Poverty prevents India from being a global superpower

The argument

Despite the growing economy, social inequality in India makes it difficult for citizens to leave poverty, while the rich are able to keep their wealth. Those two halves describe one mechanism rather than two separate circumstances. Where movement is restricted in both directions, growth does not redistribute: those already holding wealth retain it through whatever expansion occurs, and those without it lack the means to convert national growth into personal advancement. Their issues with poverty are related to the lack of educational opportunities and overpopulation. Education is the ordinary route out of poverty because it is what allows a person to enter work that pays differently from the work their parents did, so its absence closes the channel through which growth would otherwise reach the people at the bottom. Nearly two-thirds of India's population survives on less than the world's median poverty line. A figure of that size changes what kind of problem this is. It does not describe a disadvantaged minority within a prosperous society but the condition of the majority, which means the country's development and its poverty are not separate stories about different groups of people. Since their focus is on improving their position of power in the world, less funding and focus goes toward helping impoverished citizens. The two objectives compete for the same resources, and the claim is that the international ambition is being pursued at the expense of the domestic condition. While their position in the global economy rises, the gap between wealthy and poor widens and almost completely eliminates India's middle class. Even though India is rising economically and technologically, a majority of citizens still live in poverty so they cannot be considered a global superpower. The standard being applied is that superpower status describes the condition of a country rather than the aggregate size of its economy, and a state whose majority lives in poverty does not meet it whatever its headline figures show.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Every year, India is able to lower the population of its impoverished citizens. Over the span of ten years, poverty levels dropped by over 270 million people throughout the country. Government programs have improved the lives of people living in rural areas by providing electricity and clean water. India still has a large population living in poverty, but they are decreasing their numbers every year.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] India's poverty levels are decreasing.