>>>>> HOW CHINA BEAT INDIA <<<<<

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Kunal Singh

unread,
Aug 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/13/99
to

Mirza Ghalib wrote:

> However, there is no denying the Chinese have surged far ahead
> of India in most fields. The failure of India has been in
> forming a cohesive socity. We are reaping the results of
> Gandhi-ism and Nehru-ism. People like VPSingh (Mandal) and
> Indira Gandhi (open doors to foreigners) further damaged
> the social fabric of India.
>

Ha, ha, ha! It is interesting how people attribute success to the strangest
things! With authors claiming now that the communist government of China has
actually encouraged free-market economic reform simply points to how stupid
intellectuals can be.

Communist China has prospered for a single reason, its proximity to Japan, Hong
Kong and Taiwan. All countries within this region have prospered significantly
due to the economic revolution brought about by the Japanese. All major
Chinese economic centers such as Shanghai are on the east coast and I'm sure
that no matter how much the Chinese government tried, smuggling goods within
the region could not have been difficult at all. It is time for India to
seriously worry about opening a land-based trading route to the far-east.


ano...@my-deja.com

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
How China Beat India in Race for Success Half a century ago, Asia's
giants took divergent paths to the future. Today, India ponders why it
lags so badly in improving the lives of its people.

By RONE TEMPEST, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Los Angeles Times Sunday August 10, 1997 Home Edition Part A, Page 1

NEW DELHI--Fifty years ago this week, the Indian subcontinent broke its
colonial chains with Britain, forming the nations of India and
Pakistan. India, crippled by partition and poverty, chose a democratic
path to the future.

"Long years ago, we made a tryst with destiny," Indian leader
Jawaharlal Nehru said in a speech on the eve of independence, Aug. 14,
1947, "and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge. The
achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of
opportunity, to the great triumphs and achievements that await us."

At the same time in China, Mao Tse-tung's Communists were on the final
leg of their Long March to victory in the civil war with Chiang Kai-
shek's Nationalists. Emulating the Soviet Union, the new People's
Republic of China--even poorer than India and struggling to survive
after years of war and occupation--chose a Marxist-Leninist road.

"Thus begins a new era in the history of China," Mao said on the eve
of the founding of the People's Republic, Sept. 30, 1949. "We, the 475
million people of China, have now stood up. The future of our nation is
infinitely bright."

In those heady early days, the leaders of Asia's two wounded giants
pledged to lift their countries out of despair. The goal of independent
India, Nehru said, was to end "poverty and ignorance and disease and
inequality of opportunity."

It never surfaced completely--except, perhaps, for the brief border
war that China and India fought in 1962--but there was a rivalry of
sorts between these two have-nots and between their systems. Today, as
they prepare to celebrate India's first 50 years, Indian leaders have
been forced to recognize that, at almost every level except one--the
important domain of human rights and civil liberties--China has done
more to improve the lives of its people, including its poorest
citizens.

"I am ashamed," then-Prime Minister H. D. Deve Gowda told a business
group in New Delhi earlier this year. "We talk so much about
liberalization. But a Communist country like China can achieve so much
while we can't. This means something is wrong."

Similarly, Salman Haidar, India's foreign minister and former
ambassador to China, commented in a recent interview: "There is no
question that, in a straight-up comparison, China has done much better
than India. All the major indicators are better."

That two senior leaders, a national politician and a brilliant civil
servant, could so frankly and passionately criticize their country says
much about the differences between China and India, certainly in terms
of political openness and freedom of expression.

India's people are gloriously free to publicly say what they think
about virtually anything. And they do--boldly, constantly and
incessantly, producing a cacophony of political debate in this country.

China has little freedom of expression, particularly with regard to
political matters. Meetings of its rubber-stamp parliament, the
National People's Congress, are somber affairs with no public debate or
controversy.

Although Chinese leaders do not hesitate to refer to their nation's
poverty, their references are oblique; their remarks are meticulously
phrased so that communism--and the Chinese Communist Party--are
absolved of responsibility.

Behind the Indian leaders' outspoken remarks, however, is the huge
concern here about the growing gap in development between the world's
two most populous lands.

Mao's Brutal Reforms

Seeking to explain China's large and growing advantage over India in
education, health and general standard of living, scholars, diplomats
and economists come up with different theories. The most common is that
because of India's diversity--15 major languages, five major religions,
countless castes and sub-castes--it lacks the unity and community
needed for effective nationwide education and anti-poverty programs.

In an attempt to catch up with China and booming countries in
Southeast Asia, India has recently launched market reforms similar to
those introduced in China in the late 1970s and throughout the '80s by
the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping. The most important reforms
include lowering restrictive tariffs and creating incentives for
foreign investment.

But most unsettling to India is an increasing realization that China's
rapid advance is not due merely to economic steps.

Many experts now believe that China's ability to move ahead so far and
so fast is partly attributable to earlier, more brutal reforms--
particularly land reform measures--forced at gunpoint in the
totalitarian 1949-76 rule of Mao.

