I don't know how to better put this, but the Economist comes off as very condescending whenever it talks about countries not in the West. India doesn't have a hole where its middle class should be - it is just smaller than what you would expect for a country of its size. I grew up in India and probably went from lower middle class to a upper middle class with time. The Indian middle class is not on par with with the American middle class - they can be much poorer, and have different priorities and often span a wide spectrum. And to be honest, I don't see why rampant consumerism is good for any society. India has a huge native market for Indian consumers - it is the fact that so many people cannot afford those goods is appalling.
The argument they’re making is that those people should be able to afford those goods and the fact that they cannot at this point in time means there’s a massive hole where there should be a middle class.
This assessment seems to suggest that either the Indian economy has stalled or there’s rampant corruption or both or something else altogether entirely.
Speaking as someone who grew up in India, I've noticed a very real lack of understanding of non-western countries by Western media (specifically India, but I'm guessing if there is so much misunderstanding about an English speaking country, probably more so about other non-English speaking ones). I was rather appalled by articles in NYT, Times and Economist in particular. Sometimes even BBC, although that usually got it mostly right.
I have noticed that NYT has become a LOT better in its coverage of India recently. I wonder if that's because they've hired quality talent in the country? Whatever the reason, I'm glad for that change.
