A long way to go for India

http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

India is in the same boat that China was in 30 years ago. No one in the West believed that China will be where it is today. After WW-2, no one believed that Japan will be where it is today.

It is up to Indians to believe that they can be achievers. If they dig a deep pit and burry all the corrupt Sikularists and DKheads, India's chances will suddenly improve. These crooks have been responsible for turning the country back from merit, quality, progress, etc., and throwing it into the garbage bin of self-deprecation, entitlement policies and corruption. Hopefully, the voters will slap Soonya and Pappu hard and tell them to F-off.

Modi should decrease his rhetoric and embark on real action. If Chinese can embrace work ethic, Indians can too. India can learn a lot from the Japanese guy who did his job after the nuclear disaster knowing that he might be exposing himself to radiation and the Kamikaze pilots who made sacrifices for their country. These actions of the Japanese are not that different from what is considered heroism in Indian tradition itself. Karna, Sibi, Harischandra and Bhishma, etc., knowingly sacrifcied their lives for causes they believed in. Unfortunately, self-deprecating Sikularists make fun of this glorious past.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:India is in the same boat that China was in 30 years ago. No one in the West believed that China will be where it is today. After WW-2, no one believed that Japan will be where it is today.

It is up to Indians to believe that they can be achievers. If they dig a deep pit and burry all the corrupt Sikularists and DKheads, India's chances will suddenly improve. These crooks have been responsible for turning the country back from merit, quality, progress, etc., and throwing it into the garbage bin of self-deprecation, entitlement policies and corruption. Hopefully, the voters will slap Soonya and Pappu hard and tell them to F-off.

Modi should decrease his rhetoric and embark on real action. If Chinese can embrace work ethic, Indians can too. India can learn a lot from the Japanese guy who did his job after the nuclear disaster knowing that he might be exposing himself to radiation and the Kamikaze pilots who made sacrifices for their country. These actions of the Japanese are not that different from what is considered heroism in Indian tradition itself. Karna, Sibi, Harischandra and Bhishma, etc., knowingly sacrifcied their lives for causes they believed in. Unfortunately, self-deprecating Sikularists make fun of this glorious past.

Or. India can reelect Pappu and claim it is far ahead of Pakistan and celebrate...

truthbetold wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

>>> I looked at the stats and one thing I find puzzling is the data on Indian vs. Chinese students in the US. I don't know what that is meant to convey. That aside, the GDP and exports are the proof of the pudding, but this is a bit of an unfair comparison, since China with its communism could muscle through many hurdles. India's solution is going to be setting itself up as a business hub. That is going to require a solid physical infrastructure and a business-friendly government and I mean all the way down to the dog catcher.  Modi can make all the sales calls he wants, but if his back office can't deliver, it will be a case of 'always the bridemaid, never the bride' for India.

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

>>> I looked at the stats and one thing I find puzzling is the data on Indian vs. Chinese students in the US. I don't know what that is meant to convey. That aside, the GDP and exports are the proof of the pudding, but this is a bit of an unfair comparison, since China with its communism could muscle through many hurdles. India's solution is going to be setting itself up as a business hub. That is going to require a solid physical infrastructure and a business-friendly government and I mean all the way down to the dog catcher.  Modi can make all the sales calls he wants, but if his back office can't deliver, it will be a case of 'always the bridemaid, never the bride' for India.

Am curious. What do you mean by business hub ? How does it help in increasing GDP and exports and create jobs ?

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

>>> I looked at the stats and one thing I find puzzling is the data on Indian vs. Chinese students in the US. I don't know what that is meant to convey. That aside, the GDP and exports are the proof of the pudding, but this is a bit of an unfair comparison, since China with its communism could muscle through many hurdles. India's solution is going to be setting itself up as a business hub. That is going to require a solid physical infrastructure and a business-friendly government and I mean all the way down to the dog catcher.  Modi can make all the sales calls he wants, but if his back office can't deliver, it will be a case of 'always the bridemaid, never the bride' for India.

China offers its industries many hidden help and subsidies. India would have to create institutions like MITI of Japan and EDB of singapore to provide its industries unmatched help in all these areas and stand shoulder to shoulder with them, to take on the Chinese manufacturing prowess. But all this will only help in maintaining the GDP ratio and prevent it from deteriorating further. China is simply too far ahead in many new  areas like Robotics, nanotechnology, IoT, telecom, rail and power equipment, electronics manufacturing, that it challenges US and western world. China is simply too far ahead.

India is unlikely to ever catch up with China, with a political opposition that is inward looking and does not look beyond next election.

rawemotions wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

>>> I looked at the stats and one thing I find puzzling is the data on Indian vs. Chinese students in the US. I don't know what that is meant to convey. That aside, the GDP and exports are the proof of the pudding, but this is a bit of an unfair comparison, since China with its communism could muscle through many hurdles. India's solution is going to be setting itself up as a business hub. That is going to require a solid physical infrastructure and a business-friendly government and I mean all the way down to the dog catcher.  Modi can make all the sales calls he wants, but if his back office can't deliver, it will be a case of 'always the bridemaid, never the bride' for India.

China offers its industries many hidden help and subsidies. India would have to create institutions like MITI of Japan and EDB of singapore to provide its industries unmatched help in all these areas and stand shoulder to shoulder with them, to take on the Chinese manufacturing prowess. But all this will only help in maintaining the GDP ratio and prevent it from deteriorating further. China is simply too far ahead in many new  areas like Robotics, nanotechnology, IoT, telecom, rail and power equipment, electronics manufacturing, that it challenges US and western world. China is simply too far ahead.

India is unlikely to ever catch up with China, with a political opposition that is inward looking and does not look beyond next election.

you mean like BJP did during UPA-2

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

>>> I looked at the stats and one thing I find puzzling is the data on Indian vs. Chinese students in the US. I don't know what that is meant to convey. That aside, the GDP and exports are the proof of the pudding, but this is a bit of an unfair comparison, since China with its communism could muscle through many hurdles. India's solution is going to be setting itself up as a business hub. That is going to require a solid physical infrastructure and a business-friendly government and I mean all the way down to the dog catcher.  Modi can make all the sales calls he wants, but if his back office can't deliver, it will be a case of 'always the bridemaid, never the bride' for India.

China offers its industries many hidden help and subsidies. India would have to create institutions like MITI of Japan and EDB of singapore to provide its industries unmatched help in all these areas and stand shoulder to shoulder with them, to take on the Chinese manufacturing prowess. But all this will only help in maintaining the GDP ratio and prevent it from deteriorating further. China is simply too far ahead in many new  areas like Robotics, nanotechnology, IoT, telecom, rail and power equipment, electronics manufacturing, that it challenges US and western world. China is simply too far ahead.

India is unlikely to ever catch up with China, with a political opposition that is inward looking and does not look beyond next election.

you mean like BJP did during UPA-2

I do not want a distraction from the main topic and will not respond further. if you wish to discuss this further, please open a separate thread. However, you can peddle this nonsense to somebody who is uninformed. I distinctly remember BJP saying this about Food security. "It is not perfect but we will support it". Without BJP's support Congress could not have passed the original Land Acquisition Bill, the Food security Bill or AP reorganization act. Please keep this in mind. This is a fact.

rawemotions wrote:
I do not want a distraction from the main topic and will not respond further. if you wish to discuss this further, please open a separate thread. However, you can peddle this nonsense to somebody who is uninformed. I distinctly remember BJP saying this about Food security. "It is not perfect but we will support it". Without BJP's support Congress could not have passed the original Land Acquisition Bill, the Food security Bill or AP reorganization act. Please keep this in mind. This is a fact.

Those were your words buddy, nonsense is what you had brought into this discussion. Sushma-akka & co supported AP reorganization for their own political gains,  as eloquently put by you "not looking beyond next election", classic bait and switch tactic.

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:
I do not want a distraction from the main topic and will not respond further. if you wish to discuss this further, please open a separate thread. However, you can peddle this nonsense to somebody who is uninformed. I distinctly remember BJP saying this about Food security. "It is not perfect but we will support it". Without BJP's support Congress could not have passed the original Land Acquisition Bill, the Food security Bill or AP reorganization act. Please keep this in mind. This is a fact.