The Maoist era is primarily remembered for its terrible setbacks: the
1960-61 famine that followed Mao's abortive Great Leap Forward and the
1966-76 political reign of terror and persecution known as the Great
Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

But particularly in the early stages of Communist rule, in the 1950s,
the country benefited from the land redistribution, introduction of
compulsory universal education, adoption of simplified Chinese
characters that led to greater literacy, and the introduction of health
and welfare policies and other reforms that helped restore the
country's spirit and self-respect.

Although it is much more controversial today, the Communist crackdown
on religion, superstition, secret societies, triads and clans may also
have helped the country break the cycle of endemic poverty.

"China's relative advantage over India," argues Harvard economist
Amartya Sen, a native of India's West Bengal, "is a product of its pre-
reform [pre-1979] groundwork rather than its post-reform redirection."

For most of the past half a century, the standard of living in India
and China was about the same. In terms of infrastructure--rail
transport and roads--and an established civil service, India actually
started out considerably ahead of China. After independence, both
countries made halting progress.

But even as late as 1960, both had poor records in reducing
illiteracy, malnutrition and infant mortality rates. China was in the
midst of the world's last great famine, the terrible extent of which is
only now coming to light. In India in 1960, life expectancy at birth
was only 44; in China it was 47.

In their early years of independence, both countries were largely
dependent on foreign aid and expertise--China leaned on its
Communist "Big Brother," the Soviet Union; India relied on the British
Commonwealth and Western donor countries. China under Mao, however,
abruptly broke its ties with the Soviet Union in 1962, while India
remains a major recipient of Western foreign aid.

By the late 1970s, even before the economic reforms introduced by Deng
took effect, China began to surge ahead of India in almost every
measure of economic and social development.

Now, in the most recent Human Development Index of countries--based on
a combination of literacy, longevity and average income--the United
Nations Development Program gives China a rating of 60, near the top of
all developing countries. India gets a rating of just 44; in Asia, the
only countries ranked below India are Laos and Bangladesh.

India's 'Functional Anarchy'

Today, India is the world's largest democracy--a wildly chaotic land
of extremes, of clashing cultures and castes and of deep, engulfing
religiosity. It is also a land of problems, of wrenching poverty and
simmering ethnic hatreds. "Functional anarchy," U.S. Sen. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) called it while ambassador to New Delhi
during the Kennedy administration.

While the caste system and pervasive discrimination against women
greatly limit India's freedom, there are dramatic examples of its
resilient democracy.

In Kalahandi, a remote, arid district of Orissa, India's poorest
state, officials with the national Human Rights Commission reported
last year that at least 12 people had starved to death.

Investigating the death of Balamati Naik, 45, a widow who died in
Kalahandi's Bolangir district on June 6, 1996, the Human Rights
Commission team reported: "Deceased, a widow, fell sick and could not
earn her livelihood and died a slow death due to hunger. Son (7 years)
was evacuated to mission hospital in serious condition due to hunger."

At the same time that people were starving in Kalahandi, however,
local political officials reported a record turnout for local elections
in which the famine was only one of many campaign issues.

"There were starvation deaths, yet at the same time there were
genuinely competitive elections," said Manoranjan Mohanty, a Delhi
University scholar and Orissa native. "Starving people voted."

To Mohanty, this represents the Indian paradox: "There has been an
expansion of Indian democracy right down to the grass roots. . . .
Poverty and inequality coexist with a rising sense of right, increasing
consciousness."

China is the world's last great Communist authoritarian state. It is
ruled by a regime with blood on its hands. Its leaders are responsible
for terrible persecutions and purges, the subjugation of Tibet, a
military slaughter of civilians in 1989 and a man-made famine that
killed 23 million to 30 million people--more than double the estimated
toll of the Holocaust.

Yet China is also a land of progress and achievement, a country that
leads the world in economic growth and, as the new millennium
approaches, is on the verge on conquering the centuries-old blights of
poverty and illiteracy.

"India and China are the two most populated countries on Earth," said
Ding Haiqing, 76, a retired silkworm breeder who lives with his wife
and extended family in a large brick home in a prosperous area of
Jiangsu province. "At the beginning of the modern age, they were
somewhat equal. India was a colonial country. China was a semi-colonial
country. India took the capitalist road. China took the Communist road.

"From the facts," said Ding, smugly surveying his courtyard and
meticulously tended rose garden, "I can tell you that China chose the
right path from a poor and backward country to a comparatively advanced
country."

To say, as Ding suggested, that India chose the "capitalist road" is
misleading. Before the period of reforms, both countries espoused a
socialist model for their economies, although India's was designed with
democratic safeguards. It embraced the socialist-democratic model then
prevalet in post-World War II Europe.

China, which followed the Soviet model that lifted Russia from a big
but backward agrarian state to a global superpower before its 1991
collapse, granted total power to the Communist Party; Beijing continues
to crack down severely on any form of dissent.

