Why no love for India? - Page 7

View Poll Results :Will India or China rise up in the future to take the lead in Asia?
India 11 26.19%
China 29 69.05%
Other (please specify) 2 4.76%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

November 20th, 2004  
It's all a game
Like India, China has been too weak (since it was strong last time) not to be neglected...

Now, "Why no love for India?" I think that it's because India has not made it as easy (as China has) for corporations of the West to make money there. People love money. If you give them opportunities to make money, they'll rush to you and talk about you every day.
November 20th, 2004  
Originally Posted by NgoDinhdiem
i think india is not quite as confident as it should be. Indian seem like there jelous of China success and the attention it recieve from the west whethere its good or bad attention. I dont know why Asians can't work together like Europeans.
I know lots of India who are sad that the west especially Americans dont know nothing about their country and culture. 99% of Americans probably wouldn't even be able to tell you where India is on the map.
"This is what I think" -

I think to some extent that is true.But I think its common in any part of the world to be jealous of another neigbouring country which gets more attention.I think the jealousy or whatever you may call it might originate from the fact that Indians nowadays have started comparing themselves with China, in every aspect, and hence they look towards China as a competitor rather than just another country.Also we try to compare them culture wise, like two great Asian cultures, so its like when china gets attention, why shouldn't we....like that kind of attitude.

Also the general feeling among the concerned ppl here is that we have been left alone by the West.I'll give you an example ,India has more number students studying in the USA than China every year.....ppl here speak far more better english than the chinese....India has far more number than chinese or japansese working at NASA....India has far more number of ppl working at Microsoft than China or Japan....Chinese martial arts have their roots in India 'kalaripayat' from kerala....chinese buddhism originated in India. etc. etc.
Inspite of this go ask someone in USA to name two countries from asia...they'll quickly say China or Japan....don't even know much about india except poverty and the cow.....I think that feeling hurts....why no importance for us.If you will go and tell an ignorant USA kid that India has nukes and has a powerful military, he prolly get a jolting shock cos all that he knows about India is poverty and the cow.
But I think the problem is with us rather than blaming any other country, which is lack of self-respect.Like even before this poll started I knew china was going to win.Look at the margin now India-4, China-13.I think these things adds more to our inferiority complex.

This is my opinon and not what ppl of India think, and I'm a pessimist by attitude. .
November 20th, 2004  

It is true when ppl think about Asia, Asia only means the Eest Asia part, all the mongoloid people's part of the "complete Asia", oh also including the South East Asia. But definitely not India, Pakistan,and the Middle East.

Geographicially India and M.E. all are located in "Asia", but politically most ppl think only East and South Aisan countries are Asians, it is just a habbit of thinking.

Even for me, when ppl in Europe say Indians or Pakistanians are Asians, I got confused, are they Asians??

Then you know when ppl are asked what important countries are there in Asia, of course they will say China and Japan, because India does not "belong" to that Asia in their mind.
November 20th, 2004  

Topic: India and China: destined to converge?

Hi flyingfrog,

You know, it's interesting that in the US, where whose population has had a long interaction with Chinese and East Asians dating back over a hundred years, the term "Asian" usually means East Asian.

On the contrary, in UK, Caribbean and Africa, whose population's interaction with people from Asia has mainly been with India, the term "Asian" refers to "Indian"

...or if they are trying to be overly PC, it also can be referred to people from the rest of South Asia, so that Islamist Pakistani/Bangladeshi-White Supremicist riots in Birmingham became "Asian"-White riots, slandering the Indian community who really has nothing to do with them.

In European countries who has had relatively new experience with people from Asia, the term "Asian" refers to the population group of new immigrants: like for Turks and Arabians in Netherlands and Germany, Pakistanis in Scandinavia, and immigrants from Central Asia and Iran in Eastern Europe.

But when you want to be technical, from a geographic point of view, Europe is as much Asian as the Far East, India and the Middle East. We should all start to refer to them as "Far-West Asians"

Anyway, here's a brillaint article from IHT yesterday that explains the comparisons between the India and Chinese economies, and how wrong it is to compare the short-term results of such different systems, far better than I can in any post I write:

Commentary: India and China: destined to converge?

By Andy Mukherjee Bloomberg News
Friday, November 19, 2004

A recent newsletter from the management consultancy firm McKinsey presents three points of view on one of the hottest topics of debate: "China and India: The Race to Growth."

The contributors - a Harvard University professor and two McKinsey consultants - appear to agree on very little except that the two economies have adopted opposite growth models: China's way since 1978 has been state capitalism; India's path since 1991 has been private enterprise.

All three commentators have done a good job highlighting the Asian powerhouses' strengths and offering insights about which model may triumph.

Yet, none discussed the possibility that the paths followed by China and India may actually converge.

For the next 10 years, China will keep trumping India in industries that rely on "hard" infrastructure - roads, ports and power, the Harvard University professor Tarun Khanna says in his essay in the McKinsey Quarterly.

India will be ahead of China in biotechnology, computer software and other areas where "soft" infrastructure like a ready talent pool and private enterprise matter more than physical capital, Khanna says.

As for what happens after 10 years, "The conventional view that the Chinese model is unambiguously better of the two is wrong in many ways," says Khanna, a professor of strategy at Harvard Business School. "Each has its advantages. It's far from clear which will deliver the more sustainable growth."

India started opening up its economy in 1991, 13 years after China. Chinese policy makers welcomed foreign-direct investments and decided which domestic companies should get money to expand.

India, suspicious of foreigners because of its colonial past, depended on its local entrepreneurs, who as a group had much freer access to credit and capital markets than their counterparts in China.

