Open your eyes to Shanghai (Indian perspective on China)

[Tigershark]

If you want to learn these things, then the place to go is the US. Not China.

Actually, the points raised better apply to China and not to the US.

The first thing we should learn from China and Chinese is the commitment to place country before self.
Americans are individualists. They put self before country. Except the times they are stirred up by demagogues to invade other countries.

The second thing we should learn from China should be to work for the poor.
The essence of the American Dream is to work for your own wealth. The poor are poor because are lazy (as Americans say) and well deserve their lot.

The third thing we should learn from China is how to punish the guilty and the corrupt i.e. the judicial system.
Good point

The fourth thing we should learn from China is how to make inroads into other countries and get them to your side e.g Nepal, BD, SL etc.
China understands that countries often have to made difficult decisions to improve the lives of their citizens. China supported Sri Lanka to stamp out rebels which threatened to take the country into civil war while Americans were wringing their hands over the rebels' human rights (funny the rights of Afghans and Iraqis not to be bombed or shot never comes up in American dialogue).

The fifth thing we should learn from China is how to give a f**k about the world and work for your own interests.
China understands that the best way to contribute to the world is peacefully, by helping to grow the world economy. China has no interest in the American approach of seeding bases around the world to overawe others with their military might.

 

[AMCA]

Well, Acquiring land In India by the govt is Too Tough, We cannot force it upon People to evacuate the Land since they own them not the govt... There are two prices upon which the Land value is Negotiated, Govt acquires land on Govt value which is a Bit lesser than the real estate Price, And Govt has to connect there infrastructures from where ever the land is Acquired which is not an Easy thing to do, thats really why the Govt of India is Concentrating more on Creating 100's of world class Satellite cities

 

[Brotherhood]

Well, Acquiring land In India by the govt is Too Tough, We cannot force it upon People to evacuate the Land since they own them not the govt... There are two prices upon which the Land value is Negotiated, Govt acquires land on Govt value which is a Bit lesser than the real estate Price, And Govt has to connect there infrastructures from where ever the land is Acquired which is not an Easy thing to do, thats really why the Govt of India is Concentrating more on Creating 100's of world class Satellite cities

There is always a different between "wishful ambitious slogans and reality" does this ring a bell?

The Shanghai-Mumbai bugle was first sounded by reformist Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who said in October 2004 as a build-up to the state elections: "When we talk of a resurgent Asia, people think of the great changes that have come about in Shanghai. I share this aspiration to transform Mumbai in the next five years in such a manner that people would forget about Shanghai and Mumbai will become a talking point," the prime minister said. "I have a dream that we can do it. I believe we can become number one through modernization, expansion and development and make Mumbai the number one city in our country," he added.
So did Mumbai became the next Shanghai in the year 2011?
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

 

[faithfulguy]

Actually, the points raised better apply to China and not to the US.

The first thing we should learn from China and Chinese is the commitment to place country before self.
Americans are individualists. They put self before country. Except the times they are stirred up by demagogues to invade other countries.

There are many patriots in America. The problem is that people who are followers of the Obama regime care more about distribution of wealth and socialism. And the mainstream media is all about hyping up Obama and ignore the true patriots. Study up on the Tea Party in America and you will find American patriots. Also, learn about Glenn Beck and he is warning Americans about the danger of spending too much. As a country, America cannot keep on borrowing from China or America will go bankrupt.

The second thing we should learn from China should be to work for the poor.
The essence of the American Dream is to work for your own wealth. The poor are poor because are lazy (as Americans say) and well deserve their lot.

Americans as individuals contribute more as a people than any foreign government contribute to charitable agencies. Also, there are people who are poor because of choice and people who are poor because of circumstance. I believe in giving a hands up to people who fall into hardship. But people must earn a living themselves if they can.

The third thing we should learn from China is how to punish the guilty and the corrupt i.e. the judicial system.
Good point

The fourth thing we should learn from China is how to make inroads into other countries and get them to your side e.g Nepal, BD, SL etc.
China understands that countries often have to made difficult decisions to improve the lives of their citizens. China supported Sri Lanka to stamp out rebels which threatened to take the country into civil war while Americans were wringing their hands over the rebels' human rights (funny the rights of Afghans and Iraqis not to be bombed or shot never comes up in American dialogue).

As an American, I'm against the Bush/Obama policy of nation building. My foreign policy is more reflective of Dr Ron Paul's. In that we need to engage and trade with others but not conquere them. I agree that US should withdraw from Europe but not NE Asia because of existential threat there.

The fifth thing we should learn from China is how to give a f**k about the world and work for your own interests.
China understands that the best way to contribute to the world is peacefully, by helping to grow the world economy. China has no interest in the American approach of seeding bases around the world to overawe others with their military might.

Every nation should work for their own interest. Its not in the interest of US to do nation building. In this point, I believe that America should learn from China. Just build relationship to promote trade and grow wealth instead of unecessarily getting into other's business.

 

[Time]

Go to democracy?What kind of and whose democracy?

Hey, Indian guys, there is something can not be learned from appearances.

What ever it will be, western style pseudo-democratic or not, it's certainly a country appeared to be developing temporarily well in terms of some people's wealth, if you ignore the almost completely destroyed environment or exhausted resources, (I wonder why airshows there are always in fog) and its people's historically low moral level, which all above partially caused those whose families grabbed huge wealth from doing this fleeing to developed countries talking freely about patriotic there.

Not all cities have those high-rising buildings, even they have, those wealth are none of business of most ordinary people, not to mention its economy is heavily dependent on foreign capital. Of course a rich powerful giant is standing there if you neglect the condition of its most people.

Talking about GDP or population is more ridiculous. What happened to that Braid Dynasty whose GDP ratio to the world's total is much more? Many developed area have much bigger population density.

Comparing to those whose conditions are worse can not prove the correctness of yourself.

Never expect a nationalist from middle class to understand or admit what the true definition of a country is.

Gandhi said: I am first and foremost a human, then an Indian.

Though this perception was limited by his social position, it's still somewhat progressive.

 

[cross1993]

The first is that the Chinese party-state, for better or for worse, has developed an authoritarian system that has balanced the people's economic needs and social stability. Many more Chinese approve of their leaders in Beijing than their Indian, Brazilian, or Russian counterparts - and this is visible when you talk to ordinary Chinese people, even those who have immigrated. China's strategic investments in the "next emerging markets" such as Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and other countries often ignored by "the West" will begin paying dividends in twenty-thirty years time.

The second thing is that the purchasing power of the Chinese consumer is already on a steady (and now steep) climb. Contemporary Chinese culture is very materialistic - for example, China is now the world's largest luxury goods market. Consumer goods spending is increasing much faster than GDP growth. That, added onto the undervalued Yuan and purchasing power parity, means that the approximate number of Chinese people who are now living middle class lives comparable to their OECD peers is around 100-150 million. The real Chinese middle class (defined as those who have a reasonable amount of residual income on discretionary expenses) is somewhere around 400mln, more than the entire US population. You cannot ignore sheer size.

In addition, the country is making headway into various high-value markets, such as superconducters, aerospace engineering, and renewable energy. Poverty in China has been largely eradicated in the last thirty years - (latest statistic of those living under poverty line is 2% in China vs. 28% in India). Even though a lot of the rural population still live on what appear like measly incomes - food, water, shelter, electricity and other basic needs have been fulfilled in the vast majority of the country. This has yet to be reproduced in any other large developing country, including Brazil. This is not to mention that China's infrastructure development, such as that in high-speed rail, has already outpaced the US.

It is not an easy job to lift something like 800 million people out of poverty in thirty years and logically only a very competent government could have done so. In my view, two things are absolutely crucial for China's continued growth - will the country be able to retain its human capital (its best and brightest) and will it become a nexus of international transactions (people, money, goods) in its own right? Development of civil society and rule of law is also crucial, but I have an optimistic feel that this will come with time and a better educated population (10-20 years). I am worried the least about political reform and "democracy".

 

[faithfulguy]

Well, Acquiring land In India by the govt is Too Tough, We cannot force it upon People to evacuate the Land since they own them not the govt... There are two prices upon which the Land value is Negotiated, Govt acquires land on Govt value which is a Bit lesser than the real estate Price, And Govt has to connect there infrastructures from where ever the land is Acquired which is not an Easy thing to do, thats really why the Govt of India is Concentrating more on Creating 100's of world class Satellite cities

So the reason India is not developing its infrastructure is because the people would not give the government authority to develop the country. So if this is the case, it will be almost impossible India to develop and become a first rated infrastructure like what China is doing within the next 20 years or so. And without infractures and energy, it's impossible to create a manufacturing base. I can conclude that India should never be compare to China in economic development and any such debate is a waste of time.

 

[scuthan]

Well, Acquiring land In India by the govt is Too Tough, We cannot force it upon People to evacuate the Land since they own them not the govt... There are two prices upon which the Land value is Negotiated, Govt acquires land on Govt value which is a Bit lesser than the real estate Price, And Govt has to connect there infrastructures from where ever the land is Acquired which is not an Easy thing to do, thats really why the Govt of India is Concentrating more on Creating 100's of world class Satellite cities

In india, there is also compulsory land acquisition. I saw several news about peasants protesting against govt's land acquisition. Almost every country has compulsory land acquisition. china has it, so do the US and japan and many developed countries. Here in america, the law term for land aquisition is "eminent domain", you can google it or find it on wikipedia.

in China, the cost for land aquisition is also very high. in 2009, Shenzhen govt acquire the land from a rich village called Gangxia. over ten family received more than 100 million yuan compensation, which is equivalent to 15 million USD. scores of families received over 10 million yuan, equivalent to 1.5 million. it is a irony for us who live on honest job

 

[scuthan]