But somehow the Chinese state, despite the limits on individual
freedom, has been more receptive to change and imported ideas. India,
even with its impressive democracy, was almost 20 years behind China in
giving up a discredited economic system based on a failed Soviet model.

"China has been described as a 'closed system with open minds,' "
commented Kito de Boer, a New Delhi-based consultant with McKinsey &
Co. "India is often described as an 'open system with closed minds.' "

Power Balance Imperiled

Four of every 10 people on Earth live in India or China. How the two
countries fare is sure to have enormous impact on the rest of the
world. The breakdown or failure of either place--given their
demographic weight--could create a wave of migration unlike any seen
before.

Great disparities in development in the two nations--boasting the
world's two largest armies--could disrupt the Asian balance of power.
Unchecked development threatens the world's environment.

Comparing the fortunes of the two Asian giants has long been a parlor
game. "Model for Asia--China or India?" asked a 1955 article in the
Hong Kong-based Far Eastern Economic Review magazine. "Millions in Asia
are watching closely the Indian and the Chinese prototypes of basic
change."

But the comparison has taken on new urgency as the world watches the
very different ways in which the two countries and their governments
meet the Malthusian challenges of overpopulation and underdevelopment.
India is on track to surpass China as the world's most populous country
sometime early in the next century.

"China is the only country in the world comparable with India in terms
of population," said Harvard economist Sen, one of a growing number of
scholars of the India-China question, "and when they began their modern
era, they had similar levels of impoverishment and distress.

"For me," Sen noted, "the most important thing is that they were so
very similar in the 1940s, so very similar in economic and social
development until the 1970s. That makes it very natural to ask how they
have progressed since then."

China's Progress

So far, at least, China has better met Nehru's challenge of
eliminating "poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of
opportunity."

Since 1960, for example, China has added more than 20 years to its
citizens' life expectancy. Chinese men live an average of 69 years,
Chinese women 71 years. Life expectancy in India, while up, averages 62
years.

In literacy, the differences are more pronounced. Despite a decade of
turmoil--the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, when many schools were shut--
China has achieved an adult literacy rate of 81% of its population,
compared with 52% for India.

Meanwhile, China's young are moving close to the once seemingly
impossible goal of universal literacy. In China, only 3% of adolescent
boys and 8% of adolescent girls are illiterate. In India, more than a
quarter of adolescent boys and almost half of adolescent girls are
illiterate.

In almost all economic categories, China lopsidedly surpasses India.
In 1990-94, China's average annual growth of gross domestic product was
12.9%, compared with 3.8% for India. India's per capita GDP in 1994,
$320, was just 60% of China's $530.

India is losing the superiority it once had, dating from the British
raj, in railroads and roads. China just finished two rail lines--one
linking Beijing and Hong Kong, another tying Shanghai to the far
western Xinjiang region--and now matches India's total rail mileage.

China's cities--even in the poorest provinces--are booming with
construction and development. Haidar, India's top-ranking foreign
service official, recalled his shock when, while he was ambassador in
Beijing, China announced that, in just 10 months, it would rebuild a
major road ringing the capital and construct more than a dozen
overpasses.

"And then," he noted, "I watched them do exactly what they said they
would. . . . Imagine my dismay when I returned to Delhi and we had not
even finished the one fly-over [overpass] that was under construction
when I left."

Key to China's success, say many experts who have compared the
development of the two countries, are land reforms instituted shortly
after the Communists took power.

Jonathan D. Spence, a Yale University historian, has found that, in
the years just after the 1949 Communist victory, 40% of land in China's
south and central agricultural region was seized from landlords and
redistributed--benefiting about 60% of China's peasants.

Confrontations between peasants and landlords were bathed in blood. It
is estimated that one in every six landlord families suffered at least
one death. The toll in just one year--1950--is believed to have reached
1 million.

But the violent reforms resulted in much more equitable distribution
of China's most precious resource, its limited supply of arable land.

Land Reforms Eroding

There are signs that land reforms are now being eroded in parts of the
Chinese countryside. Chinese farmers are still banned from direct
land "ownership," but many have amassed relatively large holdings that
they manage and operate in a way virtually indistinguishable from
ownership.

Chen Xinghan, 63, was the seventh child in a peasant family in China's
Anhui province. When he was just 6 years old he went to work in a rich
landlord's household. He earned extra money by begging. He joined
Communist forces, became a "grass-roots" cadre and helped break up
large holdings in the Fengyang district where he still lives.

Now, he runs one of the largest private farms in the province--more
than 200 acres--and is one of the richest people in the area. He also
owns a brick factory and a rice processing plant. He employs 133
people, including 13 farmhands.

A member of the Communist Party, Chen is proud of his wealth,
attributing it to Deng's philosophy that "to get rich is glorious."

"I am a landlord," he said in a recent interview in one of his five
personal homes. "But I am a landlord who serves the peasants. I am not
a capitalist, but I want to lead all the peasants to get rich."

But for a few exceptions--notably agriculturally rich Punjab and
Communist-led West Bengal--land reform never came to India.

