Editor's note:  According to a new UN estimation, India's population will surpass China's in mid-2023. Some regard it as a turning point where China's demographic dividends have gone and the world's center of economic gravity will change. Does larger population equate with better economic development? What is the real intention behind narratives? Einar Tangen, CGTN current affairs commentator, shares his views. The commentary reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

The truth about population. Hi, I'm Einar Tangen. Let's get real. For years there has been a constant speculation about when India's population would pass China's. Today, CNN, CBS, ABC, Fox, Reuters, FT, AP, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times blanket the airwaves and print media, heralding India's population boom as an event that will change the world's center of economic gravity, implying that India's population boom will eclipse China economically as part of some regional struggle for supremacy.

Let's have a reality check.

There are three things going on: first, a false attempt to equate population growth with economic development; second, an attempt to portray India and China as locked in an economic, political and military struggle for supremacy; third, an attempt to use India as a door stop to China's economic rise, straight out of the colonial divide and control play book.

So let's get into it. Does population growth automatically lead to economic development? Simple answer is no. If it did, India and Africa, each with 1.4 billion people would be among the world leaders in per capita income and development, rather than trailing it.

Large populations do have benefits, but also challenges. The benefits for industries and companies that are labor-intensive are clear — cheap labor, but the benefits for workers and their countries are limited, unless they are able to upgrade their economies internally, beyond being just sweat shops.

Large populations create demand, but there are different kinds of demand depending on where the country is developmentally. For example, in terms of energy consumption per person, the U.S. has 4.25 percent of the world's population, but consumes 17 percent of the world's energy; the European Union has 6 percent of the world's population, but uses 10.4 percent of the world's energy. China has 17.7 percent of the world's population, and consumes 25 percent of the world's energy; while India has 17.7 percent of the world's population and consumes (only) 6.1 percent of the world's energy.  

Energy consumption in the U.S. and EU reflect their life style choices; energy consumption in China and India reflects their industrialization and development levels. Large populations do create large markets, but as can be seen, high-income countries consume more resources and have more choices, whereas low-income countries focus on necessities and have fewer choices.

This leads to my second point: the attempt to portray India and China as locked in an economic, political and military struggle for supremacy. While there are border, and spheres of influence, tensions, both countries are civilization states with no desire to invade the other. China was able to use its demographic dividend to educate its people, increase longevity, improve health care, provide pensions, eliminate extreme poverty, build infrastructure, and industrialize. But China has economic and development tools that India does not.

As Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin pointed out when talking about demographic dividends, "When assessing a country's demographic dividend, we need to look at not just the size but also the quality of its workforce. Size matters, but what matters more is talent resources. Nearly 900 million of the 1.4 billion Chinese are of working age and on average have received 10.9 years of education." In India, there is approximately the same number of working age people, but the majorities have not been educated beyond a primary education level.

The reality is China and India, like every other country, have their own matrix of cultures, languages, histories, as well as different legal, political, economic, and social systems, and therefore will have different economic and political paths. Rather than locked in a titanic struggle, they are simply trying to find their own way in a world dominated by aging colonial interests intent on maintaining their own hegemony.

This brings us to the third point: an attempt to use the colonial play book to divide and conquer. The realpolitik of America's strategy is simply to maintain its hegemony. The Quad alliance is aimed at pitting India against China, but the question is, how does it benefit India? China is a neighbor, it will not disappear; the U.S., Australia and Japan are not neighbors. Their interests are more about using India rather than supporting it. If they were truly interested in the development of India, there would be substantial investments, meaningful trade agreements.

Why, with the Quad in place, would the U.S. create AUKUS? Is there a line between native English-speaking nations and the rest of the world? The "Five Eyes" intelligence network suggests there is. Ironically, the combined populations of Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand is about 130 million people, whereas India has over 125 million people who speak English, actually second only to the U.S.

So as you look at the headlines and the narratives that population equates to development and that China and India are locked in some sort of struggle for supremacy, keep in mind that India and China are two different economies, even if they have the same number of people. How India rises, may borrow from many models, but it will be based on its unique cultural, political and economic history and systems, a country not in competitions with the U.S., China or any other country, not as a pawn in a game of global interests because India has its own path.

Script: Einar Tangen

Editors: Yang Yutong, Liang Zhiqiang, Duan Jiaxin

Producer: Wang Ying

Chief editor: Ren Yan

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)