Thanks for your non-reply.
"The example of China is cited frequently in his chronicle, the point being that there has been too much democracy and unbridled capitalism in India and hence the chaos in Kolkata especially compared to China. However, China has achieved its economic goals through the suppression of human freedom and a lack of transparency. For instance, between 1958-1962 China suffered the worst famine in human history when around 30 million people died of starvation following Mao’s ‘Great Leap Forward’. China’s brutal one-child policy that TSL acknowledges, has resulted in 90 million ‘missing’ women. Secrecy continues and is seen for instance in the suppression of news and follow-up on the SARS virus when the first cases occurred in November 2002. While India would have had a hard time dealing with the outbreak given its inferior public health care system, there would have been no cover up at the beginning and hence its domestic and certainly its international spread would have been much easier to contain.
The author admits to the existence of a free and competent press in India. Yet, make no mistake about their role in quickly disseminating information regarding a society’s ills that autocratic governments like to cover up. Nobel-prize winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen’s (not a sociologist and not Arunatha Sen, as stated by TSL!) point was not that economic growth and development occur only in democracies, but that large scale famines and other man-made calamities are less likely to occur (in fact large scale famines have not occurred in post-independence India) in democracies, and it would be difficult to hide the death toll from earthquakes or accidents in India like you could in post-revolutionary China. Undoubtedly, China leads in terms of economic growth. Figures just released from IMF’s World Economic Outlook project a 3.2% rate of growth for the global economy for 2003 and 4.2% for 2004. China’s economy is predicted to grow at 7.5% this year, and 7.2% next year while the respective figures for India are 5.1% and 5.9%. India’s democratic system has meant a slower growth rate but this is because opposing views have to be heard and accommodated in a federal system, that on the other hand protects its people from the huge loss of life and swings in policy that China’s system has fostered."
And...
Democratic pluralism ensures the rights of trade unions, environmentalists, feminists, dissenters of all kinds, and most importantly empowers, though not perfectly, the rights of the lower castes. Perhaps unknown to many in the West, India has a system of affirmative action for the historically underprivileged scheduled castes and tribes (SC/STs). Seats are reserved for them in all government institutions. In fact legislation passed in 1994, has now extended elections to the local level, villages and towns, and with the reservation of seats for women and the under-privileged, will ensure that their voices will be heard. Sure things can be better, but compared to China on the ‘people’s rights’ score, India does better.
I can not seem to be able to post the clickable link to the article. It is from Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.
www.iimcal.ac.in/newsandevents/fullarticle.asp?ID=186 |