Those were your words buddy, nonsense is what you had brought into this discussion. Sushma-akka & co supported AP reorganization for their own political gains,  as eloquently put by you "not looking beyond next election", classic bait and switch tactic.

I think you seem to have reading comprehension issues. I clearly said , please create a separate thread if you wish to debate further on this, and please do not distract this thread from the main topic. I am more interested in hearing the response of enlightened folks like Kris on the main topic of the thread.

rawemotions wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

>>> I looked at the stats and one thing I find puzzling is the data on Indian vs. Chinese students in the US. I don't know what that is meant to convey. That aside, the GDP and exports are the proof of the pudding, but this is a bit of an unfair comparison, since China with its communism could muscle through many hurdles. India's solution is going to be setting itself up as a business hub. That is going to require a solid physical infrastructure and a business-friendly government and I mean all the way down to the dog catcher.  Modi can make all the sales calls he wants, but if his back office can't deliver, it will be a case of 'always the bridemaid, never the bride' for India.

I think it means to convey that China is also ahead of India in secondary and college level education.

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

rawemotions wrote:
I do not want a distraction from the main topic and will not respond further. if you wish to discuss this further, please open a separate thread. However, you can peddle this nonsense to somebody who is uninformed. I distinctly remember BJP saying this about Food security. "It is not perfect but we will support it". Without BJP's support Congress could not have passed the original Land Acquisition Bill, the Food security Bill or AP reorganization act. Please keep this in mind. This is a fact.

Those were your words buddy, nonsense is what you had brought into this discussion. Sushma-akka & co supported AP reorganization for their own political gains,  as eloquently put by you "not looking beyond next election", classic bait and switch tactic.

I think you seem to have reading comprehension issues. I clearly said , please create a separate thread if you wish to debate further on this, and please do not distract this thread from the main topic. I am more interested in hearing the response of enlightened folks like Kris on the main topic of the thread.

Why don't you start a new thread, I was merely responding to your BS

rawemotions wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

>>> I looked at the stats and one thing I find puzzling is the data on Indian vs. Chinese students in the US. I don't know what that is meant to convey. That aside, the GDP and exports are the proof of the pudding, but this is a bit of an unfair comparison, since China with its communism could muscle through many hurdles. India's solution is going to be setting itself up as a business hub. That is going to require a solid physical infrastructure and a business-friendly government and I mean all the way down to the dog catcher.  Modi can make all the sales calls he wants, but if his back office can't deliver, it will be a case of 'always the bridemaid, never the bride' for India.

Am curious. What do you mean by business hub ? How does it help in increasing GDP and exports and create jobs ?

>>Just saw this. I should have been more specific. I meant 'make in india' a realistic option.  You are bound to see tremendous synergies if the infrastructure is set up well and there is a general business friendly climate (tax structure, cutting of red tape). The Chinese model is a different kettle of fish given that they could jump ahead once privatization took place, because the basic communist set up allowed them to set targets and re-allocate resources. In any event, I don't think the goal should be cloing the gap with China but rather India's move forward. I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

Kris wrote:I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

How so? there was no party that could challenge Congress, till Indira went into self-destruction mode by declaring emergency, even then she came out of it unscathed. If anything, it is NDA (including Modi) & UPA that are power hungry.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

How so? there was no party that could challenge Congress, till Indira went into self-destruction mode by declaring emergency, even then she came out of it unscathed. If anything, it is NDA (including Modi) & UPA that are power hungry.

>>>I mean being stuck in the old paradigm of socialism till the 90s.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

How so? there was no party that could challenge Congress, till Indira went into self-destruction mode by declaring emergency, even then she came out of it unscathed. If anything, it is NDA (including Modi) & UPA that are power hungry.

Oh she was power hungry enough to engineer the creation of Haryana and feed the serpents of Sikh extremism. Karma is a bitch as they say. It came back to bite her.

Kris wrote:
>>Just saw this. I should have been more specific. I meant 'make in india' a realistic option.  You are bound to see tremendous synergies if the infrastructure is set up well and there is a general business friendly climate (tax structure, cutting of red tape). The Chinese model is a different kettle of fish given that they could jump ahead once privatization took place, because the basic communist set up allowed them to set targets and re-allocate resources. In any event, I don't think the goal should be cloing the gap with China but rather India's move forward. I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

The Chinese maintained their Public companies in tact and just adapted a Private coporate model for those companies. Of course, once the managers of these corporations made huge sums - as those in private corporations - they started quitting and starting their own companies, which the chinese allowed.

India should IMMEDIATELY "incentivize the Public corporations without selling them off. There are enough private conglomerates in India but they are becoming too big and controlled by families. Modi Govt should work on borrowing capitalist models in controlling/splitting these private mega companies.

IN the 80s, the TN transport corporation was split it into 7 coporations with each left to operate/make deals like private companies. The services improved and all 7 were making hefty profits. Of course, they were doing so good, the private companies lobbied the Governments to merge and mess it all up.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

How so? there was no party that could challenge Congress, till Indira went into self-destruction mode by declaring emergency, even then she came out of it unscathed. If anything, it is NDA (including Modi) & UPA that are power hungry.

>>>I mean being stuck in the old paradigm of socialism till the 90s.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Those inward looking socialist governments ensured that the experiment called modern India, amalgamation of multiple cultures & countries, stayed in tact and remained a democratic country; compare this with the fate of tens of nations that went through decolonization around the same time as India. For all the whining about being Russian puppet, unlike the US, the greatest democracy on the earth and the torchbearer of capitalism, Russia never interfered in Indian internal affairs nor tried to dethrone its leader(s). These accomplishments, in my book, carry a lot of weight than merely turning into a minion of a schoolyard bully, you don't need to look further than Pakistan, if you have any doubts.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

How so? there was no party that could challenge Congress, till Indira went into self-destruction mode by declaring emergency, even then she came out of it unscathed. If anything, it is NDA (including Modi) & UPA that are power hungry.

>>>I mean being stuck in the old paradigm of socialism till the 90s.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Those inward looking socialist governments ensured that the experiment called modern India, amalgamation of multiple cultures & countries, stayed in tact and remained a democratic country; compare this with the fate of tens of nations that went through decolonization around the same time as India. For all the whining about being Russian puppet, unlike the US, the greatest democracy on the earth and the torchbearer of capitalism, Russia never interfered in Indian internal affairs nor tried to dethrone its leader(s). These accomplishments, in my book, carry a lot of weight than merely turning into a minion of a schoolyard bully, you don't need to look further than Pakistan, if you have any doubts.

>>>(1) Hindsight is 20/20 only when we don't have a clamoring for the old party and its ways to come back. The Nehruvian model overstayed its welcome quite a bit, although the point about it makes sense for the early stages of a newly independent nation. It is like saying middle school gave me  a good foundation, so let me stay there as long as I can.

(2) What saved India was not just this. There were many factors at play. India is a majority Hindu country, which does not have a history of internal feudal warfare where rulers were eliminated based on these loyalties . The legal heritage inherited from the Brits was something tried and tested and Indians adhered to it. You have brought up the Pakistan comparison before. It is actually a non-starter. Nations that aspire to move forward understand that global politics is a complex business and look out for their self interest and calculate and act according to what is good for them. They aren't and shouldn't be paranoid that someone else may also benefit or their interests coincide with someone else's. In fact, this type of synergy is desirable. Pakistan did not adhere to the British legal model in spirit and it let its feudalism and its theocracy get in the way. It offers nothing beyond its location that is of temporary use to the West. As such, the engagement will be minimal and since Pakistan's leadership, such as it is, has no other cards to play sells the country down the river. The takers are not bullies. They are just paying the minimal price they can get away with. 

(3) Are you saying Russian has never played with internal politics in other countries? Who was calling the shots in Eastern European nations till as late the 1980s? Who ran the show in Afghanistan? They didn't get involved in India directly, because it didn't have to, with the home grown socialism enthusiasts.

Comrade is a relic of the commie legacy in India.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

How so? there was no party that could challenge Congress, till Indira went into self-destruction mode by declaring emergency, even then she came out of it unscathed. If anything, it is NDA (including Modi) & UPA that are power hungry.

