LOL, you have a very patchy understanding of Indian history there, friendo. Coz I want to keep it short, I’ll just point these out:

1)Because of it’s geographic location, India had much more contact with outside cultures directly. This included people who tried to overtake. Hence the invasion of the Greeks (which was ultimately doomed to failure), attempts by the Arabs (unsuccessful but spread Islam), Mongols (re: point 2) and the British (in collaboration with the Mughal dynasty).

2)The Mongols, if you’ll recall, actually conquered China, not India (though they made several serious attempts 1241-1260). It wasn’t till Tamerlane (non-Mongolian but he claimed it) sacked the Delhi sultanate (which was in a state of dissolution and offered weak resistance) in 1398 was there any Mughal state established.

3)I think the reason you associate “chaos” with the idea of Indian statehood is because you think the diversity of languages and local customs/cultures means the state is in a form of disunity. That makes sense from a Chinese perspective given the fact the Han majority were so good at wiping out the rest of the populace (or any of their contenders). However India even during the Maurya Empire (that’s 320 to 185 BC,) was very much a diverse entity, contending many languages and dialects. And that covered pretty much the entire sub-continent. This idea of Indian dis-unity seems to be a great media-piece used by the PRC machine – but it simply isn’t true.

There are many other points but I don’t want this to become an essay. In the end, I think this comes down to a fundamentally different way the two nations characterize things. For India, for better or worse it will attempt to embrace it’s diversity. It’s been the characteristic for it’s entire history, and it has an incredibly long history of civilization. For the Chinese, differences mean disunity/disharmony. Hence the majority crush the minority (or at least take a very negative view of this difference). Both countries have enormous problems, and I don’t think ANYONE will challenge the US in terms of superpower dominance for some time to come.

I think you’ve watched too many Hollywood movies, Wong. You shouldn’t really mistake silence for intelligence. While Indian’s may be chatty, it tends to demonstrate their openness; they hang their foibles for all to see. It is simply a case with the Chinese that you don’t know how much corruption is going on, not that it is absent. Take university papers published, for instance. It was well known that many of the top universities from China were involved in a very large-scale plaigerism effort from Western institutions. This was uncovered not internally from Chinese sources; a Western auditor had to prove it. Another example is the so-called Chinese housing boom – which has turned into a near catastrophe as cities with no occupants become increasingly common (think of the ill-planned eco-villages). This is a typical example of something that appears industrious from the outside, but that is actually incredibly wasteful and corrupt from the inside. Yet very few know about it. On top of which they have an enormous demographic problem, thanks to the one-child policy and preference for boys. At the same time, the sheer ineptness of the government response to the problems of hyper-inflation, urban domestic planning and foreign relations (think the recent bouts with Japan over the trawler incident and renminbi revaluations) demonstrates a fundamental problem with having all the decisions (for an enormous country with diverse areas) made by a select group of people; they can make incredibly quick decisions and have them implemented at lightning speed. But when they get em wrong, there’s really no check on power and the situation becomes disastrous. You can also have what would otherwise be a small problem ballooning into a catastrophe. As for India, does it have the potential to be a superpower? Sure, if the government can keep their filthy mitts off the private sector and expand educational opportunities for the poor. I’m mixed on the issue of heavy infrastructure build because they need to be very careful they don’t repeat the mistakes nearly all East Asian economies (with an export driven model) have made. But clearly any would be an improvement over what they now have.

China on the other hand, its numbers of poverty has been reduced largely, and its now the second-richest country in the world. Its capatalist, not communist, and the one child policy is no longer in full effect. Just shut up and accept it you people, and I’m damned sure that some of you are troll commentators.

The question is simple and evident:

If a territory (today called India) was colonized and ruled by multiple foreign rulers for prolong time in history, then there is something wrong at the foundation of this civilization. Hence, according to historical evidences, India cannot take a path of global leader.

It may happen in future that, Indians may have a few dollars more in future and they will be capable to purchase TV/AC/Fridge/Cars in future. So, the quality of life of common Indians may improve a bit more in future.

However, the people of India will be more colonized (read Americanized and Chinaised) in future and will need to have an indirect rule to keep India intact.

Due to colonization of India, today Indians do not have any personality. So, they will remain a follower and a slavish country, although common Indians would become wealthy.

China is on the way to become superpower in sure term, only and only if, Chinese government (CCP) hand-down democratic process slowly to common Chinese people in future. China is not a colonized country and so, not an inferior country historically. China needs to do political reform to become a superpower.