So the reason India is not developing its infrastructure is because the people would not give the government authority to develop the country. So if this is the case, it will be almost impossible India to develop and become a first rated infrastructure like what China is doing within the next 20 years or so. And without infractures and energy, it's impossible to create a manufacturing base. I can conclude that India should never be compare to China in economic development and any such debate is a waste of time.

i don't think indian people would not give government authority to develop the country. they want development and advances of society nothing less we do.

the problem is that, assume the land aquisiton will benefit and it is supported by majority people, only a few people is against it. But the downside will still be hyped by the few, the media, NGOs, and the political opposite of the govt. If the land aquisition is carried out compulsorily,and even most people benefit from it,officials of the govt will gain nothing but pay the bill at expense of their political career. very few politican will do that stupid thing even if compulsory land aquistion is legal and it is their responsibilty to do that. very few govt has the determination like china.

 

[below_freezing]

no doubt the process of democracy is slow but it is the only way to provide right to everyone. as you said dictatorship is successful in poor country china but it is not successful every where. in china it is successful because you have good leader. no one said that everyone in china getting right because there is lot of restriction on media.however no comment on that. if you talk about india there is 100% democracy and no doubt we are poor and backward but slowly we r developing as you can see it in recent statistics. however everyone believe only in development no one care how it come: by democracy or dictatorship.

Corruption is a sign of dictatorship. So is hereditary leadership.

In the past 60 years:

There have been 3 leaders in Indian history with the same last name.
There have been 0 leaders in Chinese history with the same last name.
India has more corruption than China.
India has more money in swiss banks than China.
India has a higher percentage of GDP stolen than China.
African dictators also store their stolen cash in swiss banks.
African dictators also have hereditary power.
So does North Korea.
India = North Korea, African dictatorships.

 

[scuthan]

no doubt the process of democracy is slow but it is the only way to provide right to everyone. as you said dictatorship is successful in poor country china but it is not successful every where. in china it is successful because you have good leader. no one said that everyone in china getting right because there is lot of restriction on media.however no comment on that. if you talk about india there is 100% democracy and no doubt we are poor and backward but slowly we r developing as you can see it in recent statistics. however everyone believe only in development no one care how it come: by democracy or dictatorship.

Using either the word "democracy" or 'dictatorship" to decrible a country is a poor idea. there is no real "democracy" in the world and the universe is too big to tolerate no than one type of government. it's hard to say indian government reflects the will and represent the interest of the people more than chinese government does.

i don't think the way of living here in US has substantial differences from that in china except living standard. for 99.9% people politics makes no sense to them.

though Iranian and Belorussian government is elected and supported by the majority yet US and its allies still call them authoritarian or totalitarian cause they stand on the wrong side. i am sure someday if they consider india as a threat, they will scrape the "certificate of democracy" they issued to you, and call you dictatorship.

 

[below_freezing]

1: you r talking about Gandhi family. no doubt there are 3 leaders from one family but still all 3 elected by people of india. no one by dictatorship.but in china your all leader selected by dictatorship.
2: In "Corruption Perceptions Index" china has 3.5 point and india has 3.3 point so both are similar.
3: one one has data of swiss bank a/c. however i never denied that there is no corruption in india.
4:i don't how you are comparing india with north korea and africa. BTW what's your qualification.

nope they were not selected by the people of india, they were selected because they are gandhis. what a joke that you think you have democracy yet are powerless to remove the corrupt officials that steal trillions from you. democracy = ability to remove corrupt officials and legal equality for all because if you can't then it's worthless. in this aspect, china is more democratic than the US was in 1960. india of course, is not even as democratic as the US in 1840, since india still has slavery, just like the US did in 1840, india still has untouchables, like blacks in 1840, and india still has robber baron corruption.

corruption perception, is perception. quantitatively, corruption can be measured by amount of money stolen divided by GDP of the country. in that measure, india is lightyears ahead of china.

 

[BigTree.CN]

no doubt the process of democracy is slow but it is the only way to provide right to everyone. as you said dictatorship is successful in poor country china but it is not successful every where. in china it is successful because you have good leader. no one said that everyone in china getting right because there is lot of restriction on media.however no comment on that. if you talk about india there is 100% democracy and no doubt we are poor and backward but slowly we r developing as you can see it in recent statistics. however everyone believe only in development no one care how it come: by democracy or dictatorship.

I believe no regime, democratic or totalitarian, can guarantee everyone will be satisfied. In almost every case, only the majority win. If you want to satisfy everyone, then no change will happen.

 

[ChinaRocks]

Unfortunately for the indian the chinese hare still running and the indian tortoise still playing catch up.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

india of course, is not even as democratic as the US in 1840, since india still has slavery, just like the US did in 1840, india still has untouchables, like blacks in 1840, and india still has robber baron corruption.
.

Unlike 1840 USA ,we have laws against such discrimination and quotas for the empowerment of these people.

You speak though as if the constitution encourages abuse of underprivileged in India.