The 13-Year Divide: India's Economy Looks Much Like China's in 2001

[Beidou2020]

Things getting done or not getting done has nothing to do with corruption.

Even if there is no corruption things can get done or not get done. It depends on the govt. which wants to get things done or don't care enough to get things done.

This is why China's form of government works and India's doesn't.

 

[possumlot]

This is why China's form of government works and India's doesn't.

LOL.

I will pass on the memo for India to become a single party dictatorship. Happy ?

 

[Kloitra]

This is why China's form of government works and India's doesn't.

How many non-democratic developed countries you can count?

 

[Beidou2020]

LOL.

I will pass on the memo for India to become a single party dictatorship. Happy ?

Chinese government can provide schools for children, toilets for its people, jobs for its people, food for its people.

India's failed democracy can't build schools, hospitals, roads, toilets or food.
This is why India has a shameful defecation problem, malnutrition, etc.

The facts shows Chinese form of government is vastly, and I mean vastly superior to India's failed democracy.
To call India a democracy is an insult to actual democracies

I'd rather live under a dictatorship that provides schools, hospitals, food, toilets than a failed democracy that can't provide toilets, schools, hospitals, infrastructure. In a failed democracy I get to elect one corrupt regime after another while completely failing at governing the country.
China cares about governing the country, India cares about elections and neglects governing the country. The ruling government has one role...to govern the country. It doesn't matter what form of governing system it is as long as the job gets done.

Indians are too brainwashed to understand this. This is why South Asia is so far behind East Asia. East Asia care more about development and then about democracy. While South Asia fights over political parties over economic development.

This is why India catching up to China will always remain just a delusional pipe dream

How many non-democratic developed countries you can count?

Pretty much all countries had authoritarian rule before becoming a democracy. Even Western countries had authoritarian form of governance during their development and pretty much all East Asian and developed Middle Eastern countries were authoritarian during their development phase.

India will NEVER catch China until it changes its utterly failed political system and its worship of fake gods.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

How many non-democratic developed countries you can count?

Ironically, non-democratic systems have worked well for Chinese societies.

Singapore and Hong Kong are both Chinese majority places, and both of them are at the top of the world in per capita indicators. And Macau is richer than Switzerland.

Whereas Taiwan is also Chinese majority, but a democracy, and they are far behind non-democratic HK, Singapore and Macau in per capita terms.

Chinese societies have already achieved top of the world per capita levels, with non-democratic systems.

It has already been proven. And is currently happening in the Mainland as we speak, Shanghai for example has already become richer than HK. And that's only the beginning, check out places like Suzhou or Tianjin for example.

 

[possumlot]

Chinese government can provide schools for children, toilets for its people, jobs for its people, food for its people.

India's failed democracy can't build schools, hospitals, roads, toilets or food.
This is why India has a shameful defecation problem, malnutrition, etc.

The facts shows Chinese form of government is vastly, and I mean vastly superior to India's failed democracy.
To call India a democracy is an insult to actual democracies

I'd rather live under a dictatorship that provides schools, hospitals, food, toilets than a failed democracy that can't provide toilets, schools, hospitals, infrastructure. In a failed democracy I get to elect one corrupt regime after another while completely failing at governing the country.
China cares about governing the country, India cares about elections and neglects governing the country. The ruling government has one role...to govern the country. It doesn't matter what form of governing system it is as long as the job gets done.

Indians are too brainwashed to understand this. This is why South Asia is so far behind East Asia. East Asia care more about development and then about democracy. While South Asia fights over political parties over economic development.

This is why India catching up to China will always remain just a delusional pipe dream

....... yet strangely its the chinese who come here boasting and desperately trying to win our respect and convince us that they are right.

While the Indians are not bothered about it. Do you know why ?

Because in your heart you know that you are wrong and we are right. That is why you are trying this hard and still not succeeding. And this will always continue to be the case.

Plenty of 50 cents have come on pdf trying to sell the little red book and all of them have gone back disappointed. You are no exception.

You are free to live in a dictatorship like a bird in a golden cage. Frankly no one cares. We OTOH get to CHOOSE and we CHOOSE otherwise.

Pretty much all countries had authoritarian rule before becoming a democracy. Even Western countries had authoritarian form of governance during their development and pretty much all East Asian and developed Middle Eastern countries were authoritarian during their development phase.

India will NEVER catch China until it changes its utterly failed political system and its worship of fake gods.

All the best trying to sell snake oil

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

....... yet strangely its the chinese who come here boasting and desperately trying to win our respect and convince us that they are right.

You know Beidou2020 has already admitted he is not Chinese right?

So your argument fails.

 

[andy_hujian]

An article posted by Americans makes Chinese and Indians start a debate.
Two countries have different route, different society, different history. Why compare?

 

[Beidou2020]

....... yet strangely its the chinese who come here boasting and desperately trying to win our respect and convince us that they are right.

While the Indians are not bothered about it. Do you know why ?

Because in your heart you know that you are wrong and we are right. That is why you are trying this hard and still not succeeding. And this will always continue to be the case.

Plenty of 50 cents have come on pdf trying to sell the little red book and all of them have gone back disappointed. You are no exception.

You are free to live in a dictatorship like a bird in a golden cage. Frankly no one cares. We OTOH get to CHOOSE and we CHOOSE otherwise.




All the best trying to sell snake oil

Fine but don't come here claiming India will surpass China.
Enjoy defecating in the open if that's what you want

 

[Kloitra]

@Beidou2020

Ironically, non-democratic systems have worked well for Chinese societies.

Singapore and Hong Kong are both Chinese majority places, and both of them are at the top of the world in per capita indicators. And Macau is richer than Switzerland.

Whereas Taiwan is also Chinese majority, but a democracy, and they are far behind non-democratic HK, Singapore and Macau in per capita terms.

Singapore is a democracy, is it not? Besides, smaller countries are easier to develop than bigger one. Also, Macau and HK are not individual countries. All three were part of democratic UK and currently China.

Chinese societies have already achieved top of the world per capita levels, with non-democratic systems.

It has already been proven. And is currently happening in the Mainland as we speak, Shanghai for example has already become richer than HK. And that's only the beginning, check out places like Suzhou or Tianjin for example.

I never got that part. From wiki, HK has thrice the per capita of Shanghai.

Anyway, my point was that all developed countries are democratic. And they have achieved a good growth within democracy. Some of them did grew under non-democratic systems. But most were democracy for past century or so. Best example would be US - through and through democracy. Democracy works, it might not work as efficiently as an authoritative but development minded one but it does.

There are more factors involved than the form of government. A communist China has shown remarkable growth while neighboring NK doesn't. USSR is classic example of communism gone wrong. There are far more examples of failure than success.

An autocratic/non-democratic government would not work in India. The memory of colonial rule are still there. Besides, the corruption of elected leaders have shown that leaders cannot be trusted.

 

[Beidou2020]

@Beidou2020
Singapore is a democracy, is it not? Besides, smaller countries are easier to develop than bigger one. Also, Macau and HK are not individual countries. All three were part of democratic UK and currently China.


I never got that part. From wiki, HK has thrice the per capita of Shanghai.

Anyway, my point was that all developed countries are democratic. And they have achieved a good growth within democracy. Some of them did grew under non-democratic systems. But most were democracy for past century or so. Best example would be US - through and through democracy. Democracy works, it might not work as efficiently as an authoritative but development minded one but it does.

There are more factors involved than the form of government. A communist China has shown remarkable growth while neighboring NK doesn't. USSR is classic example of communism gone wrong. There are far more examples of failure than success.

An autocratic/non-democratic government would not work in India. The memory of colonial rule are still there. Besides, the corruption of elected leaders have shown that leaders cannot be trusted.

India will never catch China by the way each country governs itself. Forget the system of government. What I was trying to say is the governance of each country.

You can be democratic and be good at governance (Switzerland, Australia).
You can be democratic and bad at governance (India, Pakistan).
You can be authoritarian and good at governance (China, Singapore, UAE).
You can be authoritarian and bad at governance (North Korea).

You can be democratic, communist, dictatorship or monarchy. But being one system doesn't mean you will be successful. It's the governing that matters.

India thinks being democracy will automatically help it develop because it sees other developed countries as being democracies so Indians and many Westerners think that to become a developed country that you have to be a democracy first. Doesn't work that way.

Yes you're correct, democracy is the only system that is suitable for India due to it being so diverse and to hold everyone from each ethnicity, religion and culture together. Otherwise the Indian union will collapse.

China doesn't have to worry about those things. China doesn't allow anyone to hijack the development of China. Development is first priority in China whereas in India winning elections and other things take first priority. Having a slow and bureaucratic system while development slows things down compared to an authoritarian system that is relatively fast and less bureaucratic. This is why Lee Kuan Yew developed Singapore in authoritarian fashion (to cut through the bureaucracy and not worry about satisfying everyone to win elections) and only when Singapore became a developed country did he allow proper democracy to take place.

China too will eventually allow a form of democracy (maybe like Russia) to take place, but that will only happen once China becomes a fully developed country.

 

[Fireurimagination]

India will never catch China by the way each country governs itself. Forget the system of government. What I was trying to say is the governance of each country.

You can be democratic and be good at governance (Switzerland, Australia).
You can be democratic and bad at governance (India, Pakistan).
You can be authoritarian and good at governance (China, Singapore, UAE).
You can be authoritarian and bad at governance (North Korea).

You can be democratic, communist, dictatorship or monarchy. But being one system doesn't mean you will be successful. It's the governing that matters.

India thinks being democracy will automatically help it develop because it sees other developed countries as being democracies so Indians and many Westerners think that to become a developed country that you have to be a democracy first. Doesn't work that way.

Yes you're correct, democracy is the only system that is suitable for India due to it being so diverse and to hold everyone from each ethnicity, religion and culture together. Otherwise the Indian union will collapse.

China doesn't have to worry about those things. China doesn't allow anyone to hijack the development of China. Development is first priority in China whereas in India winning elections and other things take first priority. Having a slow and bureaucratic system while development slows things down compared to an authoritarian system that is relatively fast and less bureaucratic. This is why Lee Kuan Yew developed Singapore in authoritarian fashion (to cut through the bureaucracy and not worry about satisfying everyone to win elections) and only when Singapore became a developed country did he allow proper democracy to take place.

China too will eventually allow a form of democracy (maybe like Russia) to take place, but that will only happen once China becomes a fully developed country.

It's takes time for democracy to mature and yield results, it's not instant coffee but you won't understand. Freedom and empowerment are worth 10x to economic development but again you won't understand

 

[thesolar65]

How can a comparison be made among 2 developing nations which have different forms of governance ?

One is developing because it is authoritarian while the other is developing despite not being authoritarian..

This suppression of people voice, media black out and all sort of pressure will bound to have explosive impact someday!! This growth will not save the authoritarian rule!!

 

[Levina]

The last 10 years of misrule and policy paralysis were resposible for this glaring gap.

Right!

For some people 'secularism' was more important than house, food and water

wrong!
some dithering economic policies and appeasement of the supporters in the coalition government led to humongous blunders.
Secularism has nothing to do with it.

 

[Kloitra]

India will never catch China by the way each country governs itself. Forget the system of government. What I was trying to say is the governance of each country.

You can be democratic and be good at governance (Switzerland, Australia).
You can be democratic and bad at governance (India, Pakistan).
You can be authoritarian and good at governance (China, Singapore, UAE).
You can be authoritarian and bad at governance (North Korea).

In democracy, people have option to change the government. In authoritarian, they don't. If somehow government turns out to be good, country develops, otherwise not. A bad democratic governance still gets development, albeit slow - India, Pakistan as you pointed out. A bad authoritarian like NK stagnate any growth.

You can be democratic, communist, dictatorship or monarchy. But being one system doesn't mean you will be successful. It's the governing that matters.

India thinks being democracy will automatically help it develop because it sees other developed countries as being democracies so Indians and many Westerners think that to become a developed country that you have to be a democracy first. Doesn't work that way.

No, type of system doesn't guarantee success. This is what I am pointing out.

This is why China's form of government works and India's doesn't.

This was your statement. I am just pointing out that all forms of government work.

And no, Indians don't think democracy automatically help it develop. Many Indians do respect Chinese form of government, as it gets things done. We just don't prefer authoritarian form of government and think democracy is the way to go, even if it is slow.