service sector workers answering phone calls in English. You can see that also by looking at India's trade balance, even including the service sector.
To make the situation even worse, uh, the rupee depreciates over 100% versus the US dollar over the last two decades. Even with low purchasing power, the value of the rupee in comparison stays almost entirely the same throughout the last 20 years. Do you know what that means? If you are a wealthy Indian, uh, do you want to save your wealth in US dollars or in rupees? Of course, the US dollar, right? Uh, for the Indian government, that's not a good thing. That's heading towards the direction of Argentina, Argentinian, uh, scenario, which you have all the rich people completely losing faith in the domestic currency. Currency depreciation is also a form of tax on the middle class and poor people of a country. So these problems kind of stack on top of each other and snowball. So this setup, lack of efficient central planning, led to, you know, talented people leaving the country and also weakening the rupee due to long-term trade deficit. This really hampers India's growth in the long run. I hope you find this video interesting. Uh, thanks for watching and let me know what you think, okay, in the comment section. See you guys in the next video.
[Music]