Is China 70 years ahead of India? A visit to Mao's home province city, Changsha

[beijingwalker]

Is China 70 years ahead of India? A visit to Mao's home province city, Changsha​

English subtitles

 

[S10]

70 years is an exaggeration. 70 Years ago China was a backwater third world country.

China has a 20 year head start on India. If we keep this arrogant "we're 70 years ahead" attitude, that lead will erode.

 

[beijingwalker]

The reason that this guy thinks why China can build everything so fast and so efficient

 

[Sam6536]

The reason that this guy thinks why China can build everything so fast and so efficient

View attachment 966979
View attachment 966980

India is not China we have 2000 cultural minorities. There is no monotheism or 1 dominant religion/ideology possible here. Some southern states in India are communist ffs. India is a big mash of different cultural identities.
If India wanted quick growth, western investments it would've joined western camp directly post independence, we might've gotten a mini marshal plan but our government preffered to be independent and non aligned than being an secondary American ally.

 

[beijingwalker]

India is not China we have 2000 cultural minorities. There is no monotheism or 1 dominant religion/ideology possible here. Some southern states in India are communist ffs. India is a big mash of different cultural identities.
If India wanted quick growth, western investments it would've joined western camp directly post independence, we might've gotten a mini marshal plan but our government preffered to be independent and non aligned than being an secondary American ally.

China is a continental size country and used to have hundreds if not more cultures and ethnicities, but Chinese culture is just so strong and assimilates everything that comes close to it.
Now they all become Chinese provinces, there're still some differences and distinctiveness from province to province, but no longer that huge as they used to be in the history.

 

[etylo]

we might've gotten a mini marshal plan but our government preffered to be independent and non aligned than being an secondary American ally.

You really think the US really cared anyone other than white Western Europe that was/is critical to its world domination ? They even wouldn't give a penny as promised to the collapsed and surrendered Soviet Union called Russia in the 1990s to save it from abyss, instead they grabbed all the wealth from Russia.

 

[Sam6536]

You really think the US really cared anyone other than white Western Europe that was/is critical to its world domination ? They even wouldn't give a penny as promised to the collapsed Soviet Union called Russia in the 1990s to save it from abyss, instead they grabbed all the wealth from Russia.

Japan and South Korea are perfect examples of what I meant. US needed headway in South Asia, India just happens to be a large regional power in this region which was perfect for them to destabilize the region. If we had done that Kashmir issue would've been solved in UN. Bases in India would've given US a lot of influence in the region.
But anyways we preferred to go the NAM and independent route with relationship with both East and West.

 

[Menthol]

70 years is an exaggeration. 70 Years ago China was a backwater third world country.

China has a 20 year head start on India. If we keep this arrogant "we're 70 years ahead" attitude, that lead will erode.

100% correct!

Just look at the young Chinese people.

Lazy and spoiled.

 

[Sam6536]

China is a continental size country and used to have hundreds if not more cultures and ethnicities, but Chinese culture is just so strong and assimilates everything that comes close to it.
Now they all become Chinese provinces, there're still some differences and distinctiveness from province to province, but no longer that huge as they used to be in the history.
View attachment 966990

China was always an inward looking culture, historically known as the Middle Kingdom. India never had the said stability, cultures and rulers shifted from local kings to mughals then British. I don't think China has or had that much cultural or lingual variety like India. India has like 28 recognized official languages , Hindi is not our national state language.

 

[etylo]

Japan and South Korea are perfect examples of what I meant. US needed headway in South Asia, India just happens to be a large regional power in this region which was perfect for them to destabilize the region. If we had done that Kashmir issue would've been solved in UN. Bases in India would've given US a lot of influence in the region.
But anyways we preferred to go the NAM and independent route with relationship with both East and West.

Japan and South Korea never got economic help like the mini-Marshall plan from US, they pretty much developed their economy by themselves.

 

[Sam6536]

Japan and South Korea never got economic help like the mini-Marshall plan from US, they pretty much developed their economy by themselves.

America did invest a lot on reconstruction. They didn't want communism to take hold in these nations.
Also both these nations had stability and didn't have to spend much on military so far was due to American military support.
South Asian nations spend considerably on military to safeguard their territories.

 

[etylo]

America did invest a lot on reconstruction. They didn't want communism to take hold in these nations.
Also both these nations had stability and didn't have to spend much on military so far was due to American military support.
South Asian nations spend considerably on military to safeguard their territories.

No, US didn't do reconstruction in Japan and South Korea, they rebuilt their countries. US doesn't do reconstructions in the world. As for security, unless India wanted US troops to station in India, that would save you some money on defense true.

 

[Menthol]

China was always an inward looking culture, historically known as the Middle Kingdom. India never had the said stability, cultures and rulers shifted from local kings to mughals then British. I don't think China has or had that much cultural or lingual variety like India. India has like 28 recognized official languages , Hindi is not our national state language.

The good thing about China is being united for 2000 years.

And Confucianism as the main ideology of the empire.

Despite China was an empire, but it was very people oriented, thanks to Confucianism.

Confucianism is a humanist ideology, not religious. It focuses on human prosperity, harmony in human relationships, improving human quality, etc.


Confucius said, a strong and wealthy people mean a strong and wealthy country.

Between a king, a country, and people, the most important is the people, then a country, and a king is the least important.

For 2000 years, China is focusing on economic development, education, and social harmony.

That's why in modern time, you see such things are very Chinese things.


I think the main problem of India is not because of diversity, but the lack of humanist ideology like Confucianism that focus more on human development.

China itself is very diverse, each region has its own culture. Europeans are also very diverse.

Then the second problem, after having humanist ideology, it also needs experiences.

To achieved what China achieved today, it takes 2000 years of experiences, trials and errors on how to apply it to the society.


But I can understand your meaning that India is very diverse from seeing that India is a federation.

Central government has limited power, many times each province has its own will, and that will create contradictions that ruin many good development programs.

No, US didn't do reconstruction in Japan and South Korea, they rebuilt their countries. US doesn't do reconstructions in the world. As for security, unless India wanted US troops to station in India, that would save you some money on defense true.

That's true.

Not many countries in the world achieved what Japan and South Korea achieved.

 

[letsrock]

India is not a nation. but a state created through british bureacracy. Indians dont even have a agenda of building a nation. Most indian politics is some group or other squeezing the population through the tax collecting bureaucracy to fatten themselves. Indian populace are kept hooked in some emotional issue or other.

 

[faithfulguy]

India is not a nation. but a state created through british bureacracy. Indians dont even have a agenda of building a nation. Most of indian politics is some group of other squeezing the population through the tax collecting bureaucracy to fatten themselves. Indian populace are kept hooked in some emotional issue or other.

My signature say it all. India was created by the British. The current India people and leadership has more loyalties to their caste and state vs the country of India.