What can China learn from India ?

[Joe Shearer]

But they do well in software. Also their banking is good. I have been to Africa, many Indian bankers are there, many projects are done by Chinese, but Indians offer some service to Chinese state-owned company. As I said, there must be something good from India. I am waiting for reliable Indian's reply

There are hugely different reasons for software and banking being successful features of the Indian economy.

Banking was sound but undistinguished until Indira Gandhi, in a bid to outflank her political rivals, presented a number of populist programmes in the 70s.

She came to power as a default candidate, sponsored by powerful bosses in the Congress who thought that this dumb doll would be easy to manipulate. In order to break away from their control, she put up her Owen candidate in the presidential elections, won it, and then launched an attack with these programmes. Nationalizing the banking industry was one of them. What followed was an unprecedented expansion of the banking system, on the grounds that ordinary citizens should get service. As a result, we get services quicker, cheaper and at anymore locations than I have seen elsewhere. This is not to gainsay the numerous problems that need fixing.

Software is another story.

 

[ghameed]

But how long will the people of India stay together? India is in affect Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Neatherland, Spain and Portugal forming together as a nation. Today's reality would never join these countries together. But if an external force unifying them for 200 years, then they would start to think of themselves as one nation with many states just like India. However, would they separate again as the natural force that separates the people into countries such as the language and history would create a separation pull in the time of crisis and turmoil?

A valid apprehension, but highly unlikely. The reason is simple : nobody wants to separate.Though i'm from Tamil Nadu, I cannot imagine being separated from Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka or Pondicherry (I have named these states because they share a border with TN. I feel the same towards every other state in India). I however foresee more sub-national entities. It would only be natural, as it automatically equates to better governance and growth. Presently, there are 35 ( 28 States and 7 UT) such regions in India ,but may increase to 50 in the next 10-20 years.

 

[djsjs]

The answer to the part in bold above.

Forever.

I say this not because of patriotism , the bonding together shall stay because the is a release mechanism for the ppl to vent themselves. This happens twice every 5 years - one for state level elections and the other for national level elections.

Assume that India was not sticked together for more than 200 years.
Assume that India is now have larger GDP and growth rate than China,I think the US would do something........

 

[faithfulguy]

The answer to the part in bold above.

Forever.

I say this not because of patriotism , the bonding together shall stay because the is a release mechanism for the ppl to vent themselves. This happens twice every 5 years - one for state level elections and the other for national level elections.

In Europe, they also have elections. What they lack is a force that unified the nation. If another nation colonize western Europe and rule it as one empire for 200 years and then leave, would the Europeans go their separate ways or stay unified?

As for the release mechanism, people will soon catch on to the show as no movies last forever. Even the Ballywood flicks come to an end. After 6 hrs

 

[harpoon]

China can learn how to successfully feed its whole population, educate it. China can also learn how to be non-corrupt from India, and China can have its streets role modeled on India...

What did Pakistan learn from China?

 

[lightoftruth]

cricket ?

although we can learn a lot when it comes to olympics.

pharmacuetical industry maybe .

 

[harpoon]

Assume that India was not sticked together for more than 200 years.
Assume that India is now have larger GDP and growth rate than China,I think the US would do something........

India except for some parts was unified even before British.

 

[scorpionx]

In Europe, they also have elections. What they lack is a force that unified the nation. If another nation colonize western Europe and rule it as one empire for 200 years and then leave, would the Europeans go their separate ways or stay unified?

As for the release mechanism, people will soon catch on to the show as no movies last forever. Even the Ballywood flicks come to an end. After 6 hrs

When India was in a process of forming itself against the colonialism,members from every sect of this country were involved. Both Tagore and Gandhi, two colossal figure of Indianness differed substantially in cultural and religious beliefs but never let that disrupt their common refusal towards fragmentation of this vast country. This has huge effect on common Indians which make us different from the Europeans.

 

[Joe Shearer]

In Europe, they also have elections. What they lack is a force that unified the nation. If another nation colonize western Europe and rule it as one empire for 200 years and then leave, would the Europeans go their separate ways or stay unified?

As for the release mechanism, people will soon catch on to the show as no movies last forever. Even the Ballywood flicks come to an end. After 6 hrs

This shows how misleading models and examples can be. We are partly guilty, as we take short cuts when trying to describe India to strangers, and use analogies which confuse some and which others find laughable.

In a nutshell, instead of the political unification that China witnessed, India went through a cultural unification. While for China there was a need for an imperial family and for a bureaucracy, for India, there was a need for an oligarchy, a community of priests and learned persons, who were socially empowered to guide culture and social norms both. They were overthrown - partially, not wholly - in the years between 600 BC and 800 AD, but there were significant segments which continued to be under their influence. Those who did the overthrowing were neither interested nor successful in disturbing the unified cultural system, and as a result, no centralized set of people were needed to keep up the momentum. In 800 AD, the trends of a few centuries until then came to a head, and the old cultural and social guides returned to their full authority, Which had never disappeared.

Expanding this theme and explaining why even the weakening of this set of people and the failure to replace them has not entirely eroded the cultural unity of the sub-continent. I believe that another, far more broad-based social consensus is the emerging outcome.

 

[Yogi]

Let me start first. How does Indian learn English ? How is the English education conducted in India ?

The basic reason is the colonial heritage the same way to see Portugees in Macao, French in Vietnam, Spanish in Mexico

But there r many other reasons also like there r many different kinds of languages that r spoken in India specially between North n South Indians so English provides a means of communication as most all school teach English as a subject in India

Besides English is more off a work culture language in India n with the advent of MNCs its importance as a job qualification has increased many folds...

Hope u got ur answer..

 

[Rig Vedic]

While Indian political system is basically a failure for the hundreds of millions who are living in poverty and are oppressed by corruption, one thing China can learn is to be less insecure regarding dissenting voices.

 

[faithfulguy]

This shows how misleading models and examples can be. We are partly guilty, as we take short cuts when trying to describe India to strangers, and use analogies which confuse some and which others find laughable.

In a nutshell, instead of the political unification that China witnessed, India went through a cultural unification. While for China there was a need for an imperial family and for a bureaucracy, for India, there was a need for an oligarchy, a community of priests and learned persons, who were socially empowered to guide culture and social norms both. They were overthrown - partially, not wholly - in the years between 600 BC and 800 AD, but there were significant segments which continued to be under their influence. Those who did the overthrowing were neither interested nor successful in disturbing the unified cultural system, and as a result, no centralized set of people were needed to keep up the momentum. In 800 AD, the trends of a few centuries until then came to a head, and the old cultural and social guides returned to their full authority, Which had never disappeared.

Expanding this theme and explaining why even the weakening of this set of people and the failure to replace them has not entirely eroded the cultural unity of the sub-continent. I believe that another, far more broad-based social consensus is the emerging outcome.

As far as I know, these community of priest or gurus still exists today in India. There were also community priests in pre-Christian Scotland and Ireland. But the identity of these nations do not form until much later, when they were being pressured and eventually dominated by England. So the local shaman and priest play a role in the culture but not in forming a nation. Would the identity of the India nation also was developed in the same way. As a resistance to the British occupation? And would it be fair to say that Indian culture is some way still resembles pre-Christian Ireland/Scotland? If that is the case, then I would have to disagree that the role of the local gurus have any role in the formation of the state of India. Gurus just show that each locality has a local spiritual leaders. But in no way does local religious leader has any role in the formation of a nation.

As for the term "cultural nation", protestantism and confucism can be a form of a cultural nation. But I don't have to elaborate that people of similar religious belief or cultural system does not equate to a modern nation.

 

[INDIC]

Let me start first. How does Indian learn English ? How is the English education conducted in India ?

There are English medium schools as well as schools in regional languages(there are 22 official languages) but all of us learn minimum 3 languages in Schools. People prefer education in English medium for higher education. But many Indians even knowing English can't speak fluent English.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As far as I know, these community of priest or gurus still exists today in India. There were also community priests in pre-Christian Scotland and Ireland. But the identity of these nations do not form until much later, when they were being pressured and eventually dominated by England. So the local shaman and priest play a role in the culture but not in forming a nation. Would the identity of the India nation also was developed in the same way. As a resistance to the British occupation? And would it be fair to say that Indian culture is some way still resembles pre-Christian Ireland/Scotland? If that is the case, then I would have to disagree that the role of the local gurus have any role in the formation of the state of India. Gurus just show that each locality has a local spiritual leaders. But in no way does local religious leader has any role in the formation of a nation.

As for the term "cultural nation", protestantism and confucism can be a form of a cultural nation. But I don't have to elaborate that people of similar religious belief or cultural system does not equate to a modern nation.

Taking your last point first, oh, absolutely. The cultural entity, 'nation' if you like, does not guarantee the formation of a political nation-state around it, nor does it even have to exist to give rise to a nation-state.

However, my point was subtly different; it was to say that such an underlying cultural framework allows a nation-state built on it far greater ruggedness and durability. The constitutional elements, the legal framework, the rule of law are all reinforced invisibly by the cultural ties that strengthen these links.

The priests are not precisely gurus. Gurus are individual teachers, who may be drawn from the priestly congregation, but do not have to belong to it. My point was to underline that these priests were the meme-carriers of the culture. Yes, they still exist. But they exist for one congregation of worshippers alone, and the cultural symbolism is stronger for that congregation than for others. It might seem, on superficial examination, that such a uni-congregational, or uni-denominational support structure would be doomed to failure due to the overt or covert hostility of those who did not share the religious aspects of that culture as well. Not so.

These bindings, in my opinion, allow the superstructure of the nation-state to hold in place long enough to allow the legal and constitutional sinews to grow sufficiently for them to take up the full burden of the expectations of the citizenry. we might start with a feeling of togetherness due to a shared culture and an underlying shared religion, even without the active participation of the minorities; abstention from hostility would be enough. This feeling of togetherness due to culture and religion is gradually replaced, in the experience that we seem to be going through, by the faith and belief of the citizenry in the constitutional and legal system as the framework for the nation-state. With every election that takes place, there is a cumulative increase in the trust and faith reposed in the system by its constituents. This trust and faith in the electoral system is clearly purely seculAr; once it sets in and grows, the outer framework of support is no longer overtly necessary, but its continued existence lends robustness to the legal framework.

 

[Developereo]

Soft power.

India is much better at projecting an image on its own terms to the outside world than China is.