"In contrast with China," said Delhi University's Mohanty, "India's
developmental strategy did not ensure that the land belonged to the
tiller, so absentee-landlordism, sharecropping and concealed
landlordism are still the norm in most areas."

India's two most populous states--Uttar Pradesh and Bihar--are still
plagued by a near-feudal system of absentee landlords and tenant
farming.

"I know it is heretical," said Nick Bridge, a New Zealand diplomat who
served in Beijing and until recently was ambassador to India, "but I
think one of the main reasons that China has an advantage is that it
underwent a violent revolution. The Communists killed the landlords.
India still has them, and they are dragging the country down."

China, like the Soviet Union, launched a mostly disastrous program of
collective farming that reached a low in the 1958-61 Great Leap
Forward. In that program, instituted by Mao as an accelerated way to
communism, peasants were forced to join production brigades and eat in
communal kitchens.

The result was a breakdown in the food production system and the
famine that experts now believe killed up to 30 million. The communal
kitchens were abandoned in 1962. The collective farms lingered until
1979, when Deng initiated a "household contract system" that lets
peasants till their own land and sell their harvests on the open
market.

But the essential reforms--land redistribution--that occurred at the
time of the revolution remained intact. Once freed from the collective,
Chinese farmers prospered--quickly. Some centralized, communal aspects
of the system remain and help Chinese peasants organize and coordinate
efforts.

"China has made progress in areas where we have not," M. S.
Swaminathan, a renowned agronomist and an architect of India's "green
revolution" in agriculture, said in an interview at the Madras-based
Swaminathan Research Foundation. "Because of the very possibility of
social mobilization under a single political party, they have been able
to get better control of water and pest management.

"The Chinese," he said, "have an integrated approach to job creation
between the farm and off-farm employment which we have not had in this
country. The result in India has been the proliferation of urban slums
as landless poor people migrate to the big cities of Bombay and
Calcutta and Madras, living in utter squalor and deprivation."

China's population increase and agricultural modernization have also
produced surplus labor. An estimated 80 million to 100 million people--
the "floating population"--are internal migrants, manual laborers,
construction workers and curbside vendors in the major cities. But
several studies report that an additional 100 million of these people
were absorbed by outlying "township enterprises" that India has never
developed.

"The main reason that, economically speaking, China is doing so much
better than India," Mohanty said, "is the difference in the political
systems that resulted from the kinds of revolutions the two countries
went through. I think the Chinese were forced to face the challenge
right from the beginning. From 1949 onward, they had to justify their
revolution by providing some basic economic needs, partly because they
were constantly under attack from the West.

"In India, we also had great values. But at the end of the freedom
struggle, there were great compromises. . . . The basic needs of the
people got postponed for the vast majority of people."

In fits and starts in the past five years, India has begun to
institute market liberalization and reforms that China began in the
1980s.

Now, many foreign business analysts are optimistic about India's
potential. "We basically advised our clients that they need to be
[investing] in both China and India," said Dominique Turcq, an analyst
with McKinsey & Co. who directed a huge 1995 study comparing the "two
giants of the 21st century."

That study, the most exhaustive economic comparison of the two markets
from an investment perspective, predicts that, "in the next decade,
both India and China will see sustainable growth."

Democracy Inhibits Growth

India's vibrant democracy, Turcq said in an interview in Paris, where
he is now based, in some ways inhibits the government's ability to spur
growth. A democratic government, for example, must pay closer attention
to inflation and respond to "strong, established lobbies."

But foreign investors who have worked in both places often find
India's civil society easier to understand and more dependable.

"Democracy puts limits on what you can do in brutalizing the economy,"
Turcq said. "But it does give you more stability. India will probably
never grow at 12% a year like China. But it will have stability."

Other observers are not so sure. What the strictly business analyses
of India fail to take into account, they say, are growing divisions
among castes, religions and economic classes--the haves and the have-
nots.

China's ability to convert quickly to a market economy can be
attributed in part to the country's attention to the most basic social
needs. So while Mao's party may have been seeking to reach a perfect
Communist state--by instituting universal education and public health
care and improving the status of women--it also laid the groundwork for
a market economy.

"The force of China's market economy rests on the solid foundations of
social changes that occurred earlier," said economist Sen. "India
cannot simply jump onto that bandwagon without paying attention to the
enabling social changes--in education, health care and land reforms--
that made the market function in the way it has in China."

Meanwhile, a working measure of success for the two titans may lie in
the question posed by former U.S. diplomat Jay Taylor in his 1987
book, "The Dragon and the Wild Goose," which compares the
nations: "Would you rather be the poorest man in China or in India?"

