India will beat China – all in its own good time

[ever4244]

Indian caste system is already decaying and is hardly like the feudal order. I would rather not kill everything that is good about the country (democracy, personal property rights, freedom of religion) in hopes of wealth in future. .

Rather than have a 10 year revolution to "secure the means of production" ie farmland and factories, I would rather see a progressive inheritance tax imposed. That will achieve the same result in 30 years, with much less bloodshed. Rather than have the entire dirt-poor farmers lose their land to government and then become employees to government or work in sweatshops, I'd rather see a government work program guaranteeing minimum wage.

About your point about services growth.
Services sector is a catch-all term for a lot of things. For example if a person works in a factory, he is called an employee in manufacturing. If on the other hand the works on contract as a consultant, he is now in service sector. The growth of service sector is considered a good thing because it indicates a large amount of freedom. And about the question of where do we get our manufactured items from - of course we'll buy it from China. Free trade is good for everyone and nowadays China is the biggest proponent of this. You guys can produce items pretty cost-effectively and then the Chinese government subsidizes it for the rest of the world through a low exchange rate. Hopefully the governments can settle the border issues and then there is no reason for animosity.

generally(if I got my data correct), service job like you mentioned above need a small portion of highly educate personal.

But industrialization like I mentioned need a huge portion of population with various degree of skill.

Therefore, the industrialation is mind-opening to the mass and revolutional to the entire social structure.

the service job can only bring small india elite to the height of their western counterpartners--however, who would uplift the self-conccious of your farmer?

In china, the peasant farmer(working in the so called sweat-shops) have been a revolutional force in the country side. They are greatly enlightened by the ideas and tread in the city. They tend to get along well with the one-child-policy, they love female baby as well as male baby. They put more emphasis on the education of their childern and they are more awared of both laws and their rights. In one word, they are more eligable, enlightened, literate citizens comparing to common farmers and they can be easily tranformed into a city-dweller in the process of urbanization.

They are the avant-courier of modernization,industrilization and urbanization. More importantly, they constitute half of the argriculture population in china.

I do not think half of india's farmer can self-educate themselves into clerks and lawers without taking the road of industrialization.

 

[wtf]

generally(if I got my data correct), service job like you mentioned above need a small portion of highly educate personal.

But industrialization like I mentioned need a huge portion of population with various degree of skill.

Therefore, the industrialation is mind-opening to the mass and revolutional to the entire social structure.

the service job can only bring small india elite to the height of their western counterpartners--however, who would uplift the self-conccious of your farmer?

In china, the peasant farmer(working in the so called sweat-shops) have been a revolutional force in the country side. They are greatly enlightened by the ideas and tread in the city. They tend to get along well with the one-child-policy, they love female baby as well as male baby. They put more emphasis on the education of their childern and they are more awared of both laws and their rights. In one word, they are more eligable, enlightened, literate citizens comparing to common farmers and they can be easily tranformed into a city-dweller in the process of urbanization.

They are the avant-courier of modernization,industrilization and urbanization. More importantly, they constitute half of the argriculture population in china.

I do not think half of india's farmer can self-educate themselves into clerks and lawers without taking the road of industrialization.

And if we are after industrialization and if industrialization will enlighten the masses and remove caste system, why do we need communism again ? Simply removing the government intervention in markets will achieve these ends. I don't know of anyone who thinks communism is the path to Industrialization.

( I say all this with all respect to the good things the party did for China. I just don't think that the current private party lead industrialization of China should be called Communist)


EDIT: Since we seem to be going in circles and the issue under discussion is so vast, shall we respectfully agree to disagree? I have had the opportunity to understand a lot about Chinese perspective, but I don't think I have much more to add.

 

[ever4244]

And if we are after industrialization and if industrialization will enlighten the masses and remove caste system, why do we need communism again ? Simply removing the government intervention in markets will achieve these ends. I don't know of anyone who thinks communism is the path to Industrialization.

( I say all this with all respect to the good things the party did for China. I just don't think that the current private party lead industrialization of China should be called Communist)

I feel you got some bias towords communist ideology--or maybe there were more than one faction

Communism is not contra-industrialization, the ultimate communist ideal can only be realized after industrialization--not before it. So from USSR to PRC, all communism country spend heavy investments on industry(though their method may differ)

communists believes in evolution both in ideology and in society.(from slavery empire to feudal kingdom to nationalism state to industrialized nation) That is to say many of them would make great effort to change the social structure from a feudal one into a industrialized one. In another words, a communist would feel like to live in(great britain in industrilization >empire china(highest form of feudalism)>empire Roma> republic Roma ). Max not only condemned the gready capitalist but also give capitalism greatest applause ever in the history.

