Part of the India will become the next China narrative comes from the catch up theory of national development.This has been a popular theory on development theory for many years,probably stemming back a mishmash of the ideas of US state department economist W.W Rostow “The Stages of Economic Growth:a Non Communist Manifesto” and later adopted in part by mainstream economist such as Robert Solow.This idea holds that all economies will naturally develop from poverty to prosperity given enough time and even all converge between each other at a roughly equal level of development all on their own. This theory was used as a bourgeois explanation originally for why the USSR had been able to grow so quickly despite all odds and being a non bourgeois model.The theory held that it wasn’t the particular policies of the USSR that mattered by simply that “logically” and “scientifically” all nations catch up to richer ones eventually.After the fall of USSR the theory shifted to say all nations that adopt free market free trade policy will all catch up together to general western style prosperity,snake oil sales men like Milton holding to this theory and helping in imposing shock doctrine across various nations to achieve this is.This theory was also used to explain Chinas rise,China the theorist held had adopted Mao model and “failed” and by adopting the market model and further becoming more like the west it would catch up naturally.And so would every nation if they also all followed the Washington Consensus.In India this theory has been held as gospel for the last 35 years,the Indian theorist hold that India too was basically in a “socialist” model during the “License Raj” and now that India had adopted the full free market economy in 1990 India was bound to rise and rise.So much held is this theory that today in India despite it being 35 years of this policy not delivering much the wisdom holds that India just needs to keep at it and be patient and it will catch up,and in even more radical right wing sectors the theory is that India hasn’t gone far enough with reforms and must for example remove the state management of financial institutions.It makes sense then why majority of Indian citizens and those one meets online holding to the delusion of Bharat Empire don’t question their own miserable situation and take themselves to already be world power.But we here are under no delusions so the question is then if this theory clearly has not delivered results yet will it ever?And what really has held India back?In the last post I mentioned that India and China at least in GDP terms were similar in 1990 but today China is 10 times larger economy,so much has the difference been that today India is just catching up to China in 2004 in terms of per capita income(if that can even be believed) and in terms of more real calculable measures like steel production,electricity generation,car sales,and so on.But let’s go back to the 1990’s which is the great point of divergence ,on paper both held similar GDP per capita both had similar populations,so clearly catch up theory was wrong so what was different in China that India did not have?Well if we go into deeper statistics the picture becomes clear.If we compare steel production China was producing roughly 60,000 metric tons of steel vs India 10,000,China providing 30% share of the global manufacturing workforce share vs India 10%.If we look at India vs China while India was importing a lot and exporting little the opposite was true of China.And while 66% of Chinas exports in 1990 were value added goods of those 40% being manufactured non clothing and textile products only 29% of Indias exports were value added of that 27% textiles fabrics shoes and less than 2% any sort of basic manufacturing goods.Chinas electric production was twice that of India and it goes on.China also had a more educated population 80% vs India at only 50% and while India was not even in process of urbanization China was beginning rapid urbanization.India arguably today in 2026 has still not even begun that process with still 69% yes 69% of its population being made up of rural households,and this is supposed to be the next manufacturing super power?To put into perspective Japan at beginning of 1950 had an urban population share of 50% as did South Korea in 60’s and both quickly set out to build social housing and manufacturing plants to accommodate rural laborers who by 1970 around half became urban workers allowing Japan to reach 80% urbanization rate.Naturally as we can see there have been deeper issues that have made India lag behind even in the 90’s the supposed era of parity with China(can be argued was on paper China in 1990 was already twice as rich in real terms) I will discuss these in part III and why these issues will make India lag behind around 30 to even 50 years in development in relation to China in the current age instead of keeping up let alone outpacing China as the “experts” claim.
This post is spot on and really breaks down the delusions many have about India’s so-called rise. The data presented here is damning—steel production, electricity generation, export composition—it all shows that India was already lagging behind China in the 1990s, despite what the “catch-up theory” proponents claim. The author rightly points out how this flawed theory has been used to justify shock doctrine policies and blind faith in free markets, which haven’t delivered for India in 35 years. It’s frustrating to see people online still pushing the “Bharat Empire” nonsense while ignoring the harsh realities like 69% rural population and lack of urbanization. I’ve lived in both countries, and the infrastructure gap alone is staggering; China’s cities and factories are decades ahead. This post cuts through the hype and forces us to confront why India keeps falling short. Can’t wait for Part III to dig deeper into the structural issues holding India back!
I released part 3 already if you willing to check it out thanks for feedback my internet brother 