What's new

Indian democracy loses to Chinese efficiency - by 160 votes

Dear Sir,

An interesting post. Perhaps looking at national characteristics (in terms of what happened immediately previously in each nation's history) might prove informative.

Every Country has to fend for itself, develop its own system and ambitions. I don't buy the thing that "We are natural ally because we follow same system".

Perhaps this is a slightly skewed version of the aphorism,"Democracies don't go to war with each other." This has happened rarely. It lies behind much of current thinking by Man Mohan Singh and his government, that once democracy gets rooted in Pakistan, there is low likelihood of war with India.

They may be right; they may be wrong. This is what the theory is, and we can only watch and wait.

On the other hand, conflicts between democracies and authoritarian states, and between authoritarian states have been far too frequent.

Only because Power for now rests in America and Europe their system becomes Superior, what if the fortunes were reverse during cold war , gues we would have all been communist. I am not underrmining Democracy, but who decides its the best.

There is quite a bit of prior history behind what we see today.

For starters, let us take the case of India becoming democratic. This was in no way due to the US and Europe proving themselves superior during the cold war; in fact, the foundations of representative democracy were laid in 1909. Later, with the Minto-Morley reforms of 1909, a pattern of government that is still used today was introduced. Finally, the Government of India Act of 1935 brought things to a level and a style of functioning that is familiar even today.

It was in 1912 that Dr. Sun Yat-Sen introduced democratic rule in China, based on General Yuan Shi-Kai's overthrow of the last Manchu ruler, the Empress-Dowager and Regent.

It is fascinating to compare what ensued, from 1912 to 1949, in terms of the similarities that emerge, also in terms of the vast differences in events that followed.

Both countries went through a period of 'popular tutelage', Dr. Sun's transitional democracry under one party, China under the KMT, India under British rule. Both countries faced internal dissension against the authoritarian regime in their country, led in one case by the CPC, in the other case by a coalition of parties. Both faced foreign invasion.

But there was never outright civil war in India, as there was in China. The people of India were never to see days of trouble that China did (those days had come earlier for India), and hence had little or no understanding of what a craving for peace there was in China.

India was never troubled by the Japanese in any major way; a look at the map will show that the Japanese armies only 'nibbled' at the eastern edges of India, although they captured Burma to a large extent (there was a corner in the north, which was independent, and which was used to supply war materiel to KMT troops in China over land). Again, India never knew the ravages of war. There were massacres in both countries; a massacre cannot be compared to another, both are so horrid as to leave us speechless, but one was city-wide, the other covered a peaceful crowd in a walled in compound.

It seems to me that the differences in their experiences have a great deal to do with the propensity of each population with regard to political organisation of the state.

If America and India are a classic example of success of Democracy then China is a prime example of Communist success. SO its hard to choose. Only people can decide what is best for them.

I hope that the outline that I have provided may suffice to indicate why each country responded to political impulses in so different a mann. Only people can decide what is best for them; true enough, but there is a whole intricate set of political, social and historical circumstance behind each country's present condition.

India adopted a system which it deemed fit for itself and so did China and both are effective. You can't always go by the definition.

Chinese system was the best possible option available towards its leader at that point of time and now they can move towards other system. Even I would have been really tempted to follow the Chinese have I been incharge of my country. Its a quick fix solution and then transition to democracy can wait. (Thank God I am not incharge. I am happy what I see is happening in my country)

India should be admired for just the same thing. It has taken a harder road towards success..a road less travelled. Being a democracy with multi culture and multi lingual is not easy and it has been doing well.

Indian system although chaotic has been efficient in every sense. To achieve average growth of 9% for a decade is no joke.

Human rights violation is there every where. Israel is a democracy and blatant human rights violation against Palestinians, American WOT, Indian in Kashmir, Chinese in Uighur, Pakistanis in Balochistan.
Human rights violation is more to do with powerful and weak rather than Democracy and Communist.

About the rest, one can write volumes. But essentially, each country has its own circumstances and its own compulsions, and perhaps we need to understand and appreciate these before setting out to analyse each case.

With warm regards,
 
We don't preach to others about how good our system is for them, only that it works for us. The americans on other hand are no different from taliban terrorists both in ideology (substitute "islam" with "democracy" and see how their words fit so nicely) and methods (killing civilians with explosive weapons). Utterly disgusting.
 
