Comments on: Contrasting Chinese And Indian Oligarchy http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/ Issues & insights Tue, 7 Oct 2008 04:42:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: vivek iyer http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-268621 vivek iyer Mon, 08 Sep 2008 01:28:50 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-268621 China vs. India! Both Chinese and Indian people are intelligent, hardworking, appreciative of spiritual values and have a very strong love of family. However, China has always defined itself as a unitary Empire with 'warring states' periods or intereggnums of Warlordism seen as an aberration. India, by contrast,does not really have a concept of Empire- it has a notion of Ashvamedha- a show of force, coupled with moral and spiritual initiatives- which establishes a 'Chakravatin' who is primus inter pares amongst other kings. The British Raj was also an 'Empire' of this type. True, periodically, there have been genuine Emperors in the Chinese or Roman sense, who have attempted to enforce both dominance and hegemony. However, such efforts tended to be ill fated and short lived. The fact is, throughout India, there has been a remarkable continuity and stability in elite dominance. A foreign invasion adds a layer, nothing more, which only secures its long term position by inter-marriage or transmutation into a purely moral or spiritual authority. Chinese Emperors have generally made spectacularly bad economic judgements. India often enjoyed higher per capita income- though lagging behind in productivity and technological innovation- precicely because power was less centralised. One reason why India is not and can't be an Empire- i.e why India is doomed to be weak with respect to China- is that the Caste System undercuts the centralisation of power. In China, the Emperor could break the aristocracy by mobilising all his subjects for war and other purposes. India made the decision to restrict the job of fighting to mercenaries with other occupational groups being left unmolested. The Chinese were the earliest to break with feudalism. Except in certain districts, Mandarin (the word is supposed to derive from Skt. 'Mantrin')families could not turn into the sort of 'Deshmukh' fuedal land owning class we are familiar with in India. However, the reduction of social stratification required to strengthen the Emperor also weakened the merchant class. Ultimately, this is why the Chinese lost out to the limited monarchies of Western Europe where the burghers evolved into a powerful bourgeoisie who were able to revolutionise the sciences and arts. In India, the merchant class were gaining in power, but the British instead of giving them a leg up, ultimately coralled them into a parasitic role. The British Empire is, of course, still alive and well- which is why I'm writing this in English- but it is nothing more than a meta caste, a specific caste of castes, and therefore not really an Empire but a sort of abstract jati dharma. Why is India behind China? The answer is we are a low productivity nation- always have been, always will be. Why? Because the State never used coercion to make us more productive. Even if the country was being invaded by genocidal nutters, no 'Emperor'- whether Hindu, Muslim or British- even to save his own neck, considered mobilising the whole population for war. Instead mercenaries were used. True, during war-time, impressment was not entirely voluntary, but the fact remains no Indian 'Emperor' has mobilised the full resources of the country for any purpose what so ever. In this sense, India has never existed as an Empire. China and Europe have. Why can't productivity rise on its own without coercion by the state? Surely people will raise their own productivity simply to earn more money for themselves? Or is this the fault of the evil capitalists who won't motivate the workers, or the evil Trade Unions who won't allow lazy good for nothings to be sacked, or the fault of Mamta Bannerjee, or 'Brahminical' bias to Education, or 'India very hot', or Muslims eating garlic, or (Katherine Mayo's explanation) excessive masturbation, or what? The answer, I'm afraid is complicated. A very boring and confusing topic in Economics relating to Capital theory and 'choice of technique' shows that (if you are still awake) where labour inputs are highly variable you are going to get a mixed regime in which returns to capital at the margin are low or negative. Entrepreneurialism, in this context, turns in on itself, feasts on its own carcass, adding to the problem by creating an even greater diversity of micro-ecologies. The paradox that the caste system is both a division of labour and a system that prevents specialisation and gains from trade is reflected in the paradox that India exists only because an Indian Empire is impossible. Can India turn itself around? Sure. By coercion. Compulsort schooling, compulsory national service- everything every other successful country has done. Will India do it? Are you kidding? There's a reason we should stick with what we know- countries that start mobilising all their resources tend to lose between 10 and 20 percent of their populations to wars and rebellions. They make catastrophic economic mistakes. Guys, it could happen to you and me. Suddenly,India don't look so bad. How many Indian families- okay, South Indian families- have lost a family member to wars or riots or political purges over the last one hundred years? The answer is very few. The Chinese, Europeans, Japanese etc have all paid a far higher price. China vs. India!
