Nukes does what for its people exactly in terms of food, shelter, amentias, livelihood? North Korea has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, so what does it mean for the welfare of its peoples?

@St-Sinner The nukes are for preventing war.

@xenoview

Agree but here the comparison is between the religious fanaticism in the government of the two.

What are you comparing exactly? What you are saying is true about every country in the world. It has good pockets and swaths of bad areas.

India is by no means a 2nd world country, the sheer size of it population and enterprising people drive its economy although all badly managed by ever nation-looting leaders in the last 72 years since independence. When you compare countries you have to look at the general character of people. India is largely very religious and rural nation without even electricity, toilets at home and any infrastructure in many areas. India is called the world's largest open toilet of the world. The US is largely is well developed, with good infrastructure, less religious, with best university education and most achievements in most areas from science, to technology to sports every year.

@St-Sinner Depends. What are you using? I'm going by GNP and India being a member of BRIKS. If you go by the original usage of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Afghanistan would have fallen into all three at one time or another. Those terms were originally used to define Western affiliations or Soviet affiliations or unaffiliated.

@Beowulfsfriend

I am using what the country really is and its deep flawed character. BRICS, G7, GDP are based on sheer the size of the output by the huge population coupled with some industrialization. You have to know that now all information technology revenue (outsourcing, software development, technology sales and money transfers from Indian diaspora) is produced by a very small population of less than 1.5%.

Just like China had a large potential to progress, India had too. But It has not been able to break out like China did although it has had no communist, oppressive rule since independence in 1947. The British gave most industrialization, infrastructure, railway, post office. I rode trains until 1987 that were still made by the British. I studied in colleges founded by the British, most government offices and courts and in British made buildings. I am able to survive outside purely based on English that was the outcome of the colonial language, my two graduate degrees from India have no value here. That's why outsourcing with Western businesses has flourished in India. Considering the potential, India has done a very slow progress and has still been stuck in a feudal society with various dynasties, tribes, castes etc. India was ruled by a single political dynasty for 58 out of the last 72 years and still the largest opposition party with its dumb son as its leader.

You have to look at where the country's people are, are their essential needs are made or not, do they have basic, food, shelter in this day and age etc. I am not a fan of statistics that is does not reflect the correct story. I hate a random use of averages too.

Just take a look at what national and basic issues are in India. The large population is still in the survival mode. Cooking gas, electricity, security, food, shortages are still top issues.

China and India were equally poor countries. It was one of topics in the 1960 Kennedy vs. Nixon presidential debate in New York.