>>>I mean being stuck in the old paradigm of socialism till the 90s.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Those inward looking socialist governments ensured that the experiment called modern India, amalgamation of multiple cultures & countries, stayed in tact and remained a democratic country; compare this with the fate of tens of nations that went through decolonization around the same time as India. For all the whining about being Russian puppet, unlike the US, the greatest democracy on the earth and the torchbearer of capitalism, Russia never interfered in Indian internal affairs nor tried to dethrone its leader(s). These accomplishments, in my book, carry a lot of weight than merely turning into a minion of a schoolyard bully, you don't need to look further than Pakistan, if you have any doubts.

>>>(1) Hindsight is 20/20 only when we don't have a clamoring for the old party and its ways to come back. The Nehruvian model overstayed its welcome quite a bit, although the point about it makes sense for the early stages of a newly independent nation. It is like saying middle school gave me  a good foundation, so let me stay there as long as I can.

(2) What saved India was not just this. There were many factors at play. India is a majority Hindu country, which does not have a history of internal feudal warfare where rulers were eliminated based on these loyalties . The legal heritage inherited from the Brits was something tried and tested and Indians adhered to it. You have brought up the Pakistan comparison before. It is actually a non-starter. Nations that aspire to move forward understand that global politics is a complex business and look out for their self interest and calculate and act according to what is good for them. They aren't and shouldn't be paranoid that someone else may also benefit or their interests coincide with someone else's. In fact, this type of synergy is desirable. Pakistan did not adhere to the British legal model in spirit and it let its feudalism and its theocracy get in the way. It offers nothing beyond its location that is of temporary use to the West. As such, the engagement will be minimal and since Pakistan's leadership, such as it is, has no other cards to play sells the country down the river. The takers are not bullies. They are just paying the minimal price they can get away with. 

(3) Are you saying Russian has never played with internal politics in other countries? Who was calling the shots in Eastern European nations till as late the 1980s? Who ran the show in Afghanistan? They didn't get involved in India directly, because it didn't have to, with the home grown socialism enthusiasts.

you just wasted 5 carbon credits

Kris wrote:
>>>(1) Hindsight is 20/20 only when we don't have a clamoring for the old party and its ways to come back. The Nehruvian model overstayed its welcome quite a bit, although the point about it makes sense for the early stages of a newly independent nation. It is like saying middle school gave me  a good foundation, so let me stay there as long as I can.

I see that you've moved the goal post as well as reluctant to give credit where it is due. India did have a chance in '77 to turn the tables around but Janata govt. (Vajpayee was a part of it) turned out to be the worst one next only (chronologically as well as  hierarchically) to the emergency period.

Kris wrote:
(2) What saved India was not just this. There were many factors at play. India is a majority Hindu country, which does not have a history of internal feudal warfare where rulers were eliminated based on these loyalties . The legal heritage inherited from the Brits was something tried and tested and Indians adhered to it.

You couldn't have been more wrong. Dare I say there is no country in the world that is as diverse & as artificial as India, and for it to survive as democracy, beating the odds was no mean feat nor something that should be taken for granted.

A few excerpts from the link provided below.
"The most surprising case is India which “was predicted as a dictatorship during the entire period”, 1950-90. “The odds against democracy in India were extremely high ” ( p. 87). All other poorer exceptions had higher income than India.

Income is the best predictor of democracy. It correctly predicted the type of regime in 77.5% of the cases; only in 22.5%, it did not . No other predictor – religion, colonial legacy, ethnic diversity, international political environment -- is as good on the whole.

India is in the latter 22.5% set. Indeed, if we consider only decolonized countries, democracies that emerged from decolonization survived only in India, Mauritius, Belize, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu."

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Varshney_presentation.pdf

Kris wrote:
You have brought up the Pakistan comparison before. It is actually a non-starter. Nations that aspire to move forward understand that global politics is a complex business and look out for their self interest and calculate and act according to what is good for them. They aren't and shouldn't be paranoid that someone else may also benefit or their interests coincide with someone else's. In fact, this type of synergy is desirable. Pakistan did not adhere to the British legal model in spirit and it let its feudalism and its theocracy get in the way. It offers nothing beyond its location that is of temporary use to the West. As such, the engagement will be minimal and since Pakistan's leadership, such as it is, has no other cards to play sells the country down the river. The takers are not bullies. They are just paying the minimal price they can get away with. 