Both Chinese and Indian people are intelligent, hardworking, appreciative of spiritual values and have a very strong love of family.
However, China has always defined itself as a unitary Empire with ‘warring states’ periods or intereggnums of Warlordism seen as an aberration. India, by contrast,does not really have a concept of Empire- it has a notion of Ashvamedha- a show of force, coupled with moral and spiritual initiatives- which establishes a ‘Chakravatin’ who is primus inter pares amongst other kings. The British Raj was also an ‘Empire’ of this type. True, periodically, there have been genuine Emperors in the Chinese or Roman sense, who have attempted to enforce both dominance and hegemony. However, such efforts tended to be ill fated and short lived. The fact is, throughout India, there has been a remarkable continuity and stability in elite dominance. A foreign invasion adds a layer, nothing more, which only secures its long term position by inter-marriage or transmutation into a purely moral or spiritual authority.
Chinese Emperors have generally made spectacularly bad economic judgements. India often enjoyed higher per capita income- though lagging behind in productivity and technological innovation- precicely because power was less centralised.
One reason why India is not and can’t be an Empire- i.e why India is doomed to be weak with respect to China- is that the Caste System undercuts the centralisation of power. In China, the Emperor could break the aristocracy by mobilising all his subjects for war and other purposes. India made the decision to restrict the job of fighting to mercenaries with other occupational groups being left unmolested. The Chinese were the earliest to break with feudalism. Except in certain districts, Mandarin (the word is supposed to derive from Skt. ‘Mantrin’)families could not turn into the sort of ‘Deshmukh’ fuedal land owning class we are familiar with in India. However, the reduction of social stratification required to strengthen the Emperor also weakened the merchant class. Ultimately, this is why the Chinese lost out to the limited monarchies of Western Europe where the burghers evolved into a powerful bourgeoisie who were able to revolutionise the sciences and arts. In India, the merchant class were gaining in power, but the British instead of giving them a leg up, ultimately coralled them into a parasitic role. The British Empire is, of course, still alive and well- which is why I’m writing this in English- but it is nothing more than a meta caste, a specific caste of castes, and therefore not really an Empire but a sort of abstract jati dharma.
Why is India behind China? The answer is we are a low productivity nation- always have been, always will be. Why? Because the State never used coercion to make us more productive. Even if the country was being invaded by genocidal nutters, no ‘Emperor’- whether Hindu, Muslim or British- even to save his own neck, considered mobilising the whole population for war. Instead mercenaries were used. True, during war-time, impressment was not entirely voluntary, but the fact remains no Indian ‘Emperor’ has mobilised the full resources of the country for any purpose what so ever. In this sense, India has never existed as an Empire. China and Europe have.
Why can’t productivity rise on its own without coercion by the state? Surely people will raise their own productivity simply to earn more money for themselves? Or is this the fault of the evil capitalists who won’t motivate the workers, or the evil Trade Unions who won’t allow lazy good for nothings to be sacked, or the fault of Mamta Bannerjee, or ‘Brahminical’ bias to Education, or ‘India very hot’, or Muslims eating garlic, or (Katherine Mayo’s explanation) excessive masturbation, or what?
The answer, I’m afraid is complicated. A very boring and confusing topic in Economics relating to Capital theory and ‘choice of technique’ shows that (if you are still awake) where labour inputs are highly variable you are going to get a mixed regime in which returns to capital at the margin are low or negative. Entrepreneurialism, in this context, turns in on itself, feasts on its own carcass, adding to the problem by creating an even greater diversity of micro-ecologies.
The paradox that the caste system is both a division of labour and a system that prevents specialisation and gains from trade is reflected in the paradox that India exists only because an Indian Empire is impossible.
Can India turn itself around? Sure. By coercion. Compulsort schooling, compulsory national service- everything every other successful country has done. Will India do it? Are you kidding? There’s a reason we should stick with what we know- countries that start mobilising all their resources tend to lose between 10 and 20 percent of their populations to wars and rebellions. They make catastrophic economic mistakes. Guys, it could happen to you and me.
Suddenly,India don’t look so bad. How many Indian families- okay, South Indian families- have lost a family member to wars or riots or political purges over the last one hundred years? The answer is very few. The Chinese, Europeans, Japanese etc have all paid a far higher price.

]]> By: shanku http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-268529 shanku Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:11:16 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-268529 remarkable difference between indian and chinese commenters. while indian commenters can look from both ways, self critical, you dont see that in chinese ppl. this is a common tendency i have seen always in chinese ppl. they became rich by american FDI, and its still american money, the day when america pulls it off it will all fall like house of cards, unlike india where the growth is from within, not cosmetic growth. and at creative level china is still living at the bottom, just see most commenters robotic answers. i wonder whether these ppl are govt sponsored communist drones. remarkable difference between indian and chinese commenters. while indian commenters can look from both ways, self critical, you dont see that in chinese ppl. this is a common tendency i have seen always in chinese ppl. they became rich by american FDI, and its still american money, the day when america pulls it off it will all fall like house of cards, unlike india where the growth is from within, not cosmetic growth. and at creative level china is still living at the bottom, just see most commenters robotic answers. i wonder whether these ppl are govt sponsored communist drones.

]]> By: satish http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-267624 satish Sun, 06 Jul 2008 07:33:59 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-267624 China faces investment led recession while indiaq faces a consumer led recession. later is inflationaery while the formeer is deflationary. all asian countries are doomed to death in an oil crisis maybe china will get hit one year later. China faces investment led recession while indiaq faces a consumer led recession. later is inflationaery while the formeer is deflationary. all asian countries are doomed to death in an oil crisis maybe china will get hit one year later.

]]> By: Wu http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-267613 Wu Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:36:12 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-267613 All asian countries from the middle east to east asia have made tremendous progress in less than 20 years. india is the sick man of asia and cannot progress far even after 60 years. Oligarchy or not, China gets things done in building the nation. What have indians done for their people? Very little. All asian countries from the middle east to east asia have made tremendous progress in less than 20 years. india is the sick man of asia and cannot progress far even after 60 years.

Oligarchy or not, China gets things done in building the nation. What have indians done for their people? Very little.

]]> By: Ganpat Ram http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-267131 Ganpat Ram Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:15:42 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-267131 Comparing China and India is comparing starkly unequal things. China is a real nation, always responsible for itself in history and with a very long recorded history. India is a Hindu cultural area that was pulled together into one country by the whim of the British East India Company. India has little historical writing other than what foreigners said about it. No comparison is possible there in terms of strengh of national consciousness. China has it, immensely. India's is far far vaguer. China fought the mighty Japanese Empire to a standstill in World War Two. It fought the incredibly powerful USA to a standstill in Korea in the 1950s. India has barely been able to keep half of Kashmir out of the hands of a far smaller Pakistan. China has done immense things since 1949 to rescue its population from disease, hunger and illiteracy - despite a huge famine in the 1950s as a result of Mao's lunatic economic experiments, the average Chinese for most of these decades has eaten much better than the average Indian. So India is no match for China. China faces immense environmental problems now, but so does India, and with China one can be much more sure it can cope. India is doomed to massive Hindu-Muslim bloodshed and maoist insurgencies. It's future cannot be good. India should be compared to countries in its cultural area, like Bangladesh and Pakistan - not China. India is no match for China. Comparing China and India is comparing starkly unequal things.

China is a real nation, always responsible for itself in history and with a very long recorded history.

India is a Hindu cultural area that was pulled together into one country by the whim of the British East India Company. India has little historical writing other than what foreigners said about it.

No comparison is possible there in terms of strengh of national consciousness. China has it, immensely. India’s is far far vaguer.

China fought the mighty Japanese Empire to a standstill in World War Two. It fought the incredibly powerful USA to a standstill in Korea in the 1950s.

India has barely been able to keep half of Kashmir out of the hands of a far smaller Pakistan.

China has done immense things since 1949 to rescue its population from disease, hunger and illiteracy - despite a huge famine in the 1950s as a result of Mao’s lunatic economic experiments, the average Chinese for most of these decades has eaten much better than the average Indian.

So India is no match for China.

China faces immense environmental problems now, but so does India, and with China one can be much more sure it can cope.

India is doomed to massive Hindu-Muslim bloodshed and maoist insurgencies. It’s future cannot be good.

India should be compared to countries in its cultural area, like Bangladesh and Pakistan - not China.

India is no match for China.

]]> By: hboGYT(PRC) http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-267107 hboGYT(PRC) Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:14:38 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-267107 Maybe one should have a look and articles from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. None of them touches on issues of repressive government and lack of enterprenuership. This might shed some light on the significance of those factors. In my opinion, India just misses out on a quick start. Their democratic(Western model) political system promises them nothing over China be it in the short-term or the long-run. A subtle political reform is going at this very moment. The Chinese leadership has been experimenting with better and more democratic systems in certain areas, to find the optimal one for the Chinese society. And currently, an American-like democracy is out of the question, the reasons are as follow: 1. The experiments have shown that peasants tend to vote for those who offer them some short-run benefit even cash. In a hypothetical presidential election, one cannot stop them form doing so in the form of massive tax-cuts and over-generous welfare benefis. 2. These kind of people might be too uneducated to grasp the implications of such blunders, or 3. Even if they do, they may not have any other option due to poverty or extreme greed. From these, one can conclude that as economic development progresses, these problems will be solved and a more democratic government will become more feasible. Maybe one should have a look and articles from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. None of them touches on issues of repressive government and lack of enterprenuership. This might shed some light on the significance of those factors. In my opinion, India just misses out on a quick start. Their democratic(Western model) political system promises them nothing over China be it in the short-term or the long-run. A subtle political reform is going at this very moment. The Chinese leadership has been experimenting with better and more democratic systems in certain areas, to find the optimal one for the Chinese society. And currently, an American-like democracy is out of the question, the reasons are as follow:

1. The experiments have shown that peasants tend to vote for those who offer them some short-run benefit even cash. In a hypothetical presidential election, one cannot stop them form doing so in the form of massive tax-cuts and over-generous welfare benefis.

2. These kind of people might be too uneducated to grasp the implications of such blunders, or

3. Even if they do, they may not have any other option due to poverty or extreme greed.

From these, one can conclude that as economic development progresses, these problems will be solved and a more democratic government will become more feasible.

]]> By: Harshavardhana http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-265401 Harshavardhana Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:35:33 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-265401 Nice work Ramanuj Lal, good statistics thanks a lot never knew this much. Nice work Ramanuj Lal, good statistics thanks a lot never knew this much.

]]> By: Ramanuj Lal http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-263647 Ramanuj Lal Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:20:06 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-263647 I would like to correct some figures regarding presented by a few members here. I love the format adopted by Edsa, so i would follow it. POVERTY AND MALNUTRITION - 27.5 % ie. about one-fourth of people live below the poverty line in India, not half. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India - I don't exactly know what is meant by 30p (pounds/pence/paisa..?) but official but 75 % of people earn above 0.40 US$ a day and that, mind you, just as the figure quoted by The British Independent is not PPP adjusted. - Per Capita Income using the PPP method is US$ 2,880 whereas China's is US$ 4,990. Using the Atlas method the figures stand at US$ 530 and US$ 1,100 respectively. Ref: http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml LITERACY - India has the highest no of illiterates in the world. But even at 60.3 % adult literacy rate, it has the second highest no of literates in the world. Moreover, as the medium of instruction is English, I believe they have a more global perspective. - Education is however not just about literacy rates. India has the second highest circulation of dailies at 78.7m and China has 96.6m ; Japan has 69.7m; the US has 53.3m; and Germany has 21.5m. India has around 46,000 newspapers in circulation in over 100 different languages (around 20,000 in Hindi and 7,500 in English). China has above 2,200 newspapers in circulation in all languages combined. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_India, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_media For such an illiterate nation as it is projected to be, the intellectual activity is disproportionately high. EDUCATION, ECONOMICS, DIPLOMACY - India has the IITs. Walk into the Silicon Valley, the hotbed of innovation, and you will meet plenty of IITians. Sadly, there are very few IITs, and they aren't universities. Yours truly is privileged to be in one. Quality higher education is in short supply. But now that India has hard cash to spend on univs, we will pretty soon find some Indian names in the global list. - Indian growth rate is also equally well known last years data stands at 9.4 % vs China's 10.5 %. For a nation that was 10-15 yrs late in initiating reforms and has been inconsistent with its pace, I think the performance is quite a match. - The forex reserve stands at a solid US$ 270b. The money is pouring in at US$ 250b per year (thats right, its not a typing mistake) and as this article notes, the amazingly tame inflation rate is making it a safer haven than China for foreign money, so much so that the Central Bank (RBI) is actually taking steps to sterilize the inflow. India has a problem of plenty. Ref: http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/21/the-rise-and-rise-of-the-rupee-or-how-to-screech-a-galloping-elephant-to-a-halt-atop-of-a-dollar-bill/ - I don't know from where that impressive no of 100 billionaires came from but as on March, 2007, Forbes lists India third in terms of number of US Dollar billionaires. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires India has 54, preceded by 55 of Germany and the US at 432. China, though, is not far behind at the 10th position with 20 billionaires. India also has 100,000 millionaires and the no is growing at 14 % compared to China's 8 %. Moreover, there would be at least three Indians in the world's Top 5 Richest individuals, if not the top 3, after the Reliance Power mega IPO lists on Asia's oldest stock exchange (BSE) - the Ambani brothers and L.N. Mittal. - India is currently leading the developing countries in the negotiations at the WTO, the world's largest trading body, along with Brazil. So it is not exactly a zero. Let us see whether it can become a hero like China one day. IT ie NEW ECONOMY - I don't think it would be prudent of any rational human being to dismiss one nation's significant and well acknowledged expertise in any field as "regular" and claim superiority on the basis of a one-off event of a system hack. There are great no of Indians and Chinese working in NASA and for US military projects. Its just matter of calling them home. Till then the regular guys will keep the corporations running. The point is that China has huge lead in manufacturing and many of its brands are visible, but India has an equally good lead in services but its always behind the screen. Next time you go to your bank just ask who provides them the IT logistics. SPACE - India is sending a mission to Moon this year (2008). The mission is called Chandrayan-I and it had on-track plans to put a man on moon by 2015 which was sadly thwarted by the political sensitivity of the expenditure required. - India has entered the global market for commercial satellite launches by placing 2 Israeli and 1 Indonesian satellite in orbit. It is also designing a space shuttle for placing satellites into orbit which would dramatically reduce the costs. LANGUAGE AND MOVIES - No, Hindi is not short of words. It doesn't have 40,000 different sounds like Mandarin but whatever it has is enough to express all human expressions. It derives its grammar and vocab from Sanskrit. For the uninitiated, here is a quote from what Sir William Jones, said to the Asiatic Society on February 2, 1786: "The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists." We intersperse Hindi with English just as the English intersperse their language with Latin, Greek, French, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, German, Afrikaan and Hindi. I would like to correct some figures regarding presented by a few members here. I love the format adopted by Edsa, so i would follow it.

POVERTY AND MALNUTRITION

- 27.5 % ie. about one-fourth of people live below the poverty line in India, not half.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India
- I don’t exactly know what is meant by 30p (pounds/pence/paisa..?) but official but 75 % of people earn above 0.40 US$ a day and that, mind you, just as the figure quoted by The British Independent is not PPP adjusted.
- Per Capita Income using the PPP method is US$ 2,880 whereas China’s is US$ 4,990. Using the Atlas method the figures stand at US$ 530 and US$ 1,100 respectively. Ref: http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml

LITERACY

- India has the highest no of illiterates in the world. But even at 60.3 % adult literacy rate, it has the second highest no of literates in the world. Moreover, as the medium of instruction is English, I believe they have a more global perspective.
- Education is however not just about literacy rates. India has the second highest circulation of dailies at 78.7m and China has 96.6m ; Japan has 69.7m; the US has 53.3m; and Germany has 21.5m. India has around 46,000 newspapers in circulation in over 100 different languages (around 20,000 in Hindi and 7,500 in English). China has above 2,200 newspapers in circulation in all languages combined.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media_in_India, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_media
For such an illiterate nation as it is projected to be, the intellectual activity is disproportionately high.

EDUCATION, ECONOMICS, DIPLOMACY

- India has the IITs. Walk into the Silicon Valley, the hotbed of innovation, and you will meet plenty of IITians. Sadly, there are very few IITs, and they aren’t universities. Yours truly is privileged to be in one. Quality higher education is in short supply. But now that India has hard cash to spend on univs, we will pretty soon find some Indian names in the global list.

- Indian growth rate is also equally well known last years data stands at 9.4 % vs China’s 10.5 %. For a nation that was 10-15 yrs late in initiating reforms and has been inconsistent with its pace, I think the performance is quite a match.

- The forex reserve stands at a solid US$ 270b. The money is pouring in at US$ 250b per year (thats right, its not a typing mistake) and as this article notes, the amazingly tame inflation rate is making it a safer haven than China for foreign money, so much so that the Central Bank (RBI) is actually taking steps to sterilize the inflow. India has a problem of plenty. Ref: http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/21/the-rise-and-rise-of-the-rupee-or-how-to-screech-a-galloping-elephant-to-a-halt-atop-of-a-dollar-bill/

- I don’t know from where that impressive no of 100 billionaires came from but as on March, 2007, Forbes lists India third in terms of number of US Dollar billionaires.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires
India has 54, preceded by 55 of Germany and the US at 432. China, though, is not far behind at the 10th position with 20 billionaires. India also has 100,000 millionaires and the no is growing at 14 % compared to China’s 8 %. Moreover, there would be at least three Indians in the world’s Top 5 Richest individuals, if not the top 3, after the Reliance Power mega IPO lists on Asia’s oldest stock exchange (BSE) - the Ambani brothers and L.N. Mittal.

- India is currently leading the developing countries in the negotiations at the WTO, the world’s largest trading body, along with Brazil. So it is not exactly a zero. Let us see whether it can become a hero like China one day.

IT ie NEW ECONOMY

- I don’t think it would be prudent of any rational human being to dismiss one nation’s significant and well acknowledged expertise in any field as “regular” and claim superiority on the basis of a one-off event of a system hack. There are great no of Indians and Chinese working in NASA and for US military projects. Its just matter of calling them home. Till then the regular guys will keep the corporations running.

The point is that China has huge lead in manufacturing and many of its brands are visible, but India has an equally good lead in services but its always behind the screen. Next time you go to your bank just ask who provides them the IT logistics.

SPACE

- India is sending a mission to Moon this year (2008). The mission is called Chandrayan-I and it had on-track plans to put a man on moon by 2015 which was sadly thwarted by the political sensitivity of the expenditure required.

- India has entered the global market for commercial satellite launches by placing 2 Israeli and 1 Indonesian satellite in orbit. It is also designing a space shuttle for placing satellites into orbit which would dramatically reduce the costs.

LANGUAGE AND MOVIES

- No, Hindi is not short of words. It doesn’t have 40,000 different sounds like Mandarin but whatever it has is enough to express all human expressions. It derives its grammar and vocab from Sanskrit. For the uninitiated, here is a quote from what Sir William Jones, said to the Asiatic Society on February 2, 1786:

“The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.”

We intersperse Hindi with English just as the English intersperse their language with Latin, Greek, French, Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, German, Afrikaan and Hindi.

]]> By: Xinjianger http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-263630 Xinjianger Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:53:20 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-263630 nirm wrote: <blockquote>China was not under “colonial yoke” as any elementary school text book would tell you. It was not completely taken over and subjugated for 250+ years. Remarkably homogeneous Chinese society was and is not so sharply divided vertically (caste), horizontally (distinct linguistic regions) and diagonally (major, often incompatible religious groups).</blockquote> A lot of ignorance above. China was under subjugation of the Manchus since the 1600s. China was also just as fractured and regionalist as India was before WWII. China also had severe linguistic differences (the standard Chinese language was not even created until the 20th century), and distinct class and religious differences. You base your entire argument on the MYTH that China prior to WWII was somehow more homogenous than India. It was not. China's modern-day homogeneity is a result of Chiang Kai-shek's Northern Expedition and Mao Zedong's founding of the People's Republic. The reason Mao's face is still on Tiananmen Square and on China's paper currency is simply this: he founded the country we know today as China. Before Mao, China was a very different country (if you can even call it that, more like a "civilization"). nirm wrote:
China was not under “colonial yoke” as any elementary school text book would tell you. It was not completely taken over and subjugated for 250+ years. Remarkably homogeneous Chinese society was and is not so sharply divided vertically (caste), horizontally (distinct linguistic regions) and diagonally (major, often incompatible religious groups).

A lot of ignorance above. China was under subjugation of the Manchus since the 1600s. China was also just as fractured and regionalist as India was before WWII. China also had severe linguistic differences (the standard Chinese language was not even created until the 20th century), and distinct class and religious differences. You base your entire argument on the MYTH that China prior to WWII was somehow more homogenous than India. It was not. China’s modern-day homogeneity is a result of Chiang Kai-shek’s Northern Expedition and Mao Zedong’s founding of the People’s Republic. The reason Mao’s face is still on Tiananmen Square and on China’s paper currency is simply this: he founded the country we know today as China. Before Mao, China was a very different country (if you can even call it that, more like a “civilization”).

]]> By: Shyam Tambi http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-263487 Shyam Tambi Tue, 01 Jan 2008 21:49:26 +0000 http://indianeconomy.org/2007/12/15/contrasting-chinese-and-indian-oligarchy/#comment-263487 This discussion seems to get too hot to sound like a healthy debate ! I think there is no point in arguing who could have done better in the past, unless we are doing so to seek lessons learned for future use. Anyway, some of the points above are well taken - "It would have, more likely than not, disintegrated into several failed and dysfunctional state lets ..." Indian politicians had to fight a lot to mitigate this real risk, in early days after independence till last decade (Punjab, Kashmir etc..) and still continue today. Remember economic development was only one of the agenda items of old politicians, if you go back to 60s and 70s. And remember the old Hindi movies which depicts Indian culture - money is evil, stay away from it. I would agree Homogeneous Society like China automatically eliminates lots of social problems like in India, so everybody can focus with left over energy on developmental activities if there are opportunities. So it remains a biggest natural addvantage to China. I do not agree with this though - " China could very well have taken a less repressive and more democratic (or democratizing) route to its development without having had to jeopardize its modernization..." In my opinion, there are cultural reasons, in addition to literacy and socio-economic level of people, why a repressive path might sometimes be better than "Democracy" like in India. Of course there are prices to pay. Also if we had data on wealth distribution and benefits of economic development to society, my wild guess is China would compare far better to India ! This is critical in the long run. The fact remains though, that as of today, China is more rich than India, the world talks about it more and sees it as a future superpower, that its got 3 times more land than India, that the world has come to depend on Chinese goods, and that China had better positioned itself to absorb foreign investment and create long term sustainable businesses like manufacturing, instead of jumping directly into service industry ! Cheers !! This discussion seems to get too hot to sound like a healthy debate !
I think there is no point in arguing who could have done better in the past, unless we are doing so to seek lessons learned for future use.

Anyway, some of the points above are well taken -

“It would have, more likely than not, disintegrated into several failed and dysfunctional state lets …”
Indian politicians had to fight a lot to mitigate this real risk, in early days after independence till last decade (Punjab, Kashmir etc..)
and still continue today. Remember economic development was only one of the agenda items of old politicians, if you go back to 60s and 70s. And remember the old Hindi movies which depicts Indian culture - money is evil, stay away from it.

I would agree Homogeneous Society like China automatically eliminates lots of social problems like in India, so everybody can focus with left over energy on developmental activities if there are opportunities. So it remains a biggest natural addvantage to China.

I do not agree with this though -
” China could very well have taken a less repressive and more democratic (or democratizing) route to its development without having had to jeopardize its modernization…”
In my opinion, there are cultural reasons, in addition to literacy and socio-economic level of people, why a repressive path might sometimes be better than “Democracy” like in India. Of course there are prices to pay. Also if we had data on wealth distribution and benefits of economic development to society, my wild guess is China would compare far better to India ! This is critical in the long run.

The fact remains though, that as of today, China is more rich than India, the world talks about it more and sees it as a future superpower, that its got 3 times more land than India, that the world has come to depend on Chinese goods, and that China had better positioned itself to absorb foreign investment and create long term sustainable businesses like manufacturing, instead of jumping directly into service industry !

Cheers !!

]]>