Perhaps this is a slightly skewed version of the aphorism,"Democracies don't go to war with each other." This has happened rarely. It lies behind much of current thinking by Man Mohan Singh and his government, that once democracy gets rooted in Pakistan, there is low likelihood of war with India.

They may be right; they may be wrong. This is what the theory is, and we can only watch and wait.

On the other hand, conflicts between democracies and authoritarian states, and between authoritarian states have been far too frequent.

Nations are in conflict with each other because of the difference in ideologies and believes. It is not a coincidence that countries with similar ideology and believe tend to embrace the same government system. To generalize that into "Democracies don't go to war with each other." is a classical fallacy of "cum hoc ergo propter hoc". For China since it does not hold any ideology or belief now, the only possibility for any nation to be involved in a conflict with China is a nation get in the way of China's development or threaten the sovereignty of China.

There is quite a bit of prior history behind what we see today.

For starters, let us take the case of India becoming democratic. This was in no way due to the US and Europe proving themselves superior during the cold war; in fact, the foundations of representative democracy were laid in 1909. Later, with the Minto-Morley reforms of 1909, a pattern of government that is still used today was introduced. Finally, the Government of India Act of 1935 brought things to a level and a style of functioning that is familiar even today.

It was in 1912 that Dr. Sun Yat-Sen introduced democratic rule in China, based on General Yuan Shi-Kai's overthrow of the last Manchu ruler, the Empress-Dowager and Regent.

It is fascinating to compare what ensued, from 1912 to 1949, in terms of the similarities that emerge, also in terms of the vast differences in events that followed.

Both countries went through a period of 'popular tutelage', Dr. Sun's transitional democracry under one party, China under the KMT, India under British rule. Both countries faced internal dissension against the authoritarian regime in their country, led in one case by the CPC, in the other case by a coalition of parties. Both faced foreign invasion.

But there was never outright civil war in India, as there was in China. The people of India were never to see days of trouble that China did (those days had come earlier for India), and hence had little or no understanding of what a craving for peace there was in China.

India was never troubled by the Japanese in any major way; a look at the map will show that the Japanese armies only 'nibbled' at the eastern edges of India, although they captured Burma to a large extent (there was a corner in the north, which was independent, and which was used to supply war materiel to KMT troops in China over land). Again, India never knew the ravages of war. There were massacres in both countries; a massacre cannot be compared to another, both are so horrid as to leave us speechless, but one was city-wide, the other covered a peaceful crowd in a walled in compound.

It seems to me that the differences in their experiences have a great deal to do with the propensity of each population with regard to political organisation of the state.
This is indeed very insightful. China under authoritarian rule of CCP did experience the stability and internal and external security which KMT failed to provide before it was driven out of mainland China. People were tired of KMT's massive corruption at all level of the government and its ability or inability to adminstrate the country. Also since the majority of the population were poor and farmers at the time, there was little policy to address their concerns from KMT government, but rather the government was more happily jumping in bed with the middle and rich classes of the population.

I hope that the outline that I have provided may suffice to indicate why each country responded to political impulses in so different a mann. Only people can decide what is best for them; true enough, but there is a whole intricate set of political, social and historical circumstance behind each country's present condition.



About the rest, one can write volumes. But essentially, each country has its own circumstances and its own compulsions, and perhaps we need to understand and appreciate these before setting out to analyse each case.

With warm regards,

Very true, only Chinese can decide what is best for China, and Indian can decide what is best for India. Nations and their people should learn to respect the difference of the others, and find its own way for development. It took China a painful long way alone with many trials and errors to find a model that could suit it and work very well today. There is no copy and paste in the government systems.
 
Last edited:
Gross GDP of a country means next to nothing compared to Per Capita GDP, its like saying a family of 10 with an income of a 1000 dollars is just as well off as a family of 2 or 4.

Every communist country after 80 years of economic stagnation has had sustained economic growth when they got rid of communism because of pent up demand.

China is scared of something or they would not be so desperate in trying to censor what information comes in and out of China.

I expect what China is so scared of is that Urban area near the coast of China has had economic growth almost to western levels and those of the interior are desperatly poor and that there may be riots and cival war.
 
Gross GDP of a country means next to nothing compared to Per Capita GDP, its like saying a family of 10 with an income of a 1000 dollars is just as well off as a family of 2 or 4.