China last year got $54 billion in foreign direct investment, ten times as much as India. China's expansion has outstripped India's 6 percent annual growth by an average 4 percentage points since 1980. The $1.4 trillion Chinese economy, Asia's second biggest after Japan, is three times India's size

"As India opens up further to foreign-direct investment," the Harvard professor concludes, "we might well discover that the country's more laissez-faire approach has nurtured the conditions that will enable free enterprise and economic growth to flourish more easily in the long run."

That may not happen, Jonathan Woetzel, a director in McKinsey's Shanghai office, says in his essay.

It's true that the Chinese government decides which companies should grow. It's also true that an efficient market would have allocated capital better and achieved the same amount of economic growth without the estimated $205 billion in bad loans that now burden the four major Chinese state-owned lenders and 11 commercial banks, in addition to the $230 billion transferred to asset managers since 1999.

Yet, "China is not an efficient market, and the Indian model," Woetzel writes, "essentially one with relatively little investment funding, whether by the government or the private sector, could not have achieved as much growth for the Chinese economy as the approach China's government actually took."

Diana Farrell, director of the McKinsey Global Institute, provides a third view. The auto industry is one where the Chinese and the Indian growth models are in close competition, she says.

India's car industry is half China's size of 1.76 million vehicles in 2003. Still, the productivity of foreign joint ventures in China is lower than in Japan or the United States. In India, local engineers have been innovative with design.

The Mumbai-based Mahindra & Mahindra has created Scorpio, a sports utility vehicle that sells for a fraction of an equivalent car in the United States, says Farrell.

So does the auto industry offer convincing evidence that India's laissez-faire system, which encourages local entrepreneurship, work better than China's combination of state capitalism and foreign investments? Not so fast, says Woetzel. Look at Geely Automobile Holdings, a Chinese maker of cheap cars for first-time buyers that is not state-supported.

Geely has about 5 percent of the Chinese market, and aims for 10 percent by 2010. "In five or ten years' time," Woetzel predicts, "at least a third of the Chinese auto industry will be completely private -nothing to do with the current state players. And this will have started with the state saying, 'We want to build a car industry."'

And that provides us with a fourth point of view. Communist China started with statism because it had no entrepreneurs. It's now moving toward a free market in capital and ideas to resemble India.

Democratic India had a strong tradition of private enterprise that blossomed around a weak state; the next step for India is to improve the country's physical infrastructure, something that will need a strong political will. In other words, what India needs now is a strong state.

A more India-like China and a more China-like India - that's how the two growth models may ultimately fuse.

On a 10-year time frame, the rivalry between the two nations is a race too close to call. In 2015, it may look like a race both can win.
November 20th, 2004  
Hi rajkhalsa,

Yes I read that article in Chinese forum too.

Both countries have some kinds of Advantages and Disadvantages in many aspects.

For me, for the coming 20 years, I prefer the current "State Controlled System" of China, it works much efficienter than "Democratic/Private Free systems". After 20 years, when ppl are getting really a bit rich, then you can start to give more powers in the hands of the "private" sectors in the economy.

Btw, I don't think China can beat India in Software Industry for 50 years, though I am not sure about it in 100 years
November 20th, 2004  
Economic growth have to be steady. Either than that, I don't consider China and India as Rivals. China is not aiming to outpace India. Instead they are trying to outpace European nations and also Japan. So therefore, there is no intended competition between the two.

Many people still consider them both bitter rivals, but there are no signs of major competition on certain products. Somebody pointed out that a handful of Indians have an obsession to compare themselves to China. After reading this article, I'm beginning to agree.

The reason why China is more prestigious and earn more recognition in the International Communitee (as for now) is because they have opened their doors wider and earlier than India. But, as I mentioned earlier, comparing China and India is like comparing Apples and Oranges.
November 20th, 2004  
what we need, is both economies to increase trade between the two countries in which would benefit each other: chinese domastic investors investing in india, while indian technology and all its goodie will go in turn to help china...

that is the best solution rite now, since we are all friends and theresno need for a split asia..

though trade will be hard, as only airlines provide efficient means of travel

but for freight, roads could be pirated, and the only good way is sea routes..

the only obsicle is india and pakastan to have peace, because da pak is chinas ally
November 20th, 2004  
A country's economic growth also reflects on its economic expansion in the world, like:

Britain's MG Rover in China talks
Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp would provide more than 1 billion pounds of cash into Britain's MG Rover:

China Minmetals $7 billion purchase of Canada's Noranda Mining Corporation

China is going to invest 20 billion USD in Argentine in coming 10 years

I heard Indian software companies are investing in China too last year, don't know how their bussiness is going there in Shanghai recently.
November 20th, 2004  
I believe China will be this worlds first socialist sucess to be honest. I think China will be the second greatest nation in this world and I believe that everyone someday have to choose wich political system they want to live in, when all this is finaly over. Well I have lived in a ****ed up socialist country all my life so I will pic the US but I will probably visit China someday in the future just for some recreation and relaxation.

November 20th, 2004  
lol Doc..

I feel pity to say, China is NOT true socialisme anymore, Sweden in general is well.

I love Socialisme and Communisme, but I feel pity to say, it does not work for us, we are way too un-civilized to claim we can build socialisme at this stage of mankind.

China is a market economy now, a primitive form of Capitalisme too. It will take quite some years ( I say 40 years) to be like Sweden or some other "socialist countries" in Northern Europe, Canada.

China now is a bit like that Germany after WW1, but yet not really like it. It is a big MIX of everything I would say.