What's new

India 'too democratic' to overtake China as economic superpower

This title can come means Indian democracy model has failed, most of Westerners believe democracy is the only model but India showed a negative example.

India is well beyond the debate: whether we should have democracy. Period.

China is barely starting the debate: could cultural revolution, tiananmen square, labour camps be prevented if china had escaped the clutches of PLA.

Is a window still open, when china can be redeemed from the clutches of PLA, or is the damage done, for good? The common chinese need to ponder, if they can gather the courage.
 
.
There have been few threads by our chinese friends on indian democracy...... I hope they understand the meaning of the word "Democracy"..... First try to conduct a mass peaceful protest inside china..... then come back and preach us (if you have survived)
 
.
india has never given birth to political leaders of the stalin and mao type, who, despite their proclaimed adherence to communist orthodoxy, were too dignified (or megalomaniac) to allow political teachings of others to get in the way of shaping their countries by their sheer steely will. so india knew nothing other than anglosaxon parliamentary democracy since the brits permittted india to be a nation a bare sixty years ago and only after they thoroughly indoctrinated every single potential political leader from the colony - except when indira decidedly indian democracy must only ever work for her and never be allowed to work against her and stole a page from western jurisprudence and suspended all laws in the name of defending law and order (and her own rule). how uncreative the entire political class in india is - i guess the lack of creativity comes with the creation of their nation at colonial hands.

i honestly don't blame indians for their politicla ineptness. as i said, the brits forced them to adopt their tongue to be better slaves and to better take orders and never meant to groom indians as political thinkers, and the lack of elementary political sense (to the point of confusing the meaning of government and governance in their politicla journalism and political thinking) just shows the slaveowners ever wanted to chain the slaves to a state of political infancy. and even speaking as an enemy, i wish indians break this infantile mentality and learn and grow, and maybe one day indians would be politically savvy enough to recognize it is not a politically sound move to mess with a militarily, economically and intellectually superior china

Yes - aren't we glad in India we did not have the dignified Mao or the dignified Stalin to shape our nation - hahaha - those 2 great men should be right up there with Gandhi and Mandela.
 
.
Yes - aren't we glad in India we did not have the dignified Mao or the dignified Stalin to shape our nation - hahaha - those 2 great men should be right up there with Gandhi and Mandela.

what india did have was indira gandhi (what gandhi are you talking about? the one who was too meek to fight his owners and in the end couldn't preserve his state or himself? the one who was lauded by white people as a model slave but despised by radicals among the ranks of those who fought for independence more valiantly than he?), a castrated version of a stalin or a mao. i would call her dictator without balls, which is exactly what she was.

but what put stalin and mao above gandhi? although not even the fruit of stalin's own loin could be spared from his ruthlessness, indira was mighty fertile and bequeathed upon india after her richly deserved execution - besides her violent legacy of dictatorship and ethnic cleansing - tons of more gandhis. whenever i take the card from an indian that shows a name other than gandhi, i tell myself this is just another sheep that will be ruled by another of these gandhis. even african politics is less dyanstic than india's.
 
.
what india did have was indira gandhi (what gandhi are you talking about? the one who was too meek to fight his owners and in the end couldn't preserve his state or himself? the one who was lauded by white people as a model slave but despised by radicals among the ranks of those who fought for independence more valiantly than he?), a castrated version of a stalin or a mao. i would call her dictator without balls, which is exactly what she was.

but what put stalin and mao above gandhi? although not even the fruit of stalin's own loin could be spared from his ruthlessness, indira was mighty fertile and bequeathed upon india after her richly deserved execution - besides her violent legacy of dictatorship and ethnic cleansing - tons of more gandhis. whenever i take the card from an indian that shows a name other than gandhi, i tell myself this is just another sheep that will be ruled by another of these gandhis. even african politics is less dyanstic than india's.

I can understand why coming out of a communist state-driven educational system, it would be difficult for someone to grasp the differences between colonialism and slavery. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand were all also colonies - to call their citizens slaves would be stretching the definition of slavery to a laughable extent.

What put Stalin and Mao above Gandhi?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - a lot of opium apparently. To compare the man who not only led a nation to freedom through non-violent and peaceful means but also inspired the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mandela to a bunch of genocidal maniacs is downright retarded.
 
.
I can understand why coming out of a communist state-driven educational system, it would be difficult for someone to grasp the differences between colonialism and slavery. USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand were all also colonies - to call their citizens slaves would be stretching the definition of slavery to a laughable extent.

What put Stalin and Mao above Gandhi?? HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - a lot of opium apparently. To compare the man who not only led a nation to freedom through non-violent and peaceful means but also inspired the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mandela to a bunch of genocidal maniacs is downright retarded.

white-skinned americans and aussies were colonizers who had the privilege of killing the natives. brown-skinned indians were slaves who had the misfortunate of being killed by the white-skinned colonizers.

to preserve what he wants preserved, to protect what he wants protected, a political man takes resolute and, yes, sometimes extremely violent actions. we get to judge his political actions by their prudence: were they too excessive? were they necessary? was there another way to get the same results? but we never get to judge the morality of these actions.

and who are you to compare political titans like stalin and mao to a few disobedient slaves? stalin's domestic enemies wanted him dead; his foreign enemies wanted to destroy all russian possessions in europe. gandhi's "enemies" just expected to make productive slaves out of gandhi's fellow indians. stalin's enemies wanted russia erased from the face of the planet; indians' rightful owners wanted indians to be productive, not dead. so stalin's armies must slaughter its way to berlin, whereas gandhi's "army" would just pull some pranks and do some merrymaking on the street and declared themselves unuseful and unproductive in hope that their owners would release them from their shackles. stalin's enemies took butcher knives to him; gandhi's masters only took out their whips. because indians were largely slaves and assets to the brits, indians' never faced ruthless, genuine hate and never needed to produce a political leadership that would incite hate to oppose such genuine hate. so what qualifications do you slaves possess to judge a true political leader, who, for all his flaws, had to contend with political choices between giving up on his nation and himself and killing tens of millions who got in his way of preserving the self and the country? for true political men, the value they fight and kill for and the way they accomplish their objectives can only be understood and assessed by fellow political men. indian slaves should be content to live under the long-lasting gandhi dynasty and never again presume to judge the actions of great political men.
 
.
white-skinned americans and aussies were colonizers who had the privilege of killing the natives. brown-skinned indians were slaves who had the misfortunate of being killed by the white-skinned colonizers.

to preserve what he wants preserved, to protect what he wants protected, a political man takes resolute and, yes, sometimes extremely violent actions. we get to judge his political actions by their prudence: were they too excessive? were they necessary? was there another way to get the same results? but we never get to judge the morality of these actions.

and who are you to compare political titans like stalin and mao to a few disobedient slaves? stalin's domestic enemies wanted him dead; his foreign enemies wanted to destroy all russian possessions in europe. gandhi's "enemies" just expected to make productive slaves out of gandhi's fellow indians. stalin's enemies wanted russia erased from the face of the planet; indians' rightful owners wanted indians to be productive, not dead. so stalin's armies must slaughter its way to berlin, whereas gandhi's "army" would just pull some pranks and do some merrymaking on the street and declared themselves unuseful and unproductive in hope that their owners would release them from their shackles. stalin's enemies took butcher knives to him; gandhi's masters only took out their whips. because indians were largely slaves and assets to the brits, indians' never faced ruthless, genuine hate and never needed to produce a political leadership that would incite hate to oppose such genuine hate. so what qualifications do you slaves possess to judge a true political leader, who, for all his flaws, had to contend with political choices between giving up on his nation and himself and killing tens of millions who got in his way of preserving the self and the country? for true political men, the value they fight and kill for and the way they accomplish their objectives can only be understood and assessed by fellow political men. indian slaves should be content to live under the long-lasting gandhi dynasty and never again presume to judge the actions of great political men.

WOW - white skinned Americans and Aussies had the privilege - I repeat privilege of killing the natives? HAHAHHAA - no wonder you guys worship Mao - who had the "privilege" of mass murdering millions of Chinese and Stalin who had the "privilege" of mass murdering millions of Soviets.

Who am I to judge these so-called "titans" - LOL - I am a citizen of a free nation. Forget slaves - I would be insulting stray dogs if I compared Mao and Stalin to them. At least the Russian people had the sense to eventually see Stalin for who he was - a tyrant.

Case in point - BBC NEWS | Europe | Medvedev blasts Stalin defenders

But the poor Chinese - they have been ruled for so long that they are utterly incapable of standing up against tyranny. I don't blame you for idolizing the likes of Mao and Stalin - you people have always been ruled and have never stood up for your rights. This genuflection toward people in authority is so embedded in the Chinese DNA - that it remains the only country in the world to have the picture of a mass murderer on its currency. Oh wait - they would probably be in august company - with Zimbabwe. hahahahahhaha
 
.
There have been few threads by our Chinese friends on indian DEMOCRACY..... I hope they understand the meaning of the word "Democracy"..... First try to conduct a mass peaceful protest inside China..... then come back and preach us (if you have survived)

start mumbling ABOUT indian DEMOCRACY when your women are free to go anywhere after dark!
 
.
Criticizng democracy and defending communism can only be done by the one who never had a taste of democracy. A real democracy can either be good or not good but can never be bad. Indian democratic system is complicated but is still far better than communism cause communism always have a shorter life than democracy.
 
.
Wrong debate. Dare I say.


It is not "democracy" vs. "dictatorship" issue when it comes to economic progress.

Instead, economic progress happens due to the level of "mercantile" tendencies of a nation or a country.

So we have "Indian system of government" where ruling party (among several parties) is elected.

and "Chinese system of government" where a single party elects / selects its ruler.


Both seems to work in their own way so as to provide the following:

1. Orderly change in the top position of the government
2. Pro-West business policies
3. West friendly population that welcomes tourists from around the world but especially from the West

There are some strenghts that are unique to the two nations.


Strengths unique to India
1. Very large English speaking class
2. System of government (corporations, military, courts, bureaucrats) is run using English language
3. Centuries old traditions of providing office services to the Western companies (starting with Kolkatta business houses of British East India company).



Strengths Unique to China
1. Very large and organized and willing labor class
2. 1000s of years old system of manufacturing top quality fabrics and metals and woodwork
3. Centuries old traditions of providing manufacturing services to the Western companies (Shenghai and other cities where European companies set up factories)


If you look at the current outcomes and near-future trends, you will see why Indian companies beat China in providing "office services" to the West.

But then Chinese companies beat India in providing "manufacturing services" to the West.

Thus one should not worry too much at the so called "Indian democracy" vs. "Chinese dictatorship" but instead the core and unique strengths of the two countries when trying to forecast their performance and their role in the future.

If India invests big $$$ in training its population to become better than Chinese in providing manufacturing services, then yeah, it can beat China in its field of strength.

Similarly if China invests heavily in training its population (and they are doing it as we speak) to become better than Indians in providing office services, then yes, it can beat India in its game.

So focus on "core strengths" of a nation and not the drama that may or may not happen in its capital city.




peace
 
.
India is not a democracy ,the country is run by interest groups and strong background families.it's a far cry from western sense of democracy,no democracy ranks so low in global corruption index.
 
.
Our politicians have somehow managed to bring the worst out of two excellent concepts - democracy & secularism.

India is so-called secular state but it is a extremist hindu state indeed.
 
.
Strengths unique to India
1. Very large English speaking class
2. System of government (corporations, military, courts, bureaucrats) is run using English language
3. Centuries old traditions of providing office services to the Western companies (starting with Kolkatta business houses of British East India company).

I have heard of these arguments uncountable time and yet nobody can explain to me why continental Europeans, Japanese or even Koreans have been so successful without using much English if at all.

The West is not only made up of English speaking countries, in fact most Western countries don't use English at all. Try to speak English to a German, French, Spanish or Italian customer over the phone. :lol:
 
.
Götterdämmerung;3839126 said:
I have heard of these arguments uncountable time and yet nobody can explain to me why continental Europeans, Japanese or even Koreans have been so successful without using much English if at all.

The West is not only made up of English speaking countries, in fact most Western countries don't use English at all. Try to speak English to a German, French, Spanish or Italian customer over the phone. :lol:

Because while Western Europeans, Japanese, Koreans etc are single race/language states, India aint.

Consider India as Europe as a whole and the different countries in Europe as the different states in India..you ll get the picture.
 
.
It doesn't matter what system India adopts, they are just too dumb to beat China. They were too dumb to beat us in war. They are very backward people just like Africans. Just go look at the IQ levels of Indians and Africans and compare that to East Asians.
Just look at the way Indians behave toward women and the way they drive, compare that to how Chinese behave a d how Chinese drive. You will see Indians are behind Chinese in the human evolution cycle.

It's irrelevant what system economic or political system India has, no system can modernise backward humans.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom