India India Can Never Beat China In Any Field

[Vikram singh]

In the middle of the last century, India and China were in the same place economically. Now China is three times richer. Its childhood malnutrition rate is far lower than India's. Yes, Indians are free, Thapar says — free to be poor.

India's China Envy : NPR

 

[spnadmin]

That is very interesting Vikram Singh ji

I know many people from China, immigrating in the last 15 to 20 years, mostly after attending school in the US. They are divided right down the middle regarding the way that the Chinese government has functioned. It is truly interesting to hear their reactions and opinions. Some will never to back even though travel is easier than ever for them -- because of the extensive human rights abuses that occur there. Others appreciate the order and rationality, and do not seem to be concerned about the heavy hand of government.

Do you think that this might also be the case with the Indian populace? Would they be divided in the same way?

P/S I hope we have a good discussion about this article. Is it true -- the title -- that India can never beat China? China seems very interesting in keeping India pinned down.

 

[Vikram singh]

Narayanjot Kaur Ji

China invests a lot in infrastructure,India's quality health, education, food and housing have already gone beyond the reach of more than two-third Indians. Majority of the rest barely manage these through borrowings from the future or by indulging in corrupt and unfair means.

Indian Democracy moves slowly.and it is so,corrupt. Infrastructure — roads, water, power — remains underdeveloped.

how can policy makers ensure quality education in rural schools when they are busy permitting the ‘global and international’ schools providing high-tech facilities and luxuries to the ultra rich?

India has one of the fastest widening of social inequalities, where rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer. India is becoming rich land with poor people.

 

[kds1980]

I agree with it .India can never beat China.Main reason is Democracy .For undeveloped countries like India Democracy was not the best system to rule.China embraced pseudo
communism and one party rule.Hardly any government in India spends much amount on infrastructure,reason they know by the time Fruit of that scheme is visible to people then they may not be in power,so they prefer distribute choclates like free power or rural employment schemes which are disaster for economy

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

and maybe its because in China..the persons who actually DID all the work got the power...Mao and his Men...whereas in India it was the SIKHS who did most of the work..but others got the power...and this illegal grab is the reason to distribute chcolates (Packages ONLY to the people..the actual CHOCOLATE has already been eaten by the "donors" !!)..but the people are so damned stupid they accept the chcoloate paper covers as the real thing..ha ha ha..This is called LLAARRAA democracy..empty slogans..and after 60 years the Indians have becoem world class EXPERTS at LYING every five years.

 

[kds1980]

and maybe its because in China..the persons who actually DID all the work got the power...Mao and his Men...whereas in India it was the SIKHS who did most of the work..but others got the power...and this illegal grab is the reason to distribute chcolates (Packages ONLY to the people..the actual CHOCOLATE has already been eaten by the "donors" !!)..but the people are so damned stupid they accept the chcoloate paper covers as the real thing..ha ha ha..This is called LLAARRAA democracy..empty slogans..and after 60 years the Indians have becoem world class EXPERTS at LYING every five years.

It is not the problems of Indians only.Power grabbing ,fighting with each other is human nature.This could go really terrible if a country is developing
or undeveloped.Look at pakistan , bangladesh,Nepal ,African countries.Many intellectuals thought that once colinial rule end then peace and prosperity will return but instead of that in many countries situation really got terrible.

The fact is chinese system of pseudo communism is quite better ruling a country which is undeveloped or developing.After all China can easily throw google out if they feel that it is threatening them while India can't

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

and YES Pakistan is in even worse shape...militray dictatorships not withstanding...and ALMOST ALL the previous Britsh Governed countries are getting from bad to worse..with exceptions like SINGAPORE..which is at the BEST (TOP)......and Zimbawe (Rhodesia) at its WORST (ROCK BOTTOM)..and all the others somewhere in between...so much so that people almosy YEARN for the Good old Colonial tiems when the trains ran on time..the water coming out fo the municipal taps was pure, the police actually caught criminals and not peaceful innocent sitizens, the armed forces fought external enemies instead of massacring own citizens..etc..etc..and Parliaments had decent members and not convicted criminals and murderers...:blushh:

 

[kds1980]

and YES Pakistan is in even worse shape...militray dictatorships not withstanding...and ALMOST ALL the previous Britsh Governed countries are getting from bad to worse..with exceptions like SINGAPORE..which is at the BEST (TOP)......and Zimbawe (Rhodesia) at its WORST (ROCK BOTTOM)..and all the others somewhere in between...so much so that people almosy YEARN for the Good old Colonial tiems when the trains ran on time..the water coming out fo the municipal taps was pure, the police actually caught criminals and not peaceful innocent sitizens, the armed forces fought external enemies instead of massacring own citizens..etc..etc..and Parliaments had decent members and not convicted criminals and murderers...:blushh:

Singapore is more like a city than country.Its area is 704 sq km half the size of Delhi.It is just a trading hub with no problems of what a real country face

 

[Astroboy]

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

Low-Cost Producers.What makes china such a formidable manufacturing center? It has an abundant pool of young, high school-educated workers earning about $1.50 a day, with millions more entering the workforce each year. China's many universities and institutes are turning out well-trained yet relatively low-paid entineers. The cost of industrial land is among the cheapest in the world--about $25 per square meter in Shanghai, half the price of that in Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok and 60 times cheaper than in Yokohama, Japan.
...
China's success comes at the expense of workers and companies throughout the developing world that offer cheap labor but not much else. Even in India, which has some of the planet's lowest wages, low-tech industries can't compete with the Chinese in productivity. Shops in Bombay and Calcutta are flodded with Chinese goods. The Indian government is so worred about China that it has refused to allow Chinese software companies to locate in the high-tech center of Bangalore and scotched plans by software powerhouse Infosys Technologies to train 200 Chinese employees in India.



http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/rank.htm

 

[spnadmin]

Jios,

Let me ask another question -- I think it is related. Under Indira Ghandi there were efforts toward socialist management of the economy accompanied by significant restrictions on economic and individual freedoms. Her government had more than a flirtation with the Soviet Union, which at that time was still governed under Stalinist principles of economics and governance. No freeing up for years to come. She introduced similar notions in India.

It is my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that under Indira the Indian economy stagnated, and there was a huge brain drain of professionals to the West. Most of the Indian emigres that I know here came to the US during that period.

This was almost like a laboratory experiment in a way. Why did it fizzle in the end? If her policies were beneficial should they not have been continued by her successors after her assassination?

 

[kds1980]

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.

And make sure The man will catch fish for 16 hours.Sell it at minimum rate and never revolt
a sure shot way that he can get the work

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/business/worldbusiness/05sweatshop.html

Pushing to keep big corporations honest, labor groups regularly smuggle photographs, videos, pay stubs, shipping records and other evidence out of factories that they say violate local law and international worker standards. In 2007, factories that supplied more than a dozen corporations, including Wal-Mart, Disney and Dell, were accused of unfair labor practices, including using child labor, forcing employees to work 16-hour days on fast-moving assembly lines, and paying workers less than minimum wage. (Minimum wage in this part of China is about 55 cents an hour.)

 

[kds1980]

Jios,

Let me ask another question -- I think it is related. Under Indira Ghandi there were efforts toward socialist management of the economy accompanied by significant restrictions on economic and individual freedoms. Her government had more than a flirtation with the Soviet Union, which at that time was still governed under Stalinist principles of economics and governance. No freeing up for years to come. She introduced similar notions in India.

It is my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that under Indira the Indian economy stagnated, and there was a huge brain drain of professionals to the West. Most of the Indian emigres that I know here came to the US during that period.

This was almost like a laboratory experiment in a way. Why did it fizzle in the end? If her policies were beneficial should they not have been continued by her successors after her assassination?

Well Indian growth stagnated in 60s.I think Nehru should be blamed more for his policies.Indian leaders lacked the vision of future.they want to make country self reliant.They even did not promoted exports.Indira became more harsh with those policies.

With China we all knows that they started reforms in 1979 which benefitted them a lot.But those reforms were against socialists policies which they propagated and grabbed power

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Singapore may be small..but it has the same volatile mix of multi ethnic population....its a "chinese Majority" situated right smack in the "sea of Malay Majority" countries...
In the early 1950's it was a Hotbed of Communist ridden trade unions student movements etc and had racial overtones fueld by its neighbours....