Every communist country after 80 years of economic stagnation has had sustained economic growth when they got rid of communism because of pent up demand.

China is scared of something or they would not be so desperate in trying to censor what information comes in and out of China.

I expect what China is so scared of is that Urban area near the coast of China has had economic growth almost to western levels and those of the interior are desperatly poor and that there may be riots and cival war.

I am trying really hard to figure out whether you are talking about China or India here.

Per Capital GDP 2009
India $1,031
China $3,678

Disparity of growth is happening everywhere in developing nations, especially for a country as large as China or India. Just in another thread it stated "India’s eight poorest states have more people in poverty — an estimated 421 million — than Africa’s 26 poorest nations."

If you have nothing intelligent or knowledgeable to contribute to this discussion, and have inability to to learn from others' insightful facts, please leave this discussion and stop contaminating this environment for people who actually have the mental capacity to exchange their thoughts and ideas.
 
I am trying really hard to figure out whether you are talking about China or India here.

Per Capital GDP 2009
India $1,031
China $3,678

Disparity of growth is happening everywhere in developing nations, especially for a country as large as China or India. Just in another thread it stated "India’s eight poorest states have more people in poverty — an estimated 421 million — than Africa’s 26 poorest nations."

If you have nothing intelligent or knowledgeable to contribute to this discussion, and have inability to to learn from others' insightful facts, please leave this discussion and stop contaminating this environment for people who actually have the mental capacity to exchange their thoughts and ideas.

China is the one engaged in censorship so I would have though you had the mental capacity to understand whom I was talking about. India is not the country where 90 percent of the multi millionaires are the children of party officals. India is not the country where they are putting reporters in prison for discloseing that fact.
 
China is the one engaged in censorship so I would have though you had the mental capacity to understand whom I was talking about. India is not the country where they are putting reporters in prison for discloseing that fact.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

100 points to your naivety. While I am having this conversation with you, ever wondering why whatever you have said is not being censored here in China?

There is only three possibilities.
1.Whatever you said is obviously wrong and will backfire against your own argument, so the government does not bother to censor it at all as it actually will help their cases against your libel.

2.The censorship in China is not as bad as you have described, which means you are just talking out of trap hole from your behind.

3.Those commies are just so incompetent that can not properly censor the informations coming into China, which in turn makes this censorship useless anyways.

Guess which one is not true!

Corruption among politicians in India is not any better than China, and you should also check the Forbes ranking for China's billionaires and tell me who is whose son there.
 
Last edited:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

100 points to your naivety. While I am having this conversation with you, ever wondering why whatever you have said is not being censored here in China?

There is only three possibilities.
1.Whatever you said is obviously wrong and will backfire against your own argument, so the government does not bother to censor it at all as it actually will help their cases against your libel.

2.The censorship in China is not as bad as you have described, which means you are just talking out of trap hole from your behind.

3.Those commies are just so incompetent that can not properly censor the informations coming into China, which in turn makes this censorship useless anyways.

Guess which one is not true!

Corruption among politicians in India is not any better than China, and you should also check the Forbes ranking for China's billionaires and tell me who is whose son there.

I think because of 80 years of communist indoctrination the Chinese are going to be less tolerant of the gaps between the rich and the poor. I expect religion and the caste system has made Indians more tolerant of those gaps.

When a country engages in censorship they are afraid of something, and thats the truth. A goverment that is afraid of the truth will lie to you because they are not as worried the truth will come out.

I think china is afraid of an upriseing by the poor in the interior of the country.
 
I expect what China is so scared of is that Urban area near the coast of China has had economic growth almost to western levels and those of the interior are desperatly poor and that there may be riots and cival war.

The 70 year old guy speaks again. :lol:

It's "desperately" and "civil" by the way... not "cival" which doesn't make any sense.

That said, you're right there will be a disparity between the rich coastal cities and the poor interior.

Where I live in Hong Kong, and in other coastal cities like Shanghai and Beijing there is a lot of wealth, however this has not yet passed on to the interior regions of China.

What is supposed to happen is that when the coastal areas get richer... the factories and the production moves inland. This will enable us to keep costs low for exports... while having a large consumer and finance-based economy in the coastal regions.

Once the majority of China becomes developed then there will be political reforms and eventually we will have Democracy. Like the way Japan and Taiwan did it, first they develop... and then they get democracy.
 
The 70 year old guy speaks again. :lol:

It's "desperately" and "civil" by the way... not "cival" which doesn't make any sense.

That said, you're right there will be a disparity between the rich coastal cities and the poor interior.

Where I live in Hong Kong, and in other coastal cities like Shanghai and Beijing there is a lot of wealth, however this has not yet passed on to the interior regions of China.

What is supposed to happen is that when the coastal areas get richer... the factories and the production moves inland. This will enable us to keep costs low for exports... while having a large consumer and finance-based economy in the coastal regions.

Once the majority of China becomes developed then there will be political reforms and eventually we will have Democracy. Like the way Japan and Taiwan did it, first they develop... and then they get democracy.

Thats the plan and I hope China succeeds, a China with a strong economy can be a win win for the USA, China and the entire world.

There are a lot of suicides takeing place in china and it seems to be related alienation and despair that are the result of an efficient--but ultimately unsustainable--system. I would think if people are getting so desperate they are committing suicide they are desperate enought to revolt.

Suicides At Apple Supplier In China - Forbes.com
 
I think because of 80 years of communist indoctrination the Chinese are going to be less tolerant of the gaps between the rich and the poor. I expect religion and the caste system has made Indians more tolerant of those gaps.
Okay, let's do a simple math here. PRC was established in 1949, that is 61 year ago from today, and communist type of economy which there was no rich or poor was abolished after 1978 which is 29 years after 1949 and 32 years before today. So explain to me where the 80 years of communist indoctrination come from. Don't tell me that it is the age of CCP, because if they were not in power, then it is irrelevant.

I hope you are joking when you bring caste system in to justify your theory of the tolerance of the gap between rich and poor. It is as stupid as saying that Americans and South Africans are more tolerant to the disparity of wealth in the society because they have slavery, apartheid and segregation.

When a country engages in censorship they are afraid of something, and thats the truth. A goverment that is afraid of the truth will lie to you because they are not as worried the truth will come out.
Can you make a coherent sentence on your own? Every country engages in some forms of censorship one way or another. Chinese government is a bit paranoid in this matter, but its people are more informed than you in this matter.

"“Because we(Chinese) are in such a system, we are always asking ourselves whether we are brainwashed,” he said. “We are always eager to get other information from different channels.” Then he added, “But when you are in a so-called free system you never think about whether you are brainwashed.”"

Letter from China: Angry Youth : The New Yorker

I think china is afraid of an upriseing by the poor in the interior of the country.
Yes, the government is scared to death that those farmers could put up a revolution with pitchforks. :rofl:

I think it is you that is afraid that there is no uprisings and civil wars in your sinister mind.
 
Last edited:
Thats the plan and I hope China succeeds, a China with a strong economy can be a win win for the USA, China and the entire world.

That's the whole point, the world is interconnected. Everyone benefits from international trade.

There are a lot of suicides takeing place in china and it seems to be related alienation and despair that are the result of an efficient--but ultimately unsustainable--system. I would think if people are getting so desperate they are committing suicide they are desperate enought to revolt.

Suicides At Apple Supplier In China - Forbes.com

However... South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the OECD.

Suicide in South Korea: Exit strategies | The Economist

I think it's more to do with culture (i.e. Confucianism) than with the political system, which explains why there is a relatively high rate of suicide in ALL East Asian nations regardless of the political system.

Just to be clear again since I don't think you can hear properly at your age... I think Democracy is BETTER than authoritarianism. I just think it works best, when a country is already developed.
 
Thats the plan and I hope China succeeds, a China with a strong economy can be a win win for the USA, China and the entire world.

There are a lot of suicides takeing place in china and it seems to be related alienation and despair that are the result of an efficient--but ultimately unsustainable--system. I would think if people are getting so desperate they are committing suicide they are desperate enought to revolt.

Suicides At Apple Supplier In China - Forbes.com

What system are you talking about? Capitalism???
The total suicide rate in China (13.9) is much lower than in the total rate in other East Asian countries: Japan (24.4) and Korea (21.9).
Suicide in the People's Republic of China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Considering foxconn employs 4200000 people in China, 10 suicides in a year is much lower than the national average(2.4 vs 13.9). The case was noticeable because those suicide was contributed to the capitalist usurious exploitation of the working class within one company which is a Taiwanese MNC.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom