India and Pakistan as Proving Grounds for NATO and China’s Weapons: A Worrying Trend

 

India and Pakistan as Proving Grounds for NATO and China’s Weapons: A Worrying Trend

The recent flare-up between India and Pakistan, marked by intense aerial clashes, has raised a chilling concern: are these two South Asian neighbors becoming proxy battlegrounds for global powers like NATO and China to test their advanced weapons and fighter jets without direct confrontation? The reported downing of Indian Air Force (IAF) Dassault Rafale jets — built by France, a NATO member — by Pakistan’s Chinese-made Chengdu J-10C fighters equipped with PL-15 missiles highlights a troubling dynamic. While these reports remain unconfirmed, the implications are clear: global powers may be using regional conflicts to refine their military technology, exacerbating tensions in an already volatile region.

The India-Pakistan Conflict as a Testing Ground

In May 2025, the skies over Kashmir became a battleground for one of the most significant air engagements in decades, with India’s Operation Sindoor targeting alleged militant sites in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Air Force (PAF) claimed to have shot down multiple Indian aircraft, including up to three Rafales, using J-10C jets armed with PL-15E missiles. Though India has not officially confirmed these losses, photographic evidence of Rafale wreckage and statements from Western sources, including U.S. officials and a French intelligence report cited by CNN, lend credence to Pakistan’s claims.

This clash was not just a regional skirmish but a rare real-world test of advanced NATO and Chinese military hardware. The Rafale, a 4.5-generation multirole fighter, is equipped with cutting-edge systems like the SPECTRA electronic warfare suite, designed to counter sophisticated threats. The J-10C, also a 4.5-generation jet, features advanced AESA radar and long-range PL-15 missiles, positioning it as a formidable adversary. The reported success of the J-10C, particularly its alleged ability to jam Rafale systems or outrange its Meteor missiles, has sparked global interest.

NATO and China’s Strategic Interests

For NATO members like France, the Rafale’s performance — or lack thereof — against Chinese technology is a wake-up call. Dassault Aviation, the Rafale’s manufacturer, reportedly plans to make adjustments to the jet following the conflict, though it has not officially confirmed these changes. The company’s stock plummeted nearly 10% in the days after the reported losses, reflecting market sensitivity to the jet’s battlefield performance. France’s refusal to share Rafale source code with India, coupled with its push to audit IAF maintenance and pilot training, suggests an effort to deflect blame while quietly analyzing combat data to improve the platform.

China, meanwhile, has emerged as a major beneficiary. The J-10C’s reported success has boosted the credibility of Chinese defense exports, with Chengdu Aircraft Corporation’s shares rising over 30% post-conflict. Chinese strategists, like former PLA Air Force Colonel Wang Xiangsui, argue that Pakistan’s edge came not just from hardware but from superior data-link integration, a lesson China is likely to apply to its own forces. Pakistan’s standardized fleet of Chinese-built jets and early warning systems allowed seamless coordination, unlike India’s mix of Russian, French, and indigenous platforms. China is almost certainly requesting flight records, system logs, and combat data from Pakistan to refine its jets and missiles, particularly for potential future conflicts in the Indo-Pacific, such as over Taiwan.

Both NATO and China gain valuable insights without firing a shot themselves. For NATO, the clash exposes vulnerabilities in Western systems against Chinese technology, prompting upgrades to counter PL-15 missiles and electronic warfare tactics. For China, it validates its investments in affordable, high-performance platforms, enhancing its appeal as a defense supplier.

The Cost to India and Pakistan

While global powers refine their arsenals, India and Pakistan bear the human and economic costs. The 2025 clashes, sparked by a terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, escalated rapidly, with both sides exchanging artillery, drone strikes, and missile attacks. Pakistan claimed to have downed 25 Indian drones, while India deployed 120 Israeli Harop-2 kamikaze drones against Pakistani air defenses. The conflict disrupted civilian life, postponed national exams in India, and deepened mistrust between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

This dynamic incentivizes further militarization. India, already operating 36 Rafales, is pursuing a $15 billion deal for 114 more jets, with the Rafale as a frontrunner. Pakistan, bolstered by China’s subsidized arms, is reportedly set to receive J-35A stealth fighters, potentially shifting the regional balance. Each escalation draws both nations deeper into the orbit of their respective suppliers, who profit from arms sales while gathering combat data.