I will bring this up every single time we've this discussion. I couldn't have been prouder of this accomplishment of India's compared to her peers (take a look at the link provided above). Didn't Pak start out as a capitalist country or turned to capitalism before India?

Kris wrote:
(3) Are you saying Russian has never played with internal politics in other countries? Who was calling the shots in Eastern European nations till as late the 1980s? Who ran the show in Afghanistan? They didn't get involved in India directly, because it didn't have to, with the home grown socialism enthusiasts.

I didn't say that but OTOH, how about those (mis)adventures of America (in the process of screwing err helping her allies) and its penchant for spreading democracy around, we all know how well that strategy has panned out.

And here is an interesting read for all those fan boys of China:
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2009/politics/democracy-in-india-ignoring-the-naysayers.html/

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>(1) Hindsight is 20/20 only when we don't have a clamoring for the old party and its ways to come back. The Nehruvian model overstayed its welcome quite a bit, although the point about it makes sense for the early stages of a newly independent nation. It is like saying middle school gave me  a good foundation, so let me stay there as long as I can.

I see that you've moved the goal post as well as reluctant to give credit where it is due. India did have a chance in '77 to turn the tables around but Janata govt. (Vajpayee was a part of it) turned out to be the worst one next only (chronologically as well as  hierarchically) to the emergency period.

Kris wrote:
(2) What saved India was not just this. There were many factors at play. India is a majority Hindu country, which does not have a history of internal feudal warfare where rulers were eliminated based on these loyalties . The legal heritage inherited from the Brits was something tried and tested and Indians adhered to it.

You couldn't have been more wrong. Dare I say there is no country in the world that is as diverse & as artificial as India, and for it to survive as democracy, beating the odds was no mean feat nor something that should be taken for granted.

A few excerpts from the link provided below.
"The most surprising case is India which “was predicted as a dictatorship during the entire period”, 1950-90. “The odds against democracy in India were extremely high ” ( p. 87). All other poorer exceptions had higher income than India.

Income is the best predictor of democracy. It correctly predicted the type of regime in 77.5% of the cases; only in 22.5%, it did not . No other predictor – religion, colonial legacy, ethnic diversity, international political environment -- is as good on the whole.

India is in the latter 22.5% set. Indeed, if we consider only decolonized countries, democracies that emerged from decolonization survived only in India, Mauritius, Belize, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu."

http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Varshney_presentation.pdf

Kris wrote:
You have brought up the Pakistan comparison before. It is actually a non-starter. Nations that aspire to move forward understand that global politics is a complex business and look out for their self interest and calculate and act according to what is good for them. They aren't and shouldn't be paranoid that someone else may also benefit or their interests coincide with someone else's. In fact, this type of synergy is desirable. Pakistan did not adhere to the British legal model in spirit and it let its feudalism and its theocracy get in the way. It offers nothing beyond its location that is of temporary use to the West. As such, the engagement will be minimal and since Pakistan's leadership, such as it is, has no other cards to play sells the country down the river. The takers are not bullies. They are just paying the minimal price they can get away with. 

Kris wrote:
(3) Are you saying Russian has never played with internal politics in other countries? Who was calling the shots in Eastern European nations till as late the 1980s? Who ran the show in Afghanistan? They didn't get involved in India directly, because it didn't have to, with the home grown socialism enthusiasts.

I didn't say that but OTOH, how about those (mis)adventures of America (in the process of screwing err helping her allies) and its penchant for spreading democracy around, we all know how well that strategy has panned out.

And here is an interesting read for all those fan boys of China:
http://www.bhagwad.com/blog/2009/politics/democracy-in-india-ignoring-the-naysayers.html/

(1) I see that you've moved the goal post as well as reluctant to give credit where it is due.


>>>What goal post? What credit? Did India not have a socialist mindset in the past? The inward looking aspect is relevant, if we keep hearing a constant advocacy of the erstwhile mentality as the way to go.


(2) You couldn't have been more wrong. Dare I say there is no country in the world that is as diverse & as artificial as India, and for it to survive as democracy, beating the odds was no mean feat nor something that should be taken for granted. 


>>>But it did. What do you think that led to it? You think the absence of history of feudalism-driven power games and offing each other and a general adherence to principles of constitutional rule had nothing to do with it? As i said before, the nehruvian model may have had some merit when resources had to be allocated initially, but there were other reasons that held together, but unfashionable as it may be, the local culture had something to do with pulling it off.


(3) I will bring this up every single time we've this discussion. I couldn't have been prouder of this accomplishment of India's compared to her peers (take a look at the link provided above). Didn't Pak start out as a capitalist country or turned to capitalism before India? 


>>>What peer? Pakistan and India have fundamentally different outlooks. One is a democracy which for the most part has had an orderly transition government. Pakistan is a dictatorship. Pakistan started out as feudalistic country and remains one. Where does the peer-dom come in?


(4) I didn't say that but OTOH, how about those (mis)adventures of America (in the process of screwing err helping her allies) and its penchant for spreading democracy around, we all know how well that strategy has panned out.

>>> How does this preclude India and the US possible having interests that coincide? Do such coincident interests mean India is getting bullied?  

Kris wrote:

rawemotions wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-29441

Those numbers look right.  China is far ahead of India in economic terms. India democracy is its strength, it also becomes a hinderence often. Modi's election is a result of india's hope for a radical change. A steady growth over 20 years is required to create a moderately developed country that eliminated poverty. Too much obsession with China is not helpful . Take lessons from China but focus on india's own needs.

>>> I looked at the stats and one thing I find puzzling is the data on Indian vs. Chinese students in the US. I don't know what that is meant to convey. That aside, the GDP and exports are the proof of the pudding, but this is a bit of an unfair comparison, since China with its communism could muscle through many hurdles. India's solution is going to be setting itself up as a business hub. That is going to require a solid physical infrastructure and a business-friendly government and I mean all the way down to the dog catcher.  Modi can make all the sales calls he wants, but if his back office can't deliver, it will be a case of 'always the bridemaid, never the bride' for India.

Am curious. What do you mean by business hub ? How does it help in increasing GDP and exports and create jobs ?

>>Just saw this. I should have been more specific. I meant 'make in india' a realistic option.  You are bound to see tremendous synergies if the infrastructure is set up well and there is a general business friendly climate (tax structure, cutting of red tape). The Chinese model is a different kettle of fish given that they could jump ahead once privatization took place, because the basic communist set up allowed them to set targets and re-allocate resources. In any event, I don't think the goal should be cloing the gap with China but rather India's move forward. I agree with you the inward-looking past has seriously held India back.

Make in India for products in India can be somewhat successful. Something better than nothing. But I really feel, generating exports at the same level of China is not easy. Apart from what you mention, China succeeds due to few other reasons 
a) Hidden subsidies for factors of production, Once government determines that China needs indigenous industry, they "direct" banks to lend the money without collateral, they limit movement of labour to keep costs low, supply power at a very cheap price and off course guarantee land at a cheap price. They also ruthlessly crush any dissent against the industries even if it pollutes nearby areas.

b) In addition they guarantee an internal market for these products, and if sub-standard, they help them by generating shell companies that invite successful foreign manufacturers of the same products into China and then engineer an illegal "transfer of technology"  from them to the domestic manufacturers through these shell companies, so that they become strong.

c) They also have a massive economic intelligence program that helps these companies in areas they consider strategic. Their judiciary helps the Chinese companies in case of disputes, and they have a lax IP environment.

d) They use national power to find new markets for their sub-standard and good products, helping the companies survive.  FOr example free trade agreement with US. When India raised it, US rebuffed saying that with GATT negotiations there is no need for separate FTA. 

e) They also ensure logistics support. They also control exchange rate to help their exporters. They are now pushing for Yuan to be included as reserve currency and I heard that they are going to succeed next month.

Their #1 goals is continued jobs for the teeming masses and increased per-capita.

It is difficult for Indian government to support these companies on the same scale. Off course of Chinese companies come in it might somewhat help. But china heart of hearts does not want to help India., at least going by the history until now. For now I feel India should provide a road corridor  (not a rail one) from Arabian sea for Chinese products undercutting Pakistan corridor.

India can succeed in manufacturing ONLY if US and West (Germany) and Japan provide it capital, market access and capital equipment similar to the way China was helped with Free Trade Agreements. Make in India is still good. But the west keeps talking of geo-politics and strategy , but nothing tangible for jobs etc..

GOI cannot do this. But it can empower big institutions which can do some of the above. Ultimately India's advantages are the ingenuity of its entrepreneurs. They succeed without state support. If they are provided some state support, many will thing big and things will start moving. We need an equivalent system of Quanxi within India to support Indian businesses.

Kris wrote:
>>>What goal post? What credit? Did India not have a socialist mindset in the past? The inward looking aspect is relevant, if we keep hearing a constant advocacy of the erstwhile mentality as the way to go.  

I guess everybody comes across as a genius after the fact i.e. 3 decades later. And there is no point in keep harping about it & no point in trying to lay the blame on one individual. Nobody knows what would've happened had India chose capitalist model sooner than later. I personally think that the latter would've been a failure as my guess is that country was not ready nor mature for a shift in direction (in the '60s or '70s), people would've panicked and rejected it. This would've caused internal unrest and probably would have destabilized the country/democracy.  

Kris wrote:
>>>But it did. What do you think that led to it? You think the absence of history of feudalism-driven power games and offing each other and a general adherence to principles of constitutional rule had nothing to do with it? As i said before, the nehruvian model may have had some merit when resources had to be allocated initially, but there were other reasons that held together, but unfashionable as it may be, the local culture had something to do with pulling it off.

This did not exist?? Looks like you and I are brought up in different Indias.

Kris wrote:
>>>What peer? Pakistan and India have fundamentally different outlooks. One is a democracy which for the most part has had an orderly transition government. Pakistan is a dictatorship. Pakistan started out as feudalistic country and remains one. Where does the peer-dom come in?

I take it as you did not read the link, it was not just not Pakistan.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>What goal post? What credit? Did India not have a socialist mindset in the past? The inward looking aspect is relevant, if we keep hearing a constant advocacy of the erstwhile mentality as the way to go.  

I guess everybody comes across as a genius after the fact i.e. 3 decades later. And there is no point in keep harping about it & no point in trying to lay the blame on one individual. Nobody knows what would've happened had India chose capitalist model sooner than later. I personally think that the latter would've been a failure as my guess is that country was not ready nor mature for a shift in direction (in the '60s or '70s), people would've panicked and rejected it. This would've caused internal unrest and probably would have destabilized the country/democracy.  

Kris wrote:
>>>But it did. What do you think that led to it? You think the absence of history of feudalism-driven power games and offing each other and a general adherence to principles of constitutional rule had nothing to do with it? As i said before, the nehruvian model may have had some merit when resources had to be allocated initially, but there were other reasons that held together, but unfashionable as it may be, the local culture had something to do with pulling it off.

This did not exist?? Looks like you and I are brought up in different Indias.

Kris wrote:
>>>What peer? Pakistan and India have fundamentally different outlooks. One is a democracy which for the most part has had an orderly transition government. Pakistan is a dictatorship. Pakistan started out as feudalistic country and remains one. Where does the peer-dom come in?

I take it as you did not read the link, it was not just not Pakistan.

1) It is not about one person. It is about a political philosophy, which I have already said may have had its place at a certain time, but not a one-size fits all.

2) So which Indian leaders were offing opponents each other when political administrations changed?

3) I am confused now. Weren't you the one who raised the issue of pakistan and continue to bring it up in these discussions?

Hi HA,

A very succinct comparison, in a tabular format, just on economic facts.

I visited China as a tourist earlier this year, and the experience was border to a shock for someone who grew up in India, and work in US: both democracies.

If a simple census were to be added to this purely financial comparison:

How many people want to leave their nation in China vs. India, even if given the same wages?

I wont be surprised if the difference 5:1. Why?

China's economy is built on the principle of being a "Copy-Cat" i.e. copy any invention around the world, produce it cheaper, and force their citizens to ONLY use home grown "copy". 95% of their population cannot communicate to the rest of the world, but still they manufacture for the world. Its a well protected, shielded well of a world of their own. Which does not let anything in, but only copies and throws out.

It works really well. in money terms.

But what about the basic happiness, and invaluable personal freedom of the people who live in this well?

My experience to Beijing was really disappointing, seeing people working like robots everywhere.

random distinctions,
TS.