The new semester opened with an engaging debate held at the freshly inaugurated SpuiCampus, on February 17th, 2026. With over 200 attendees, the event was a great success. Organized with the support of the South and Southeast Asia committee and its academic council, it discussed the status that India will hold in 2047, 100 years after gaining independence. It offered an opportunity to reflect not only on India’s future, but also on its present position in the global order. However, because not all of you could attend ;), here’s a summary:
Present were the experts Dr. Vineet Thakur, Dr. Rogier Creemers, Dr. Garima Mohan, and Dr. Nicolas Blarel. While the latter took the pro stance, Thakur and Creemers argued that India will not be a superpower by 2047. The academic debate was hosted by Richard Ghiasy.
Opening Statements
Each participant started with a seven-minute-long opening statement. The pro-side focused on the increased European entanglement with the South and Southeast Asia region, as well as the huge potential of India’s market economy: after all it holds a huge labour force that is projected to reach nearly 1.7 billion people by 2047. An expanding middle class and rising domestic consumption signal progress toward becoming a major economic force. As one of the world’s largest defence importers, India is steadily advancing in military power. Moreover, the country has taken considerable steps toward technological advancement. This could be a game changer solving many of India’s issues. For instance, India’s Mars mission has been a huge success – cheaper than some Hollywood movies, it shows once more the great potential and future that awaits India.
In contrast, experts Dr. Vineet Thakur and Dr. Rogier Creemers emphasized that ultimately potential does not determine a state’s status as a superpower. In Creemers opinion, the real determinant of the status is the role the state plays in the global distribution of powers. He draws a historical analogy: So far, there had solely been two hegemonies, with the latest ones being the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. After the dissolution of the latter, the U.S. became the only superpower. While one could argue that ultimately China has joined the U.S. as a competitor, Creemers reminds the audience that not every great nation can be a superpower. Especially not if the two hegemonic positions of power are already occupied. And do we really believe that by 2047 India will have overruled either the U.S. or China, as well as “won” against other competing forces?
Thakur then proposed a working definition of the term ‘superpower’ by William T. Fox: “a superpower is a great power plus great mobility of power”. It should thus be able to project its power into the whole world, not just onto its own region. This resembles what Creemers has proposed: He sees a superpower as a power that can influence the global network of goods, of resources, talents, and has superior access to financial markets. However, instead of focusing on foreign policy, Thakur argues that a country’s sources of power mainly depend on the internal capacity and resilience of its power mobilization. Although India has drastically reduced absolute poverty, a large proportion of the population remains economically vulnerable, and many Indians are victims of modern slavery. The high inequality, climate- related risks, and structural economic challenges suggest that India still faces serious obstacles to effective power mobilization. He remarks that although India is a democracy, the same government has been in power for twelve years now – how likely is it for India to stay democratic, after all? Although undemocratic superpowers can exist, can they remain?
Opposing this, Mohan stated that countries such as India, still battling with its colonial background, have progressed greatly. Its functioning democratic judicial system does not give reason to doubt India’s democratic state, as well as the fact that India has been able to stand against internal unrest. Poverty and inequality are not relevant towards becoming a superpower, as they can be found in all hegemonic states. Instead, what matters is both the capacity of a country and its power. Speaking of power: many countries maintain strong working relationships with India. She exemplified this by pointing towards India’s effective distribution of vaccines in the world region during the Covid-19 crisis. Consequently, the state gained many supporters in global politics – and that in a time, in which many other states oppose China’s policies, a significant advantage for emerging India.
Q&A
The second part of the debate took the form of a Q&A session.
Focusing on answering two questions raised by the audience, Blarel addressed the question of how India can compete with China. While agreeing that India does not only have many global partnerships and supporters, but a greatly amplified military power and strong provision of digital services, he emphasized that what holds India back is pervasive corruption. Mohan emphasized India’s strong foreign policy. Moreover, many companies have discovered India’s potential and started to collaborate, such as in the manufacturing realm. Creemers disputed this argument: companies such as Apple realized how complicated India’s internal situation still was and attempted to relocate to other markets.
Another question asked was about the ‘Brain Drain’ – how big of a danger could this be towards India’s economy? Blarel argued that recent investments in India have begun to reverse this trend. The opening of new franchises and groups in India have had a truly beneficial impact. Thakur opposes that, arguing that while the brain drain might be lessened, India is still not a country pulling academics into their labour force. Indian universities, for instance, do not attract many international students. One only needed to contrast this with elite universities in the hegemonic United States, where Harvard and other elite universities experience global prestige.
The Closing Statements
Creemers reminded us that the term “superpower” is not one we should take lightly. It means that India would hold as much influence by 2047 as China and the U.S. currently do. Meanwhile, Blarel and Mohan highlighted the remarkable progress that India has undergone – as it has only been a democratic nation since 1947. Mohan stressed that the future is not written in stone. The notion pervalent amongst some that we cannot currently imagine India as a superpower does not mean that this perception will remain unchanged for the coming twenty-one years.
What Does the Audience Say?
Having voted at the beginning of the debate on whether India will be a superpower by 2047, the audience now votes again – with a memorable result. Beforehand, forty-three percent decided ‘yes’, and thirty percent ‘no’. At the end of the debate, however, only twenty-eight percent still believe that India will be a superpower, and fifty-seven percent believe that this goal is primarily out of reach for India. Ultimately, it depends on what characterizes a superpower in an increasingly multipolar world. Is it its great potential, or its global dominance?
After such a successful event, two questions remain: What implications might that bring for Europe and the global order? However, these questions remain open for further debate. No matter the answer, the event was thought-provoking and provided immense expert insight into a crucial contemporary debate.
Written by Julia Schlebusch
BAISmag 