I think the answer can be found in factors such as the priorities of the populace. Considering the amount of corruption (see e.g. how well India managed to host the last Commonwealth Games and compare that with how China hosted their last Olympics, a much larger venue) and the amount of poverty (both of which feed each other), I believe that the amount of people that live within "western standards" is likely far below 100 million.
However one of the problems is that the country desires foreign investments and thus is likely inflating their own growth rate that they announce for the investors (which BTW they keep re-evaluating a few months after the announcement).
But there are probably deeper issues than just poverty and corruption. If you look at the standard of that nation as a whole, it does not seem to have been particularly great ever. For example, one reason why they are known for providing call center (help desk) work for foreigners is because the country innovates and manufactures very little on their own. If they manufactured their own products they could sell support services for that.
Even countries such Japan and Germany, where the industries were destroyed during the second world war, do more manufacturing. Because of this, India is dependent on foreign technology and foreign economies to provide work for themselves (if eg western economies have a recession, it will affect India more because they have very little domestic demand). And this seems to have been the case for a long time, considering that the Wikipedia list of Indian inventions includes items such as bangles as an invention while a similar list for a place like China has more technological inventions.
Priorities can also be seen in that currently India still has a pressing need for doctors but many in that country choose to study IT instead. My guess is that it is either because there is more money in it even there, or that they are hoping to be able to leave that country for work elsewhere.
If a country like ETHIOPIA and KENYA can win 4 or more gold medals in 2008 beijing olympics why can't INDIA? (India has the second largest population in the World and is an emerging superpower).
ANSWER: It is because corrupt indian politicians steal taxpayers money and transfer them to their Swiss Bank Accounts. If you dont believe me ask BABA RAMDEV.
lol sarah grace is the typical ignorant yank.
India may have 1.2 billion people.. but only 400 million of these people lead a "developing world" lifestyle. The rest lead a difficult life in the slums. These 400 million people who do not live in slums still do not have the sporting facilites that a developed country like USA has.
India would easily be up there if they were a developed country like usa or china.
because they're still building the last commonwealth games.
some countries dont really give to shits about the olympics.
They suck at everything, didn't you already know that?
You'd think that with such a large population and a huge base witth which to draw a team from they would be good but no. If you check out the Olympic medals per capita India is performing the absolute worst, they dedicate around 418million people for each medal they have, a meagre 3. Even Indonesia which is 2nd worst has around 118million people for each medal far outperforms india in terms of population-medals efficiency. Alot of other countries may be performing worse medal wise but cmon India, you have the 2nd biggest population in the world and you currently have as many medals as Slovenia. China on the other hand has a similiarly huge population but always one of the top contenders at the Olympics, pretty impressive for a semi-communist one party state. So who's to blame? I always had the impression the only sport they are good at is Cricket.
http://www.medalspercapita.com/