Worse, the use of India and Pakistan as testing grounds could increase the frequency and intensity of conflicts. Social media posts on X suggest growing awareness of this trend, with users noting that China is “testing its military hardware” through Pakistan, while NATO observes the results. The prospect of India and Pakistan becoming perennial battlegrounds for proxy weapons testing risks destabilizing South Asia, where miscalculations could lead to catastrophic consequences given both nations’ nuclear capabilities.

A Call for Restraint

The India-Pakistan conflict is more than a regional rivalry; it’s a stage for global powers to pit their technologies against each other. NATO and China’s indirect competition, while strategically convenient, comes at the expense of South Asian stability. To break this cycle, India and Pakistan must prioritize diplomacy over escalation, resisting the pressure to serve as proxies for foreign arms races. International actors, including the U.S. and UN, should mediate to prevent further clashes and curb the flow of advanced weapons into the region.

For now, the skies over Kashmir remain a cautionary tale: a local conflict with global stakes, where the real winners are those analyzing the wreckage from afar. As one X user put it, “India/Pakistan was a test of Chinese air weapons vs Western air weapons,” and the outcome may embolden further tests — unless the world acts to stop it.

The Absurdity of War: Why Do Young People Die for the Pride of Old Men?

 "Only the dead have seen the end of war." — George Santayana

Every generation, it seems, must learn the same terrible lesson: war is hell. Yet time and again, nations go to war — often for reasons that, in hindsight, seem more political than moral, more about pride than principle. One cannot help but ask: Isn’t war, at its core, a deeply stupid thing?

And more specifically: Why do young men and women fight and die because a few older, powerful men are upset?

---

🧓🏽 The Few Decide, the Many Suffer

War is rarely started by the people who fight it. The decisions to go to war are made in parliament buildings, presidential palaces, or military headquarters — not on the streets, not in the trenches. These decisions are often influenced by strategic calculations, personal egos, or historical grudges.

But once war begins, it is the young — conscripted soldiers, frontline fighters, civilians caught in the crossfire — who bleed and die.

It’s an old story. From the trenches of World War I to the deserts of Iraq, the pattern holds: the higher up you go in the chain of command, the further you are from the battlefield — and from the consequences.

---

🧠 War Is Rarely Rational

While governments often justify war in the name of national interest, security, or justice, the actual outcomes are often disastrous:

• Lives are lost by the thousands, sometimes millions.

• Entire economies collapse.

• Generations grow up traumatized.

• The reasons for war are often revealed to be hollow or false.

World War I began because of a botched assassination and a tangle of alliances. The Iraq War was waged over weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. In both cases, those who paid the price were not the policymakers — but the soldiers and civilians.

---

🗣️ Manufactured Consent: The Role of Propaganda

If war is so destructive, why do people support it?

The answer lies in nationalism, fear, and propaganda. Leaders often wrap war in noble language — calling it a defense of honor, faith, or homeland. The media is mobilized. Enemies are dehumanized. Dissenters are silenced or called traitors.

Ordinary people are convinced that dying in war is heroic — even when the war itself is unnecessary or unjust.

---

🔁 The Cycle of Revenge

Wars rarely end cleanly. They create bitterness and trauma that last generations. One war begets another.

• World War I created the conditions for World War II.

• The U.S. invasion of Iraq gave rise to ISIS.

• India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars — and their border remains volatile to this day.

When wars are fought for pride, for vengeance, or to “teach a lesson,” they rarely bring lasting peace. Instead, they plant the seeds of future violence.

---

✊ Youth as Cannon Fodder — or Agents of Change?

What’s perhaps most tragic is that the young people who are made to fight in wars are often the ones with the most to lose — and the most to gain from peace.

Young minds can build nations, not just defend them.
Young bodies can farm, teach, create, innovate — not just die in muddy trenches or burned cities.
When we say "Support the troops," maybe we should also mean "Support them by not sending them to fight unjust wars."