So it is hasty to say that only USSR way is communism, CCP and Deng's way is also communism. Only that CCP think different idealogy and social structure fit into different development stage. we cant adopt the structure of socialism before industrialization just as we cant expect a sub-africa nation to tranfer from tribe politic direct into liberal democracy. So CCP choose the best social structure to industrialization and you got what see now in china.

Mao's communist revolution and Deng's open-up reform was a twin. They are oppsite but they are also in consistency

without Mao's revolution, without the strong state-machine, without the clear-start, the feudal remanete in China society would certain hamper or even destory the paces of industrialization in China. Many resources and manpower would be forever locked on lands and consumed in inner struggle between classes. Therefore, deng's success was partly established on the destruction that Mao wrought. On the other hand, deng's success on industrialization would also reaffirm the destruction and disintegration of tradition value and order.

Like I said before, Mao's style revolution was good in brought down the old while Deng's reform was good in create the new. They are a paradoxical twin.

So I said 10 year communis revolution--what i did not say just now is the 100 year construction.

BTW:CCP's idealogy of evolution and fittest social structure is some what like the 'greedy method' and but as quickest possible way have always been a difficult problem when the cross road is of innumerability, I cannot say our way is the best possible in this period in china. maybe there were better way.

But as a follwer of communist belief, I will never be convinced that there are a single universal(despite of nation) ultimate(despite of time) way(namely liberal democracy) to achieve best development. believe in such a way would be a denial to evolution, refuse to active engineering the society( the opposite is following the force of history passively,let the market force and evolutionary tide to solve everything--like you mentioned industrialization and social development itself can also solve the feudal problem) would be a rejection to Human's initiative and power(a waste of time too)

 

[Geromix]

@ever4244-

You don't need Communist revolution to remove feudalism.

The first elected Communist government was in Kerala,India in 1957-
In 1957 Kerala elected a communist government headed by EMS Namboothiripad, introduced the revolutionary Land Reform Ordinance. The Land reform was implemented by the subsequent government, which had abolished tenancy, benefiting 1.5 million poor households.

In India people can elect Communists and Communism can fit into democracy,the point is that you don't need dictatorship to support your ideology!

Yes you are right regarding Service sector in India,it doesn't provide employment like manufacturing sector does but the government's aim is to push Manufacturing sector to 30% of GDP in coming years,and that should help.

Caste system in India is undergoing radical changes in India,it is an old system in India,very old,believe me Communism would only have been partially successful in removing it or changing it.

Democracy however has given a voice to the oppressed sections like the Dalits,the problem is both political and economic!

Communism could only have dealt with the economic aspect of this oppression and would have provided only economic liberty.It would have removed the inequality by destroying the identity of the Dalits to make everyone equal.

However Dalits want to retain their identity and still achieve equality,for this democratic principles allow the identity to be retained and still give them political freedom and economic justice.

Its a matter of identity and keeping it.

As far as the present state of Communism in China is concerned it is NOT what Communism as people generally know it but is a strange hybrid borrowing from liberal economic policies.

By saying that Marx also applauded Capitalism does NOT give meaning to present state of Communism in China.The fact of the matter is supposed to be antithetical to liberal capitalist democracy.
It is NOT perfectionism that is it cannot take different forms and ways,the core is not being followed.

Marx would be rolling in his grave if he saw "Communism" in China today.The same can be said of Mao.

Political scientists from all around the world acknowledge the fact that slowly but surely "Communism" is just becoming a name in China and it is inherently hollow.

It reminds of a quote from a Chinese i think-
"Earlier people(party officials) used to believe in Communsim,now they only believe in the Party(CPC)."

That in my opinion shows how China has changed and where Communism is in China.

It is now the party that matters not the ideology.(A sense of pragmatism is what that is being dictated in China)

Also you cannot justify the loss of life due to Cultural Revolution in China,no matter what.

And finally,
Do you think China's little emperors(u call them xiao huangdi?) would just sit and remain silent for greater political freedom?
"self-centered, narrow-minded, and incapable of accepting criticism,"
I won't be surprised if they demand democracy in the future.

Economic liberty would inevitably translate to political liberty(In India it is opposite),when the stomach of man is filled with bread he will demand the ballot!

PS-Personally speaking,i don't believe in there being an "ultimate ideology" promising "best way of development"-Different countries have different needs.
Maybe for China the present system is the best system(for now at least).
For Indians we like our present system and yes there is scope for improvement,a lot of improvement but we still like it more than others.
I suppose the same can be said for Chinese.(for now)

 

[MZUBAIR]

India will beat China – all in its own good time

The subject is funny and there is no need for comments on it!!!!!!

 

[aimarraul]

whatever 路过 Peu importe como sea

 

[Neo]

‘Indian Army ill-prepared to combat China, Pakistan’​

NEW DELHI: Even after a hefty hike in defence budget, the Indian Army is ill-prepared for a war against Pakistan or China, former Indian Army chief General (r) VP Malik said on Wednesday. “Despite the 24 percent increase in the defence budget this year, if you ask any of the chiefs of the defence staff whether they are fully prepared and equipped to take on either China or Pakistan, my hunch is that they would say no,” he said while addressing a seminar on defence planning. Vice Admiral Raman Puri blamed the bureaucracy and the services for the status quo. iftikhar gilani

 

[sadiqams]

indian democracy is quite cheap between rupees 50 to 100 accordinging to al jazeerah in its coverage of the current indian elections. The electorate are bribed by prospective politicins to vote for them some of these have criminal records and curruption cases pending against them. ' more then 200 indian MPs with criminal records in the last parliament' Aljazeerah.

 

[Aeneas]

Why can’t democracy be the hare? Democratic Japan’s development was once faster than or equal to anytime of authoritarian China.

but Japan had experience a drastically social revolution even before 1890s.

 

[abrakadabra]

1. Is Indian democracy same/similar/close to American/Canadian/British democracy?
.

Yes and No.
Yes because it is people who elect the govt., and influence the policies. Even the elections are fairly fair.

No because some politicians do get to exploit the model as many people in many constituencies are illeterate and are unable to realize what is good for them in the long run. As a result, they get influenced by Caste, alcohol, Money etc.

However no non democretic govt. can function in India as everybody (across caste, creed, social status, relegion) is fundamentally committed to democretic form of Govt.

2. Can developing countries such as India and China really afford western style democracy at this moment? Hence can the idea of democracy applied to every country in the world?
.

Yes, we can. In fact, we should.
If India were to be non democretic, development could have been faster (as there would have been no compulsion for the Govt. to resort to unreasonable populist schemes like free TVs etc., which divert money from development). However it would have put restrictions on fundamental rights and freedom. Indians do not want development at the cost of lack of fundamental rights.

3. How can India catch up with China with a lower growth rate year after year? In fact, the gap is widening everyday, now China has a 4 trillion economy while India has 1.

Right. I do not see India overtaking China in the clearly foreseeable future. However the growth rate of India might exceed that of China for a few quarters, or even may in some years (% growth on a smaller base is easier than that on a bigger base). However there is nothing that could indicate that this also will happen consistantly.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Geromix - great posts.

 

[godsavetheworld]

indian democracy is quite cheap between rupees 50 to 100 accordinging to al jazeerah in its coverage of the current indian elections. The electorate are bribed by prospective politicins to vote for them some of these have criminal records and curruption cases pending against them. ' more then 200 indian MPs with criminal records in the last parliament' Aljazeerah.

Only 34 and they rarely attend the sessions. Dont make up numbers. Indian parliament has 543 seats there is no way it can function with 200 criminals

 

[godsavetheworld]

as many has pointed out a service oriented economy may proform well in small region like HK or country like Britain, but are you sure half of india's would be able to go to service?

Not just sure. Damn positive. And its all happening. India has the demographics any country would kill for. 69% of India is below the 35. China has about 35% below 40. This massive labour force is beginning to migrate towards servicing. You can look it at as a service oriented economy, but its all about employement. Even we continue to employ the labour in critical areas, we would see outstanding results which is all beginning to show.

Country like india can never jump over industrialization directly into information revolution. You got nearly a billion farmer to lift!

Country like india can never jump over industrialization directly into information revolution. You got nearly a billion farmer to lift!

India doesnt have a billion farmers because it has a population of 1 billion itself. Just because they are farmers doesnt mean they are poor. Farmers in Northern parts of India, are among the richest in the world. The average income of a farmer here is about 12 lakh per annum.

Without industrilization,the old feudal order like caste can never be rooted out. A revolution or a movement can only kick the process start, you need factories and workers to disintegrate the old social structure. In europe, in american, old vile like the blood-sucking aristocracy , the frantic Roman catholic church(in the past), slavery in america, all of them was brought down by industrilization, because profits of industry needs competition(to get better hands), freedom(of lifestyle and movement)(to get cheaper hands), equality( to certain degree)(to free enough hands from landlords and slavemasters) That is a natural process to destroy the old and create the new

That is why we are gunning for 10% growth and enjoyed 9% for 4 years.