1. PM Lee Kuan Yew had the guts to Fight the Chinese Communists via introducing CHINESE KILLING POLICIES..in a Chinese Majority State !! He killed the Chinese UNIVERSITY and promoted ENGLISH. He forcefed Mandarin instead of dialects via Govt policies. He destroyed the Militant Trade Unions by forcing Equitable concessions on BOTH sides so that workers will have NO INCENTIVES to STRIKE hartaals etc. He destroyed the communists by jailing them..one hardliner is still incarcerated becasue he refuses to apologise and be released. TODAY Singapore is a Hotbed of PRODUCTIVITY and PROGRESS and CORRUPTION FREE...holding millions in Savings and Bonds for each of its citizens instead of being a hotbed of racial riots, strikes, corruption political patronisation as many other bigger countries.
Malaysia has so far failed to reign in the Malay "nationalists" who insist on language and race etc..when its an open secret that each of these "nationalists" has his her own children studying abroad or in singapore ENGLISH SCHOOLS...but they insist it must be Malay for the rest to keep them backward...same thing was happening in Singapore..the "chinese ultras" fought tooth and nail for their schools and univeristy but the Chinese Majority supported move to English...in fact the trade unions/communist combine was solidly based in Chinese language schools and 100% chinese educated..so PM LKY was right in thinking that to cut the head he must slash the roots..nad he was right.
How many other countries that have failed have leaders such as LKY..almost NONE. he is untainted..while many others are corrupted to the core...
Malaysian leaders always deride Singapore as..small city..just a dot on the map...normal to hide behind excuses like..mine is a big country..we are such abig piece on the world map..blah blah...in fact a small family led by an able leader can be shining and a large family led by an incompetent leader cna fail miserably..size doesnt matter..except in "size" of problems..the PROBLEM SOLVER must be " BIG SIZE"..as i see it BIG Countries have "SMALL LEADERS"....thats the actual problem..not the size of the country per se..

 

[spnadmin]

You know When the People's Republic of China wants foreigners to see how much progress they have made, they always showcase Shanghai. No foreigner can travel at will there. You have excorts. If you want to see how repressive they are -- well, do you think you will be allowed to visit Tiber?

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Democracy did not fail India in progress but Nehru's being in bed with the USSR did. It was Nehru's policies that put the breaks to any progress that could have taken place.

We should not forget that only the genius mind of Manmohan Singh as a minister started this progress in India in the early 90's.If democratic India had adopted the capitalistic policies like Manmohan Singh did in the 50's rather than the communist ones, we would have been the biggest economy in the world or at par with the western world.

China being an autocratic country can make its own rules to allot land and give other infrastructure benefits to the foreign industry than India because most of the land is in private hands.

For India to progress, it has to invest in its infrastructure of roads, electricity, natural gas, potable water etc. etc. which it is trying. Once that takes roots then India's progress with increase as compare to China's because the result of any fast growing economy is to seek freedom at the end which ought to happen in China, sooner than later.

Tejwant Singh

 

[harbansj24]

Tejwant ji,

You may not be entirely correct in tour conclusion about the hypotheses that if India had adopted capitalistic policies in early 50s. At that time private sector was not coming forward to invest in infrastructure because India had no Industrial base and private capital found it very risky. Tata ofco{censored} was a honourable exception as profit alone was not the sole motivation for it.

Nehru might not have been honest with the Sikhs but the fact remains that his decision to set up massive steel plants and elctricity generation machinary manufacturing plants with the assistance of the countries of the Eastern Block did give India an Industrial platform from where it could take off.

If setting up and running of such plants was a painful exercise as it invoved red tape and beauracracy, dismantling such machinary was also an equally painful affair.

But the requirements of time dictated that in the 50s government intervention was needed to set up a modicum of infratructure and in 90s, the need of time was to dismantle the machinary of government intervention.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant ji,

You may not be entirely correct in tour conclusion about the hypotheses that if India had adopted capitalistic policies in early 50s. At that time private sector was not coming forward to invest in infrastructure because India had no Industrial base and private capital found it very risky. Tata ofco{censored} was a honourable exception as profit alone was not the sole motivation for it.

