India’s superpower dreams face hard questions in new Carnegie report

New Carnegie report warns India’s dream of becoming a global power may be faltering, citing economic, strategic, and democratic weaknesses that could leave it reliant on US and far behind China by 2050

Mohammad Saad

WASHINGTON (MNTV) — A new report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has cast doubt on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of “Viksit Bharat”—a “Developed India” by 2047.

The report warns that deep economic constraints, rising authoritarianism, and strategic contradictions could derail the country’s ambitions of becoming a global power.

The analysis projects that even under the most optimistic assumptions, India’s rise will fall short of its own aspirations. If the economy grows 8 percent annually, per capita income by 2050 would reach about $17,000. With more realistic 6 percent growth, it would be closer to $10,500—well below today’s threshold for high-income countries and far below what that benchmark will likely be in 2050.

The report credits India’s achievements since the 1990s—sustained growth, poverty reduction, and global visibility—but warns that “Viksit Bharat” may remain more slogan than strategy unless deep structural problems are addressed.

These include the failure to build a robust manufacturing base, low investment in research and education, and protectionist policies that restrict exports.

The report predicts that even by 2050, India will remain far behind China, with global power likely to stay concentrated in a U.S.–China bipolar order.

Beyond economics

But the critique goes beyond economics. The authors argue that India’s political trajectory threatens the very foundation of its future power. Despite being more prosperous than during the Cold War, India is described as “markedly tainted by illiberalism and authoritarianism,” where the ideology of Hindu nationalism has gained prominence at the expense of civic pluralism.

The report cites the marginalization of minorities “through legal and extra-legal means,” concentration of power in Modi’s office, weakening of institutional checks and balances, and threats to electoral fairness. It warns that while India’s elections remain formally free, they are “not necessarily always fair.”

“What made India remarkable,” the analysis notes, “was not just its democratic survival despite poverty, but its constitutional respect for all persons.” The erosion of those principles, it says, “could transform India from the exemplary democracy it was into just another majoritarian state.”

Strategic contradictions

On the global stage, the report argues that India’s pursuit of “multi-alignment”—maintaining close relations with both the United States and its rivals—has left it diplomatically overstretched. It says India’s long-cherished idea of a “multipolar world” is increasingly out of step with geopolitical realities.

For over two decades, Washington has followed what the report calls a policy of “strategic altruism”—supporting India’s rise without demanding much in return, hoping it would balance China. But as New Delhi strengthens ties with Russia and BRICS, U.S. patience may wear thin.

“If India is not perceived to be a special partner,” the authors write, “the United States has few incentives to aid it in extraordinary ways.” The report recommends that India move toward “soft bandwagoning” with Washington—accepting that continued American primacy serves its interests better than pursuing vague multipolarity—while urging the U.S. to reward such alignment with real technological and economic support.

Democracy, limits of ambition

The report’s most sobering warning concerns India’s social fabric. It links growing polarization and communal divisions to declining state capacity, arguing that “deepening fractures in social cohesion do not bode well for a nation seeking to energetically mobilize its population to accelerate the accumulation of national power.”

The Carnegie analysis concludes that unless both India and the United States recalibrate their expectations, the much-touted “transforming relationship” between the two democracies will do little to alter global power balances.

“The idea of a Viksit Bharat—a Developed India—by 2047,” it warns, “cannot rest on growth numbers alone. It depends on whether India can remain an inclusive, liberal democracy that inspires confidence at home and abroad. That, more than GDP figures, will determine whether its rise endures.”