India has the brains, the brawns and the heart to be the best on this planet. And I assure you that much sooner than later we will outsmart all our competitors. Jai Hind.

 

[LCA]

Army wants rail link to Ladakh

Army wants rail link to Ladakh

Manu Pubby Posted: Tuesday , Apr 21, 2009 at 0918 hrs IST

Taking a leaf out of China’s aggressive infrastructure buildup along the Indian border, the Army plans to build an all weather road, new tunnels and a railway line connecting the Ladakh region with the rest of the country. One of the main points for discussion at the high powered Army Commander’s Conference that kicked off in the capital on Monday was the speedy construction of the all weather road link, which will include a new tunnel at the 16,000 feet Bara-lacha Pass, connecting Himachal Pradesh’s Lahaul district with Ladakh. This will be in addition to the nine kilometer long tunnel being constructed at the Rohtang pass by the Border Roads Organisation to overcome the annual problem of closing off the crucial pass during heavy snow.

Alarmed at the rapid development of infrastructure across the border, the Army is also pushing for the construction of a rail link to the Ladakh region through Himachal. A senior officer confirmed that the need for an “all time connectivity” of the region with the rest of the country was one of the main points being discussed at the conference.

As reported by this newspaper, the Prime Minister’s Office has already given its approval to the proposal for a railway line to Leh via the Rohtang Pass and the Railway Ministry has been asked to carry out a feasibility survey of the Bilaspur-Leh route.

India has been beefing up infrastructure along the Chinese border in the Ladakh region and has reopened several forward landing bases for faster supply lines to troops posted in the difficult terrain. Over the past year, the Daulat Beg Oldi and Fukche airfields in eastern Ladakh have been reopened and the Air Force is now working to open the Neoma advanced landing ground.

Concerned over the disparity in compensation, the Army commanders will also put together a proposal for a uniform compensation package to soldiers who are martyred or injured during operations.

 

[LCA]

China wants to join Navy initiative on Indian Ocean, MEA says no need

China wants to join Navy initiative on Indian Ocean, MEA says no need
Pranab Dhal Samanta Posted: Tuesday , Apr 21, 2009 at 0900 hrs IST

Pushing for a greater say in the Indian Ocean region, China has sounded out the Indian Navy that it wants to be inducted in some form into the 33-member Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) initiative started by India last year. But the Ministry of External Affairs has turned down the request.

It’s learnt that the Navy conveyed the Chinese interest to the MEA which promptly rebuffed the move, saying there was no justification to involve China in the Indian Ocean.

Sources said Chinese Navy officials had approached their Indian counterparts to explore ways to accommodate Beijing as either an observer or associate member ahead of Navy chief Admiral Sureesh Mehta’s ongoing week-long visit to China.

The Navy, on its part, informed the MEA and asked it to consider the informal request. But given that China’s long-term ambition is to counter Indian influence in the Indian Ocean, the MEA said there was no strategic rationale to let China be associated with IONS as it was strictly restricted to littoral states of the Indian Ocean.

While UK is part of the initiative because its still owns Diego Garcia, the US request too is pending on technical grounds even though it has bases in the region. Admiral Mehta, who is on a visit to China until April 25, was keen that he has an answer when he is in Qingdao for the international fleet review.

It is, however, learnt that India is keen on having a Naval attache posted in Beijing besides the Army attache.

Given that the 1962 memories have still not faded away for the two armies to foster a meaningful relationship, the assessment in New Delhi is that interaction between the two navies could be more productive.

In fact, the Defence Ministry is pushing for some 30 new posts for military officials in various Indian missions across the world. The armed forces are also keen to have an Air attache posted in Beijing. India is said to have already broached the topic with China and will now formally make a proposal.

While explaining this, sources said, the idea to step up interaction between the navies should not be stretched to giving Beijing access to IONS as it does not even meet the basic criteria for any sort of association. It is important to note here that China had rushed ships to Somalia after the Indian Navy moved its ships into the area for anti-piracy patrols.

Gaining access to Indian Ocean has been a long-term strategic objective for China. In pursuing this objective, China started partnering India’s neighbours to build strategic ports like the one in Gwadar, Pakistan. It is also funding the Hambantota port development project in Sri Lanka besides bidding for the Colombo South Port. In this context, New Delhi is keen that while bilateral relations between the two navies ought to be improved, it is still premature to involve China in any multilateral forum on the Indian Ocean.

The IONS currently has 33 members, including India, and was started last year with India hosting the inaugural event. The next symposium is in 2010 and the venue is till to be finalised.