Nehru might not have been honest with the Sikhs but the fact remains that his decision to set up massive steel plants and elctricity generation machinary manufacturing plants with the assistance of the countries of the Eastern Block did give India an Industrial platform from where it could take off.

If setting up and running of such plants was a painful exercise as it invoved red tape and beauracracy, dismantling such machinary was also an equally painful affair.

But the requirements of time dictated that in the 50s government intervention was needed to set up a modicum of infratructure and in 90s, the need of time was to dismantle the machinary of government intervention.

Harbans ji,

Guru Fateh.

India got its independence in 1947. As it asked the Eastern bloc for investments, it could have done the same from the private sector in the western world with the help of the US and other capitalist govts which it ignored to do for some strange reason. The result of that was that USA pumped billions in the corrupt Pakistan with patton tanks and sabre jets which I saw bombing the railway station and oil depots in 1965 war while in Ferozepore that they both missed as most of the targets when myself and my brother Ripudaman stood gleefully on the roof top of our gas station which was located close by and were reprimanded by our parents.

Let me take your point a bit further in agreeing that India needed the infrastructure of electric plants and other things as private sector was weak and USSR helped them to do that. Why did it take India till Manmohan Singh came into the ministry to start privatising the nationalised sector?

Why could not they drop the Soviet economic pattern and adopt the western one long before this?

India bought most of its armaments from the USSR in a barter system. I know many business men in Garment industry who were visited by the Soviet govt. officials and took bribes in order to give orders. I am sure there are many more industrial sectors where the same took place.

One of the democratic Indian governments kicked Coca Cola and other foreign sector out of India. What was the game plan of progress behind that? I think it was Morarji Desai as a prime minister, who drank his own urine daily did that if I am not mistakem.

I know during that time people like late Charanjit Singh made a lot of money by taking over Coca Cola's bottling plants with his govt. connection and sold soft drink named Campa Cola. His wife owns the Meridian Hotel now. The reason I know this is because his late Chachi was my late Mum's cousin.

So, although we started with the Soviets, we could have easily changed towards the western style which we did not and the fault does lie somewhere.

Tejwant Singh

 

[harbansj24]

Tejwant ji,

Gurufateh

The result of that was that USA pumped billions in the corrupt Pakistan

That exactly is the point!

The Indians could have also been corrupted to the same extent it not more by the capitalistic system at that time!

Just see what happened immediately after Manmohan Singh started dismantling the permit regime. (Although that was the express need of the time).
First we had a massive stock market scam by Harshad Mehta.

Then we had the Dabhol Power Plant being set up by ENRON of guaranteed 16% return on capital with sovereign guarantee. Many distinguished experts had predicted that this was would make the profit making Maharashtra State Electricity Board bankrupt and it would further impact the finances of Maharashtra itself but the successive governments whether BJP or Congress went ahead with it because of obvious kickbacks. Many people with capitalistic leanings ridiculed the the knowledgeable and neautral experts. The result as predicted was a disaster with Board going into red and the finances of Maharashtra itself being impacted. This forced The Union of India to renegade on its sovereign guarantee inspite of George Bush threatening of dire consequences. Well what happened to Enron need not be repeated here.
To do productive business with the capitalists we require the highest degree of professionalism and maturity which the people from sub continent did not have at that time
So the timings for both the controlled system and free market was good in India.

The contrast between Pakistan and India as pointed out by you is stark.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Tejwant ji,

Gurufateh

That exactly is the point!

The Indians could have also been corrupted to the same extent it not more by the capitalistic system at that time!

Just see what happened immediately after Manmohan Singh started dismantling the permit regime. (Although that was the express need of the time).
First we had a massive stock market scam by Harshad Mehta.

