Will India win in the long run?

For last couple of weeks I am reading abt indo-china relation, abt overpowering India in the long run etc etc. I really find quite interesting. So would like to share with u ladies. What do u ladies think will India win in the long run??? I’m forwarding u the article frm TOI & here is the link-

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Will_China_win_in_the_long_run/articleshow/539848.cms


Will China win in the long run?
Ashwani Windlass

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" oreferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><vath o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></vath><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 7.5pt; HEIGHT: 7.5pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://images.photogallery.indiatimes.com/images/spacer.gif" src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/ADMINI~1/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/02/clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>


There is little to contend that this century belongs to India and China. Who will come first – India or China? This debate calls for a comparison of ground realities shaping the two nations.

Macro level first. We boast of a well-entrenched, successful democracy. We have a structure of states and the Centre. From village panchayats to Parliament, from lower courts to the Supreme Court, from small newspapers to the national media, from the junior-most officials to the Cabinet Secretary, we have a multiplicity of tiers for carving policies.

The system puts our best executive and political talent on the top chairs that think and speak far too much. They are divorced from the ground reality of implementation. Our systemic growth and evolution, therefore, are slow.

Our grand visions many times degenerate into weak, difficult-to-implement macro-level manoeuvres that are often without perspective. Upshot: we act an asymmetrical (mistaken often as pluralistic), dissension-filled society of divisions and dichotomies. Hence, what we plan, we do not realise. What we realise is far less than we, the people, are capable of. This is now almost an institutionalised widening of the gap between our reality and aspiration.

We make policies for individuals and not for the society. Therefore, the individual’s interest perpetuates and some, not all, individuals succeed. Society only benefits marginally. Whether society succeeds or not is a big question mark.

In China, the gigantic size of development hits you. It speaks loudly of a national vision, macro capability, management bandwidth and execution skills - all residing together with the central Communist leadership that rules the roost.

From Beijing to any far-flung city, the party is able to ride over dissent to implement any policy or project. The biggest surprise is the overarching elements of innovation and creative thinking that are key parts of an authoritarian think tank. This abundance of creative approach in building a nation is the single-most redeeming feature of China. This, together with their commitment, makes everything else wilt against their willpower to achieve. So while individuals gain, the system succeeds, as it is supreme.

 

So in India, when we build one Sardar Sarovar dam, thousands pour out to galvanise public opinion, right or wrong, in their favour. But when China decides to build the world’s biggest dam – the Three Gorges -- nobody gets to know how many get displaced and hopefully rehabilitated. Whether the executive and political talent of China is individually as good as ours may be questioned, but collectively, it is an unbeatable delivery machine.


Now, the micro level. An average Indian is a free bird. He can be born the poorest in the remotest part but can rise to the highest chair in the country. He can choose to work or not work. He can work wherever he wishes to work and whichever way he decides to work. The legacy of the value system favours the citizen, inflicting him with only softer indictments. He can be as ruthless as he chooses in his expression for or against anyone. Therefore, an Indian is supposedly in charge of his individual destiny.

The destiny of an average Chinese rests with the central command. He contributes more than what he gets, be it in urban or rural China. For past 25 years, he cannot have more than one child. Whether he works as a white or blue-collar worker, he has to maintain discipline. He has multiple responsibilities for civic behaviour. He cannot be unproductive in work or indulge in any economic crime.

Punitive deterrents are too severe. He may lose his work permit and revert to his village along with his family, ending his urban dream forever. At home, he has to look after his family comprising his wife and his one child, parents of both spouses. There could be grandparents too. All these, with little or no social security.

Clearly, the Chinese system holds the destiny for each Chinese. The system retains far too much of the individual contribution. Herein, therefore, lies the key difference between India and China, both at the micro and macro levels. Individually, we look superior but collectively as a nation lag behind in our system. Collectively, the Chinese appear to be outsmarting us, but individually, there is little succour for the average Chinese.

Both countries are at par in their capability and potential to harness capital. The demographics favour India which will remain a younger nation with the advantage of two to three decades over China – for that matter even over the US and Europe. If the Chinese leadership is able to relax and provide more space to individuals gradually in these decades for individual expression, and we Indians remain as unconscious of our collective responsibilities, the debate for who will be winner will be over before it starts.

In a nutshell, the Chinese system has to develop into how much it gives back to its citizens. We all believe nations with authoritarian regimes tend to break up. The Chinese may surprise us by slow but sure empowerment of individuals.

On the other hand, the Indian system needs to learn how to take back from individuals. Our institutions may never redeem themselves over individuals in our current format of democracy – not certainly in our pace of evolution in the critical next two or three decades. Therefore, the contrasts, though stark and striking, do throw clear pointers as to who may be the winner.

(The writer is Chairman, MGRM Net Limited)