Rone Tempest, The Times' Beijing Bureau chief since 1993 and New Delhi
Bureau chief from 1984 to 1988, reported these stories in India and
China.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

bo...@iname.com

unread,
Aug 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/14/99
to
I am not sure what exactly is the verdict of TIME magazine. As usual it
has produced yet another superficial analysis for the consumption of its
lay readres who want some exotic article to escape boring
advertisements. It does not notes the important fact that China went
totally capitalist (de facto) in 1979 when Deng Xio-Ping took power.
India kept crawling under stupid Congress economic policies based on
Nehruvian socialism till it went bankrupt in 1991 and lost Soviet
support. In China there are no courts, no laws and no judge for all
practical purpose. Local communist party chief is the ruler of that area
and for a hefty bribe (guanxi) he will fix everything for you. China
makes a businessman's life much simpler as there are no hurdles after
you pay bribe once. In India after you have paid bribe to everyone from
Minister to the gatekeeper, the court can step in on a petition costing
50 rupees and stop your project costing 1000 crores. Enron paid over 30
crores to lawyers to fight its case against Maharashtra govt. India can
never catch up with progressive countries till its fixes its
outrageously archaic judicial system and eliminates corruption. Right
now we have the worst of both & capitalist and socilist system.
bossy
icle <7p4eq2$29e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Anup Pradhan

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
ano...@my-deja.com writes:

>How China Beat India in Race for Success Half a century ago, Asia's
>giants took divergent paths to the future. Today, India ponders why it
>lags so badly in improving the lives of its people.

> By RONE TEMPEST, TIMES STAFF WRITER

>Los Angeles Times Sunday August 10, 1997 Home Edition Part A, Page 1


Nowhere in this article does it even passively mention that
Chinese ecnonomic stats are 'cooked'. Why? Because its
an american magazine written from an american point of view.
Check out past ariticles from a well known british magazine
called the enonomist and you'll see what I mean.
After dumping tens of billions of dollars into china american
industry is slowly finding out that it is too unpredictable a
place to do buisiness. It not an easy place to make money.
Non of this was every mentioned in the article, why?

Anup Pradhan

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
bo...@iname.com writes:

>I am not sure what exactly is the verdict of TIME magazine. As usual it
>has produced yet another superficial analysis for the consumption of its
>lay readres who want some exotic article to escape boring
>advertisements. It does not notes the important fact that China went
>totally capitalist (de facto) in 1979 when Deng Xio-Ping took power.
>India kept crawling under stupid Congress economic policies based on
>Nehruvian socialism till it went bankrupt in 1991 and lost Soviet
>support. In China there are no courts, no laws and no judge for all
>practical purpose. Local communist party chief is the ruler of that area
>and for a hefty bribe (guanxi) he will fix everything for you. China
>makes a businessman's life much simpler as there are no hurdles after
>you pay bribe once. In India after you have paid bribe to everyone from
>Minister to the gatekeeper, the court can step in on a petition costing
>50 rupees and stop your project costing 1000 crores. Enron paid over 30
>crores to lawyers to fight its case against Maharashtra govt. India can
>never catch up with progressive countries till its fixes its
>outrageously archaic judicial system and eliminates corruption. Right
>now we have the worst of both & capitalist and socilist system.
>bossy


There is just as much corruption in China as well. The age old
art of 'palm-greasing' is a well known chinese business practice
that occurs not only in China itself but thoughout Southeast Asia
as well whose buisiness are largely controled by the chinese
businessmen.

Bholu

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
In article <7p67u5$b48$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, a...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk ( Anup
Pradhan) wrote:

> ano...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >How China Beat India in Race for Success Half a century ago, Asia's
> >giants took divergent paths to the future. Today, India ponders why it
> >lags so badly in improving the lives of its people.
>
> > By RONE TEMPEST, TIMES STAFF WRITER
>
> >Los Angeles Times Sunday August 10, 1997 Home Edition Part A, Page 1
>
>

> Nowhere in this article does it even passively mention that
> Chinese ecnonomic stats are 'cooked'. Why? Because its
> an american magazine written from an american point of view.

In addition, bot only is the title premature
the article is outdated by 2 years. For example
the literacy rate in India is 70% not 52%.

Mirza Ghalib

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
However, there is no denying the Chinese have surged far ahead
of India in most fields. The failure of India has been in
forming a cohesive socity. We are reaping the results of
Gandhi-ism and Nehru-ism. People like VPSingh (Mandal) and
Indira Gandhi (open doors to foreigners) further damaged
the social fabric of India.

Bholu wrote:
>
> In article <7p67u5$b48$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, a...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk ( Anup
> Pradhan) wrote:
>
> > ano...@my-deja.com writes:
> >

> > >How China Beat India in Race for Success Half a century ago, Asia's
> > >giants took divergent paths to the future. Today, India ponders why it
> > >lags so badly in improving the lives of its people.
> >
> > > By RONE TEMPEST, TIMES STAFF WRITER
> >
> > >Los Angeles Times Sunday August 10, 1997 Home Edition Part A, Page 1
> >
> >

> > Nowhere in this article does it even passively mention that
> > Chinese ecnonomic stats are 'cooked'. Why? Because its
> > an american magazine written from an american point of view.
>
> In addition, bot only is the title premature
> the article is outdated by 2 years. For example

> the literacy rate in India is 70% not 52%.