---

🕊️ The Case for Peace

Peace is not weakness. It requires strength, diplomacy, empathy, and patience. War is easy to start and hard to end. Peace takes work, but it’s the only rational path in a world that now possesses weapons capable of ending humanity.

More and more people are recognizing that war is not inevitable — it’s a choice. And a bad one, at that.

---

📌 Final Thought

History may glorify generals and conquerors, but we should remember the millions whose names were never recorded — the soldiers, civilians, and children whose lives were cut short by decisions they had no part in making.

So yes — going to war, more often than not, is stupid. It’s a tragic, violent expression of pride, fear, and failure. And it’s time we stopped pretending otherwise.

📚 A Global Pressure Cooker: Comparing College Entrance Exam Toughness in India, China, and Beyond

 

---

📚 A Global Pressure Cooker: Comparing College Entrance Exam Toughness in India, China, and Beyond

When it comes to college entrance exams, a few countries stand out as pressure-cookers of academic competition. In India, China, South Korea, Japan, Iran, and parts of Europe, students prepare for years for a single test that could define their futures. In contrast, the United States offers a more holistic (and often criticized) approach. But how do these systems actually compare?

Let’s break it down country by country.

---

🇮🇳 India: The Gauntlet of Competitive Exams

🎯 Exams:

• JEE Advanced for IITs (Engineering)
• NEET for Medical colleges
• CUET for Central Universities

📊 Acceptance Rates:

• JEE Advanced: ~2% of applicants qualify. For top IITs, a rank in the top 1,000 (out of ~180,000 who qualify) is needed.
• NEET: 2.1 million+ appear, but only ~7% get into government medical colleges.

🏋️ Coaching Culture:

• A billion-dollar industry. Kota, Rajasthan is a “coaching city” with lakhs of students. Coaching starts as early as Class 8 or 9.
• Some students spend 14–16 hours a day studying.

😓 Pressure:

• Sky-high. Parental expectations, social comparisons, and fear of failure often cause anxiety and depression. Unfortunately, student suicides in coaching hubs are not uncommon.

---

🇨🇳 China: The Gaokao — Life’s Final Boss

🎯 Exam:

• Gaokao (National College Entrance Exam)

📊 Acceptance Rates:

• Top universities like Tsinghua or Peking University admit <0.1% of Gaokao takers (~10 million sit the exam annually).
• Students often need to score in the top 0.01% for elite programs.

🏋️ Coaching Culture:

• “Gaokao factories” exist. Some high schools resemble boot camps. Morning study starts at 5 a.m., with school ending as late as 11 p.m.

😓 Pressure:

• Incredibly intense. Gaokao is called a “once-in-a-lifetime” test. It is often the sole criterion for university admission.

---

🇰🇷 South Korea: The Suneung Survival Game

🎯 Exam:

• Suneung (CSAT) — College Scholastic Ability Test

📊 Acceptance Rates:

• Seoul National University: Admits less than 0.5% of test-takers.
• Students aim for the “SKY” universities (Seoul National, Korea, Yonsei), which are highly selective.

🏋️ Coaching Culture:

• Hagwons (private cram schools) are everywhere. Students often attend until midnight.
• The government has attempted to limit evening study hours to combat burnout.

😓 Pressure:

• National stress levels spike during Suneung day. Flights are grounded during listening tests to avoid noise. Students rehearse for years.

---

🇯🇵 Japan: Exam Hell with a Gap Year Culture

🎯 Exam:

• National Center Test (now called the Common Test) + University-specific entrance exams

📊 Acceptance Rates:

• University of Tokyo: Acceptance rate ~1.8%
• Many students take a gap year (“ronin”) to reattempt exams after failing.

🏋️ Coaching Culture:

• Juku (cram schools) are common. Many students also enroll in prep schools during gap years.

😓 Pressure:

• Social stigma of being a “ronin” is real, but the pressure is slightly less intense than Korea or China due to multiple entry points.

---

🇮🇷 Iran: The Konkur — One Exam to Rule Them All

🎯 Exam:

• Konkur (National University Entrance Exam)

📊 Acceptance Rates:

• Less than 1% get into top programs like medicine at the University of Tehran.

🏋️ Coaching Culture:

• Coaching is widespread and often expensive. Students study rigorously for years, especially for medical and engineering tracks.

😓 Pressure:

• The entire university system is dependent on one test. High stress, especially in a society with limited job opportunities for graduates.

---

🇺🇸 USA: The Holistic and Chaotic Alternative

🎯 Exams:

• SAT / ACT, plus GPA, extracurriculars, essays, recommendations

📊 Acceptance Rates:

• Harvard: ~3%
• MIT: ~4%
• However, less than 1% of U.S. students apply to Ivy League-level schools.

🏋️ Coaching Culture:

• Growing test-prep market, but nothing close to India/China.
• Wealth plays a role: private counseling, legacy admissions, and “donations” tilt the odds.

😓 Pressure:

• High for top schools, but not tied to a single national exam. Students have more pathways: community college, transfer routes, etc.

---

🇪🇺 Europe: More Balanced, But Varies By Country

🎯 Exams:

• Depends on the country. Some use Baccalaureate-style exams (France), others use GPA + entrance test hybrids (Germany, Italy).

📊 Acceptance Rates:

• Generally higher. Public universities are accessible if you clear national or regional thresholds.
• For example, Germany’s Numerus Clausus system limits spots in medicine and psychology, but other disciplines are open.

🏋️ Coaching Culture:

• Minimal compared to Asia. Emphasis is on school performance, not separate coaching centers.

😓 Pressure:

• Moderate. Less extreme societal pressure due to affordable education, free or low-cost universities, and strong vocational pathways.

---

🧠 Conclusion: Who Has It the Toughest?

In terms of pure exam difficulty and pressure, here’s an informal global toughness ranking:

1. China (Gaokao — mass scale, single shot, insane cutoffs)
2. India (IIT-JEE/NEET — huge competition, expensive coaching culture)
3. South Korea (Suneung — national obsession, sky-high stakes)
4. Iran (Konkur — one chance, brutal cutoffs)
5. Japan (Gap year culture softens blow, but still intense)
6. USA (Low pressure unless aiming for top Ivies)
7. Europe (Generally more balanced and humane)

---

🕯 Final Thoughts:

In countries like India, China, and South Korea, college entrance exams are more than tests — they are national obsessions, economic lifelines, and psychological crucibles. While some systems offer flexibility, others leave little room for error. Reform is slow, but needed. After all, no single exam should define a teenager’s future.

How Long Will It Take for India’s Per Capita GDP to Catch Up with China’s?

 

How Long Will It Take for India’s Per Capita GDP to Catch Up with China’s?

India and China, two of the largest economies in the world, have followed distinct economic paths over the past few decades. While both countries have experienced rapid growth, their per capita GDPs (a measure of economic output per person) are starkly different. In 2023, China’s per capita GDP is approximately six times higher than India’s. This raises an intriguing question: how long will it take for India to catch up with China, assuming both countries continue to grow at their historical average rates?

In this article, we explore different growth scenarios to estimate the timeline for when India’s per capita GDP might match China’s, based on the current growth rates of both countries.

The Basics of Economic Growth and Per Capita GDP

Before diving into the calculations, let’s clarify some concepts. Per capita GDP is the total economic output (GDP) of a country divided by its population. It provides a way to compare the average economic well-being of citizens across countries, regardless of their size.

Both India and China have experienced remarkable economic growth over the last few decades. China, having started its economic reforms in the late 1970s, has maintained an average annual growth rate of around 9% over the past 40 years. India, on the other hand, began its economic reforms in the early 1990s and has seen average annual growth rates around 6–7% during the same period.

However, despite China’s impressive growth, India’s economy is catching up, with projections suggesting that India will continue to grow faster than China in the coming decades due to its younger demographic and economic reforms.

The Assumptions

For simplicity, let’s use some basic assumptions to calculate when India’s per capita GDP will catch up with China’s:

• India’s current per capita GDP (2023): $2,000
• China’s current per capita GDP (2023): $12,000
• India’s historical average growth rate: Varies between 6–9% annually.
• China’s historical average growth rate: Varies between 4–5% annually.

These assumptions are simplified for the sake of this article, but they help us form a model based on the exponential growth of GDP. The formula for exponential growth is:

GDP_t = GDP_0 * (1 + g)^t

Where:

• GDP_t is the GDP at time t,
• GDP_0 is the initial GDP (2023 value),
• g is the annual growth rate, and
• t is the number of years into the future.

To find the year when India’s per capita GDP catches up with China’s, we solve the equation:

India's GDP = China's GDP

This gives us the equation

(1 + g_I)^t / (1 + g_C)^t = 6

Where g_I and g_C represent the growth rates for India and China, respectively. By solving for t, we can estimate the number of years it would take for India to catch up with China.

Scenario Analysis: The Five Scenarios

Let’s explore five different scenarios, each assuming different growth rates for India and China.

Scenario 1: A Modest Growth Advantage (India at 5%, China at 4%)

• India’s growth rate: 5% (0.05)
• China’s growth rate: 4% (0.04)

This scenario assumes that India continues to grow at a faster pace than China, but only by 1 percentage point.

• Catch-Up Time: 187 years
• Catch-Up Year: 2210

This scenario presents a fairly slow pace of convergence, where India will take nearly two centuries to catch up, assuming these growth rates persist.

Scenario 2: A Moderate Advantage (India at 7%, China at 5%)

• India’s growth rate: 7% (0.07)
• China’s growth rate: 5% (0.05)

Here, India maintains a 2 percentage point advantage over China. While the gap is still modest, this difference significantly shortens the timeline.

• Catch-Up Time: 95 years
• Catch-Up Year: 2118

With this moderate growth advantage, India would close the gap in just under a century, catching up by the year 2118.

Scenario 3: A Slight Advantage (India at 6%, China at 5%)

• India’s growth rate: 6% (0.06)
• China’s growth rate: 5% (0.05)

This scenario assumes a 1 percentage point advantage, similar to Scenario 1 but with a slightly higher growth rate for India.

• Catch-Up Time: 189 years
• Catch-Up Year: 2212

Interestingly, this scenario yields a timeline similar to Scenario 1, indicating that the precise rate of India’s growth is crucial in determining the catch-up time, even for small differences in growth rates.

Scenario 4: A Strong Advantage (India at 8%, China at 5%)

• India’s growth rate: 8% (0.08)
• China’s growth rate: 5% (0.05)

In this scenario, India grows at a rate 3 percentage points higher than China. This results in a much quicker convergence.

• Catch-Up Time: 64 years
• Catch-Up Year: 2087

With this stronger growth differential, India would catch up with China in just over 60 years. The higher the growth advantage, the shorter the catch-up period.

Scenario 5: A Significant Advantage (India at 9%, China at 5%)

• India’s growth rate: 9% (0.09)
• China’s growth rate: 5% (0.05)

This final scenario assumes India grows even faster, at 9% annually, compared to China’s 5%. This is one of the more optimistic projections.

• Catch-Up Time: 48 years
• Catch-Up Year: 2071

Under this scenario, India could close the gap in just under 50 years, potentially reaching China’s per capita GDP by the 2070s.

Key Insights and Implications

1. Growth Differentials Are Crucial: The most significant factor in determining how long it will take India to catch up with China is the difference in their growth rates. Even a small difference in growth rates can result in vastly different timelines for convergence.
2. China’s Growth Rate Is Slowing: While China has historically maintained high growth rates, its economy is beginning to slow down as it matures. If India can maintain a higher growth rate (especially with its younger population and ongoing economic reforms), it could shorten the timeline significantly.
3. The Younger Demographics Advantage: India’s demographic structure is much younger than China’s, with a larger working-age population, which could provide a natural boost to its economy in the coming decades.
4. Long-Term Projections Are Uncertain: These calculations rely on the assumption that both countries will continue growing at their historical average rates. However, many factors, such as changes in policy, technological advancements, global economic shifts, and population changes, could alter these projections.

Conclusion

India’s per capita GDP could catch up with China’s much sooner than many people expect, depending on how both economies evolve in the future. If India can maintain a higher growth rate — especially in scenarios where it grows at 8–9% annually — it could close the gap within a few decades. However, if the growth differential remains narrow, it could take well over a century.

As India continues to reform its economy and harness its demographic potential, it may indeed become a major economic force, capable of rivaling China’s per capita GDP much sooner than expected.

Piyush Goyal’s Startup Critique: A Half-Truth That Misses the Mark

 Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal stirred the pot last week at Startup Mahakumbh 2025, taking a swing at India’s startup ecosystem. His gripe? Too many Indian entrepreneurs are busy churning out food delivery apps and “fancy ice creams” instead of diving into deep-tech fields like semiconductors, AI, and robotics. “Are we going to be happy being delivery boys and girls?” he asked, flashing a slide comparing India’s startup scene to China’s high-tech juggernaut. “Do we want to make ice cream or chips?”

It’s a punchy soundbite, and Goyal’s not entirely wrong—India could use more innovation in cutting-edge tech. But his critique feels like a half-truth, one that scapegoats founders while glossing over the messy reality of building a startup in India. Let’s unpack this.

The Grain of Truth

Goyal’s got a point: India’s startup boom has leaned heavily on consumer tech. Food delivery giants like Swiggy and Zomato, quick-commerce players like Zepto, and a slew of D2C brands dominate the headlines—and the funding. Meanwhile, deep-tech startups in AI, biotech, or semiconductors are rarer, often smaller, and less hyped. China, by contrast, boasts giants like BYD in electric vehicles and a thriving semiconductor ecosystem, fueled by decades of state-backed investment.

He’s also right to nudge entrepreneurs toward ambition. India’s third-largest startup ecosystem shouldn’t settle for being a gig-economy factory. The world’s moving fast—AI models, quantum computing, green tech—and we risk being left behind if we don’t pivot. Goyal’s “ice cream or chips” quip, cheeky as it is, lands when you think about how many “healthy” cookie brands are just repackaged hustle, not groundbreaking innovation.

Where He Misses the Mark

But here’s where Goyal’s critique starts to wobble: it’s easy to dunk on founders when you’re not the one in the trenches. Building a startup in India isn’t a straight shot to glory—it’s a gauntlet of red tape, shaky infrastructure, and a funding desert for anything that doesn’t promise quick returns. Zepto’s CEO Aadit Palicha fired back on X, pointing out his company’s 1.5 lakh jobs, ₹1,000 crore in taxes, and $1 billion in FDI. “If that isn’t a miracle in Indian innovation, I don’t know what is,” he wrote. He’s not wrong—consumer tech isn’t just “dukaandari” (shopkeeping); it’s solving real problems at scale.

Goyal’s China comparison feels unfair too. China’s deep-tech rise didn’t happen because its founders woke up one day feeling ambitious—it’s the result of $845 billion in state investment from 2014 to 2024, per Mohandas Pai’s rebuttal. India? We’ve coughed up $160 billion in the same period. Beijing’s poured cash into R&D, built industrial parks, and shielded its startups from foreign competition. India’s government, meanwhile, has offered tax holidays and a Startup India scheme, but founders still wrestle with power cuts (ask Murtaza Amin in Burhanpur), bribe-hungry bureaucrats, and an RBI that spooks overseas investors. Goyal’s asking for Silicon Valley output with tier-2 town support.

The Billionaire Kids Jab

Then there’s the dig at “billionaire kids” making fancy ice creams. It’s a crowd-pleaser—who doesn’t love a jab at privilege?—but it’s a cheap shot. Sure, some D2C brands are vanity projects with daddy’s money, but plenty of consumer startups, from Boat to Mamaearth, started scrappy and scaled up. Dismissing them as “not real startups” ignores how they’ve created jobs, disrupted markets, and built Indian brands in a space long dominated by multinationals. Goyal’s right that we need more than cookies, but why trash what’s working instead of building on it?

The Real Problem: Ecosystem, Not Ambition

Here’s the kicker: Indian startups aren’t unambitious—they’re pragmatic. Venture capital in India chases 10x returns in five years, not 20-year moonshots. Deep-tech needs patient capital, labs, and a government that doesn’t drown you in paperwork. Ashneer Grover nailed it on X: “China had food delivery first, then evolved to deep tech. Maybe politicians should aspire for 10%+ growth for 20 years before chiding today’s job creators.” Startups reflect the ecosystem they’re in, and ours rewards scale over substance.

Take semiconductors. Goyal wants India to make chips, not deliver pizzas. Great—except we’re a decade behind China, with no domestic supply chain and a talent pool lured abroad by better pay. The government’s ₹76,000 crore semiconductor push is a start, but it’s a drop in the bucket. Founders can’t conjure an industry out of thin air—they need roads, power, and policies that don’t choke them.

A Better Way Forward

Goyal’s heart might be in the right place—he followed up with a startup helpline announcement, a nod to the grind founders face. But finger-wagging won’t spark a deep-tech revolution. If he wants chips over ice cream, here’s what’s needed: pump real money into R&D (our 0.7% of GDP spend is a joke next to China’s 2.4%), fix the basics (no more unscheduled power cuts), and stop the RBI from treating foreign investors like suspects. Oh, and maybe don’t slap angel taxes on startups while preaching innovation—Pai’s still salty about that.

Founders aren’t the enemy here. They’re hustling in a system that’s half-baked. Palicha’s right—consumer tech isn’t the problem; it’s the foundation. Google and Amazon started as “dukaans” too, then built AI empires. Let’s not shame the hustle—let’s fund the future.

The Bottom Line

Goyal’s critique is a wake-up call, but it’s aimed at the wrong target. India’s startup scene isn’t perfect, and yes, we need more deep-tech swagger. But don’t blame the kids slinging cookies or the apps feeding millions—blame the game they’re forced to play. Fix that, and we might just get those chips Goyal’s dreaming of. Until then, this “reality check” feels more like a mic drop without a beat.

Why Indian UFC Fighters Are Struggling—and How Long It’ll Take to Turn Things Around

 Why Indian UFC Fighters Are Struggling—and How Long It’ll Take to Turn Things Around

On June 8, 2024, Puja Tomar made history as the first Indian woman to step into the UFC octagon. Her split-decision victory over Rayanne dos Santos sparked hope for Indian MMA fans. Fast forward to March 2025, and that hope dimmed as she tapped out to an armbar against Shauna Bannon. Anshul Jubli, India’s lightweight hopeful, followed a similar arc—winning the Road to UFC tournament in 2022, only to be knocked out cold by Mike Breeden at UFC 294. Bharat Kandare, the first Indian in the UFC back in 2017, didn’t even make it out of the first round against Song Yadong. With a combined UFC record of 2-3, India’s fighters are battling more than just their opponents—they’re up against a system that’s failing them.

India has sent just three fighters to the UFC: Kandare, Jubli, and Tomar. Their stories reveal a pattern of promise undercut by technical flaws, limited resources, and a cricket-obsessed culture that leaves MMA in the shadows. Meanwhile, across the border, Chinese fighters like Zhang Weili are hoisting UFC belts. What’s holding India back, and how long will it take to produce world-class fighters? Let’s break it down.

The Core Problem: Training That’s Stuck in the Gym

Walk into an average Indian MMA gym, and you’re likely to see fighters drenched in sweat, churning through endless burpees and sprints. Conditioning is king—but technique? That’s often an afterthought. Many gyms market themselves as MMA hubs yet focus on cardio drills over the nuanced skills of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ), wrestling, or defensive striking. Bharat Kandare’s quick submission loss and Puja Tomar’s armbar defeat scream one thing: Indian fighters aren’t getting enough mat time to master grappling or defend submissions.

Compare that to China, where the UFC Performance Institute in Shanghai offers cutting-edge facilities and expert coaches. Zhang Weili didn’t become a two-time strawweight champion by accident—she had access to a system that hones well-rounded skills. Indian fighters, meanwhile, often rely on raw power and offense, leaving their defense exposed. Anshul Jubli’s knockout loss came after being “pieced up” in the third round—a classic case of stamina without strategy.

The coaching gap is glaring. India lacks the depth of experienced MMA mentors who can teach fighters to adapt mid-fight. Many trainers come from traditional martial arts or wrestling backgrounds, not the hybrid chaos of MMA. To bridge this gap, fighters like Jubli have traveled to Thailand for training camps—a costly workaround that highlights the absence of quality at home.

Money Talks, and India’s Not Listening

MMA isn’t cheap. Gear, travel, nutrition, and coaching drain bank accounts, and Indian fighters rarely have sponsors to soften the blow. Anshul Jubli once juggled teaching tuition classes with training, a grind that left little room for full-time focus. In a country where cricket stars rake in millions, MMA fighters scrape by. There’s no pay-per-view culture, no big endorsement deals—just passion and persistence.

The government doesn’t help. Sports funding pours into cricket and a handful of Olympic events like wrestling or badminton, where medals are more predictable. MMA? It’s an afterthought. Contrast this with China, where the UFC has invested heavily, and even the People’s Liberation Army has tapped MMA fighters for training. The result: 10 Chinese fighters have graced the UFC, including standouts like Li Jingliang and Song Yadong, while India’s tally stalls at three.

Cricket’s Shadow Looms Large

India loves cricket. It’s more than a sport—it’s a religion, a career path, a national obsession. Stadiums overflow, TV screens flicker with IPL highlights, and kids dream of batting like Virat Kohli. MMA doesn’t get a look-in. Media coverage is sparse, and public awareness is low. Traditional combat sports like wrestling thrive, but only as a stepping stone to government jobs, not UFC contracts. This cultural tunnel vision stifles MMA’s growth, leaving fighters without the fanbase or resources to thrive.

China, on the other hand, has leveraged its martial arts heritage—think kung fu and wushu—to embrace MMA. Promotions like ONE Championship have staged events there, and local broadcasters amplify the sport’s reach. The result is a growing talent pool and a fanbase that cheers its fighters to victory.

China’s Blueprint vs. India’s Struggle

The stats tell the story. China’s 10 UFC fighters dwarf India’s three. Zhang Weili’s championship reign showcases what’s possible with infrastructure, funding, and focus. Chinese fighters benefit from a larger population (more talent to scout), better facilities, and a government that sees value in combat sports. India, despite its billion-plus population and wrestling roots, can’t match that ecosystem—yet.

Indian fighters often lean on power punches or aggression, but their losses reveal the cost: Kandare’s submission, Jubli’s knockout, Tomar’s armbar. Defense and grappling remain weak links, a stark contrast to the versatility of Chinese stars. It’s not talent that’s lacking—it’s opportunity.

Signs of Hope—and a Long Road Ahead

India isn’t standing still. The Mixed Martial Arts Federation India (MMAFI) and All India Mixed Martial Arts Association (AIMMAA) are laying groundwork, while the Seventh MMA National Championship in May 2024 showcased emerging talent. Matrix Fight Night, backed by Bollywood’s Tiger Shroff, is nurturing prospects. But these are baby steps in a marathon.

So, how long until India produces UFC-caliber fighters who can win—and keep winning? Look at China: Zhang Weili’s title came nine years after Tiequan Zhang’s 2010 UFC debut. If India follows a similar trajectory, starting from Kandare’s 2017 entry, we’re looking at 5-10 years—say, 2027 to 2032. That’s assuming gyms shift from conditioning to technique, funding flows in, and MMA cracks cricket’s monopoly. It’s a big “if,” but not impossible.

The Bottom Line

Indian UFC fighters aren’t failing because they lack heart—they’re fighting an uphill battle against poor coaching, thin wallets, and a culture that doesn’t care. China’s success proves what’s possible with the right support. For India, the talent is there, simmering beneath the surface. Give it a decade, a few million rupees, and a lot more grappling mats, and we might just see an Indian champ in the octagon. Until then, the punches will keep coming—both in and out of the cage.