Then we had the Dabhol Power Plant being set up by ENRON of guaranteed 16% return on capital with sovereign guarantee. Many distinguished experts had predicted that this was would make the profit making Maharashtra State Electricity Board bankrupt and it would further impact the finances of Maharashtra itself but the successive governments whether BJP or Congress went ahead with it because of obvious kickbacks. Many people with capitalistic leanings ridiculed the the knowledgeable and neautral experts. The result as predicted was a disaster with Board going into red and the finances of Maharashtra itself being impacted. This forced The Union of India to renegade on its sovereign guarantee inspite of George Bush threatening of dire consequences. Well what happened to Enron need not be repeated here.
To do productive business with the capitalists we require the highest degree of professionalism and maturity which the people from sub continent did not have at that time
So the timings for both the controlled system and free market was good in India.

The contrast between Pakistan and India as pointed out by you is stark.

Harbans ji,

Guru Fateh.

We may disagree on our points of view till the cows come home but that is OK because disagreements are part of the learning process.

I beg to differ with you on the timings of controlled system and free market was good for in India.

I will give you my reasons. If these mistakes with the capitalism had happened decades earlier in India, they could have been solved then and we would be thriving with the capitalistic mindset which takes time to build. We have had the great educational system to do that and the desire to strive.

The refusal of Enron was the right thing to do and hindsight proves that with what happened to Enron.

You mean our politicians were not corrupted by the Soviets?

How about the Bofors case which happened under Indira Gandhi and some claim Rajiv Gandhi made a bundle and it was the Swedes? So your argument about Indians being corrupted if US had pumped omney in India rather than in Pakistan seems a bit contradictory here.

As we are thriving now compared to the other countries because of the open system, if we had done this earlier, we could have been much ahead because the mistakes made later would have been made earlier and had been corrected by now.

Pakistan, not being a real democracy has had billions of dollars pumped into them and they are going down economically.

Gurujot Singh an American Sikh who was the pioneer in starting outsourcing in India after the gates were open tried the same in Pakistan but failed. following is an interesting read about it:

sikhchic.com | The Art and Culture of the Diaspora | The Man Who Changed India
The Man Who Changed India by KHUSHWANT SINGH

In nutshell, what I am trying to express is that what we have embraced now, if we had embraced this earlier, then all the roadblocks we are facing today would have been cleared earlier and hence we would have had a different mindset because of that today.

If Guru Nanak wanted to be an industrialist, he would have been the best in the world at the time when others were looting and pillaging each other, he would have created a vertically horizontal empire in all fields.

Fortunately He gave us tools to do our best because He was neither self centered nor selfish and the proof is in Vand kei chaknah , one of the three pillars. He did share with us what he had to offer. It is us who have refuse to heed to his advice and accept what he is sharing with us today. Only if we have the courage to apply his teachings according to his instructions, then as far as all kinds of progress is concerned, the sky is not the limit.

Tejwant Singh

 

[kds1980]

Democracy did not fail India in progress but Nehru's being in bed with the USSR did. It was Nehru's policies that put the breaks to any progress that could have taken place.

We should not forget that only the genius mind of Manmohan Singh as a minister started this progress in India in the early 90's.If democratic India had adopted the capitalistic policies like Manmohan Singh did in the 50's rather than the communist ones, we would have been the biggest economy in the world or at par with the western world.

China being an autocratic country can make its own rules to allot land and give other infrastructure benefits to the foreign industry than India because most of the land is in private hands.

For India to progress, it has to invest in its infrastructure of roads, electricity, natural gas, potable water etc. etc. which it is trying. Once that takes roots then India's progress with increase as compare to China's because the result of any fast growing economy is to seek freedom at the end which ought to happen in China, sooner than later.

Tejwant Singh

No Doubt Manmohan singh's policies benefitted India but unfortunately One cannot say That liberisation That started in 1991 is purely succesful.The fruits of those policies are reaped by only a fraction of Indian population mainly rich and middle class living in hi fi Indian cities.The small scale manufactoring sector of India which use to provide employment to large scale people is almost ruined.What India needed was large number of people working on average salary instead of That India created small number of people working on high salary.So rich are becoming richer and poor are becoming poor This is not good for any country as this will give birth to crime or naxal type movements.

Also We should not forget that Agriculture growth in India is also not so good
Farmers are committing suicide everywhere.