Bholu

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
Whatever the reasons, and Kunal has some
good ones, it is no doubt that China has
indeed outperformed India significantly
in the 1980s. The gap may be smaller than
statistics tell (after all the interior of
China - Sichuan, Yunan, etc. - far behind
the coastal cities that are usually featured
in news) but it is real and India needs
to close that gap substantially before it
gets any wider.

Mirza is correct. The gormint, under Nehru et.
al. (especially Indira) got out of the business
of education, health and law and order (which
is the first order of business) and spent public
money on public sector enterprises that paid
little or no return and made the cost of capital
expensive for all - EVEN TO THIS DAY.

In article <37B4AC79...@dti.net>, Kunal Singh <ksi...@dti.net> wrote:

> Mirza Ghalib wrote:
>
> > However, there is no denying the Chinese have surged far ahead
> > of India in most fields. The failure of India has been in
> > forming a cohesive socity. We are reaping the results of
> > Gandhi-ism and Nehru-ism. People like VPSingh (Mandal) and
> > Indira Gandhi (open doors to foreigners) further damaged
> > the social fabric of India.
> >
>

Devadatta Mukutmoni

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
In article <bholu-15089...@252.minneapolis-13-14rs.mn.dial-access.att.net> bh...@hotmail.com (Bholu) writes:
> In addition, bot only is the title premature
> the article is outdated by 2 years. For example
> the literacy rate in India is 70% not 52%.

Exactly.

And given China's habit of exaggerating stats to make them look
good, I don't believe China's literacy stats and other health
indicators are significantly better than India's. But, still
"Scholars" like Amartya Sen, insist that we must emulate the
Chinese.

In fact most of them ignore the changes that occurred after 1991.
India after 1991 is *much different* from the Nehruvian pre-1991.


ker873

unread,
Aug 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/15/99
to
Lets give credit where credit is due and learn from the mistakes.
China has outperformed India because the government was
wise in pushing through economic reforms. In India we keep on
dilly dallying forever. Witness the Insurance reforms and the telecom
reforms. In the US, decisions are made in weeks or at most months,
but in India, they take years. No wonder India is always left behind.

One measure of the success of China is to consider exports. China
exports $200 billion worth of exports ( and this does not include HK
which does another 150 billion).

This is the key reason why China is rich. They generate a trade
surplus of 45 billion US dollars every year and this surplus is used
for beneficial projects like infrastructure, military, etc.

India does not even pass 40 billion in exports and we have a narrow
basket of exports. We dont make things the rest of the world wants,
unlike China which exports large quantities of toys, shoes, electronic
equipment, chemicals, etc.

India has a lot to learn from China, not withstanding the unreliable
stats that come out of China. Just use the US stats for imports from
China to see how successful china is and why they are getting rich.

Devadatta Mukutmoni wrote in message <7p7p3q$alb$1...@panix.com>...

Anup Pradhan

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to

I agree that China's export performance is much better than
that of India. The point I'm trying to make is how shallow
these US magazines such as TIME and Newsweek can be
when doing these comparisons. Accurate stats are usually
'bent' or omitted altogether if it doesn't suit the author's
veiwpoint.

Living in the US and now Britain my feeling is that dispite
Japan, Taiwan or stolen nuclear secrets, the US seems to
'love' the chinese. Along with the Phillipines, its was the
closest thing they had to a colony. You don't here much about
China in the European press because the the European countries
don't have as much investment as the US in this country.

Anup Pradhan

unread,
Aug 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/16/99
to
Mirza Ghalib <urv...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>However, there is no denying the Chinese have surged far ahead
>of India in most fields. The failure of India has been in
>forming a cohesive socity. We are reaping the results of
>Gandhi-ism and Nehru-ism. People like VPSingh (Mandal) and
>Indira Gandhi (open doors to foreigners) further damaged
>the social fabric of India.


What was china's GDP growth last year 20% and its industrial
growth 50%? I know I'm exagerating but all this while Hong Kong
is in a deep recession and most of east asia is flat on its back.
Ha, very believable. Read last weeks article in the economist on
the possible devaluation of the Yuan. Leading consultant agencies
figure China is currently in recession. They'll never mention this
information in rags such as Newsweek and TIME.

BSuseel

unread,
Aug 17, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/17/99
to
You guys are right. China is in recession, and Chinese Govt. is ready to
devalue its currency. Everyone know that nobody ever made any profit by
investing in China, whereas Indian stock market reaps profit.
Anyway, Chinese infrastructure is much more advanced than India, and Chinese
people are more disciplined than Indians in India. Future peace between India
and China is very important for the stability of Asia, and India and China
should establish strategic alliances in education, health, trade and
investment. Genuine friendship between Chinese people and Indians is very
important for any long lasting relationship between these giants. Indians
should repect Chinese, and vice versa.

BJ

Tony Tant

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Kunal Singh <ksi...@dti.net> wrote:

: Ha, ha, ha! It is interesting how people attribute success to the strangest


: things! With authors claiming now that the communist government of China has
: actually encouraged free-market economic reform simply points to how stupid
: intellectuals can be.

: Communist China has prospered for a single reason, its proximity to Japan, Hong
: Kong and Taiwan. All countries within this region have prospered significantly
: due to the economic revolution brought about by the Japanese. All major
: Chinese economic centers such as Shanghai are on the east coast and I'm sure
: that no matter how much the Chinese government tried, smuggling goods within
: the region could not have been difficult at all. It is time for India to
: seriously worry about opening a land-based trading route to the far-east.

Actually I would disagree with that. FDI in PRC did not really takeoff
until the early 1990s. But from 1978-1988 the PRC had an averge annual
GDP growth of over 9%. The 1978-1984 period actually say most of the
economic reform in the rural sector, per capita income of PRC farmers
doubled in that period. In the same period, the wealthy coastal area of
the PRC actually had a lower rate of economic growth then the rural
interior. After 1984, the reform process switched to rural industry again
in the interior areas but areas such a GuangDong, Fujian and Shangdong
also saw rapid economic growth in light industry. We should note that in
the 1978-1991 period the GDP growth of Shanghai WAS THE LOWEST OF ALL
AREAS IN THE PRC. The 1991-1998 period, of course, say faster economic
progress in the coastal areas than the interior, but the gap is not that
wide. On the whole, the economic gap between the interior of the PRC and
the coastal areas in 1998 IS LOWER THAN IN 1978. The key was agriculture
reform and reform of light rural industry.

--
****************************************** Wen-Kai(Tony) Tang
* Abolish ALL taxes and tariffs NOW !!!! * tt...@village.ios.com
* World free trade NOW !!!! * IDT
****************************************** Long Live Republic of China !!!!

Tony Tant

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Anup Pradhan <a...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

: There is just as much corruption in China as well. The age old


: art of 'palm-greasing' is a well known chinese business practice
: that occurs not only in China itself but thoughout Southeast Asia
: as well whose buisiness are largely controled by the chinese
: businessmen.

This fact I do not deny. Then again, mutiple surveys show that corruption
on the PRC is lower then that of its competitors, like Indonesia and of
course, India.

Tony Tant

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Anup Pradhan <a...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:


: Nowhere in this article does it even passively mention that


: Chinese ecnonomic stats are 'cooked'. Why? Because its
: an american magazine written from an american point of view.

: Check out past ariticles from a well known british magazine


: called the enonomist and you'll see what I mean.
: After dumping tens of billions of dollars into china american
: industry is slowly finding out that it is too unpredictable a
: place to do buisiness. It not an easy place to make money.
: Non of this was every mentioned in the article, why?

While the economic figures of the PRC are not up to par as the advanced
Western standards, the econmic progrss of the PRC since 1978 has been
there for all to see. Multiple surveys show that there have been no
upward bias in the economic figures of the PRC. As for FDI, the level of
actuall FDI entering PRC in 1999 is not that much lower then the 1996-1998
period. PRC is still, by far, the 2nd largest recipient of FDI in the
world, second to the USA.

Tony Tant

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Devadatta Mukutmoni <mu...@panix.com> wrote:

: And given China's habit of exaggerating stats to make them look


: good, I don't believe China's literacy stats and other health
: indicators are significantly better than India's. But, still
: "Scholars" like Amartya Sen, insist that we must emulate the
: Chinese.

??? Sorry, go talk to the World Bank, IMF, and UN. There is no dispute on
the level lf literacy and life expentency and so on for the PRC.

: In fact most of them ignore the changes that occurred after 1991.


: India after 1991 is *much different* from the Nehruvian pre-1991.

Well, in the late 1980s, India also enjoyed a spurt of economic growth,
with the peak year of 1988. But that was built on a high current-account
deficit. The boom of 1990s are built on more solid foundations, but to
say the India before 1991 had no period of rapid economic growth is not
true.

Tony Tant

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Bholu <bh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Whatever the reasons, and Kunal has some

: good ones, it is no doubt that China has
: indeed outperformed India significantly
: in the 1980s. The gap may be smaller than
: statistics tell (after all the interior of
: China - Sichuan, Yunan, etc. - far behind
: the coastal cities that are usually featured
: in news) but it is real and India needs
: to close that gap substantially before it
: gets any wider.

Let us be fair. If we take PPP figures, the GDP/capita of the PRC in 1998
was $3860 to $1760 of India. Projections for 2010 expects that gap to
grow to $9740 to $3655. I concur that the income per capita in places
like GuiZhou lags far behind the advanced areas. Actually Sichuan and
Yunnan are that far behind PRC average. But let us compare apples to
apples and oranges to oranges. Areas like Shanghai, Fujian, Zhejian and
Guangdong are wealthier then places like Maharshtra and Gujarat and
places like GuiZhou and Gansu are a good deal ahead of places like Bihar.
The gap is there, on the order of 2-2.5 to 1.

Tony Tant

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Anup Pradhan <a...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

: What was china's GDP growth last year 20% and its industrial


: growth 50%? I know I'm exagerating but all this while Hong Kong
: is in a deep recession and most of east asia is flat on its back.
: Ha, very believable. Read last weeks article in the economist on
: the possible devaluation of the Yuan. Leading consultant agencies
: figure China is currently in recession. They'll never mention this
: information in rags such as Newsweek and TIME.

But they define recession to be GDP growth of less then 6%. The PRC also
had a recession back in 1989-1990 when GDP growth fell to around 4%. That
could very well happend again but is unlikely, it could dip to 6% or so
but PRC government intervention will most likely prevent a repeat of
1989-1990. As for devaulation, it was always expected that the PRC will
devalue in 2000 after the Asian Crisis has passed so it would be blamed
for making the crisis worse. I see a possiblity of such a devaluation not
even coming although last year I was expecting it in 2000. It is still
very likely but I could see all kinds of senerios where it does not take
place.

Anup Pradhan

unread,
Aug 18, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/18/99
to
Tony Tant <tt...@IDT.NET> writes:

>Anup Pradhan <a...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>: What was china's GDP growth last year 20% and its industrial
>: growth 50%? I know I'm exagerating but all this while Hong Kong
>: is in a deep recession and most of east asia is flat on its back.
>: Ha, very believable. Read last weeks article in the economist on
>: the possible devaluation of the Yuan. Leading consultant agencies
>: figure China is currently in recession. They'll never mention this
>: information in rags such as Newsweek and TIME.

>But they define recession to be GDP growth of less then 6%. The PRC also
>had a recession back in 1989-1990 when GDP growth fell to around 4%. That
>could very well happend again but is unlikely, it could dip to 6% or so
>but PRC government intervention will most likely prevent a repeat of
>1989-1990. As for devaulation, it was always expected that the PRC will
>devalue in 2000 after the Asian Crisis has passed so it would be blamed
>for making the crisis worse. I see a possiblity of such a devaluation not
>even coming although last year I was expecting it in 2000. It is still
>very likely but I could see all kinds of senerios where it does not take
>place.

I'm not going to waste time arguing with you. The economist says
that China's economic stats are cooked, that's what I'll believe.
When they say most consultancies shave 2% points off China's GDP growth
and industrial growth, well that's seems pretty fair to me.

bo...@iname.com

unread,
Aug 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/19/99
to
China is booming, there is no doubt about it. Even though its
statistics are not transparent, still there are a lot of things that
cannot be fudged. For instance its trade surplus and foreign reserves
are for every one to see and they indeed impressive. India has to learn
how to replicate China's push into becoming a major manufacturing
giant. However India is captive at the hands of its dinosaur like
politicians who can't care less for country if their pockets are lined.
China has as much corruption as India, however things are smoother to
accomplish there unlike India where a plethora of authorities, myriad
socialist laws, and tortoise like courts deter foreign investors from
entering India to set up factories. China did not achieve this
progress from either its own money ot its own entrepreneurs. Foreigners
did it for China. If India has to attract foreign investment it can
only be by simplifying its investment laws, easing labor laws in favor
of industrialists and providing solid infrastructure. India is doing
none of that right now for all the noise it makes.
bossy
In article <7pf8l4$qso$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,

a...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk ( Anup Pradhan) wrote:

Anup Pradhan

unread,
Aug 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/19/99
to
bo...@iname.com writes:

>China is booming, there is no doubt about it. Even though its
>statistics are not transparent, still there are a lot of things that
>cannot be fudged. For instance its trade surplus and foreign reserves
>are for every one to see and they indeed impressive. India has to learn
>how to replicate China's push into becoming a major manufacturing
>giant. However India is captive at the hands of its dinosaur like
>politicians who can't care less for country if their pockets are lined.
>China has as much corruption as India, however things are smoother to
>accomplish there unlike India where a plethora of authorities, myriad
>socialist laws, and tortoise like courts deter foreign investors from
>entering India to set up factories. China did not achieve this
>progress from either its own money ot its own entrepreneurs. Foreigners
>did it for China. If India has to attract foreign investment it can
>only be by simplifying its investment laws, easing labor laws in favor
>of industrialists and providing solid infrastructure. India is doing
>none of that right now for all the noise it makes.
>bossy


More hype in american so called news rags. Check this article out:

China bans new consumer goods
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_424000/424093.stm

Its about over production, deflation and the decline of the
social welfare system in China.

Manu

unread,
Aug 19, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/19/99
to
Anup Pradhan wrote:
>
> >bossy
>
> More hype in american so called news rags. Check this article out:

I think you are missing the point. West (US in particular)
doesn't want china to be economically developed. All they
want is a cheap manufacturing base (cheaper the better),
so in their opinion, deflation is a good thing. They hope
India can be a similar base for cheap software & service
based Industry. Hence they sell the idea of an almost
developed china to the rest of the world.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages