Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : India Coffee House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JPR who wrote (8128)	10/11/1999 9:45:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12475

China developed faster than India because of their political system. Not necessarily so. There are many countries, as the author points out, in Africa and Latin America that had dictatorships and yet, failed to come anywhere near China in terms of development, and are at the bottom of heap, along with India and other South Asian nations. India, at best, can be described as a nearly hopelessly flawed democracy that has failed to achieve anything of substance post-independence. It is not enough if you have people voting every 5 years or, these days, more frequently. As the author says, democracies can succeed only if their institutional foundations are strong.

To: JPR who wrote (8128)	10/12/1999 6:26:00 PM
From: Shivram Hala	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12475

> China developed faster than India because of their > political system. .... the chinese Or the LACK OF IT. > it is time for India?s intelligentsia to > take a long, hard and critical look at > democracy Indian style. Very True, but thakore summarizes for all the wrong reasons. > The question needs to be posed and > squarely confronted: Is democracy as > propagated and practised in contemporary > India inimical to economic growth and > development? Yes. Thakore seeks to blame democracy for the ills not the people and the policies adopted by the politicians. > unlike India which had built an industrial base and had a > two per cent share of world trade at the time, China was > an overwhelmingly illiterate peasant economy with no > industrial base worth mentioning. > China GNP US $ 929 billion in 1998 vs $421 billion for > India. Moreover, in China, 91 per cent of the adult male > population and 75 per cent of the adult female population > is literate against 67 per cent of males and 39 per cent > of females in India. True. Although the problems were almost the same, the approach to the solution was different. One was forced. While the chinese forced economic policies and had no sustainable economy until a decade ago. China controlled it's population with laws that punished those with more than one child. And worse, millions have died from starvation (30-40). India's choices were limited, aggravated by nehruvian economics, and protectionist policies. Protectionist policies are needed for some time in some industries. Nehru's five year plans I think were disastriusly conceived. Stress should have been placed in education, and in growing the farming industry. Instead the five year plans built money losing industries, a workforce that resorted to striking frequently, a workforce that was not educated. Nehru's vision was .. build the factories and they will come to work. His elitist views didn't let him understand that people should know what a hammer is before they use it. As far as eductaion is concerned note that Kerala and WB have the highest literacies, and were bastions for communists. Incidentally they have also the least private industries to boast. > produce steel. An estimated 30 million > Chinese peasants died of starvation in > the countrywide famine which followed > this hare-brained socio-economic > engineering experiment. > Similarly, another estimated 10 million > people died when the whole nation > was turned inside out during the > Cultural Revolution led by ill-educated Red > Guards let loose upon the nation by > Chairman Mao in the sixties. And That is not even half the price they paid. It's easy to look at the material benefits and compare, but not freedom. Thakore forgets the current situation ex-communist countries are facing. That's why china will not overthrow communism as yet. If it did, it would leave hundreds of millions of chinese to fend for themselves. Thakore also ignores that like india, china has massive money losing industries, and a populace for whom free enterprise is quiet alien. A few areas of entreprenership in the east coast doesn't mean that whole country itself can do as well. China doesn't realize what will happen when people are left to fend for themselves. > The price of the development benefits > which the Chinese people enjoy today has > been very high, they say. There is > considerable substance in this argument > and it needs to be carefully > weighed. Correct. The exact figures will astound you, and how does one quantify freedom. Thakore may be suggesting that we have followed china's policies at least that way indian population would have been a manageable few hundred million > The fundamental prerequisite of an > effective democracy is that its people should > have the living conditions which enable > them to enjoy the personal freedoms > which the system confers upon citzens. That is not the fundamental prequisite of an effective democracy. Democracy's only action is to allow people to have total freedom, whether they want to have 20 children or none, to allow people to criticize elected officials, to throw out politicians who do not perform. Democracy give all these tools and much more. The succes of a democracy depend on how people have exercised their franchise and how they have crarried out their responsibilities. In that sense only it's not that democracy failed india, but rather, it is the indian people who have failed. But like all failures, they can be overcome and this where people need to focus. > However, while this anti-democracy > argument is not conclusive, there are Anti-democracy arguments have never had any argument and never will. There is absolutely no locus-standing/merit for anti-democracy. > Nevertheless, it is irrefutable that post-Independence > India is a flawed democracy which has > conspicuously failed to attain its > potential. Thakore needs to examine, what, in democracy is flawed. Is the concept flawed or is it that the people failed. Why has democracy succeeded in other countries and not in india. Thakore blames the tool but not the user of the tool. > the rule of law. A persuasive > case can be made that post-Independence > India?s poor socio-economic > development performance is rooted in the > twin failure to attain universal > literacy and to build an effective law > and order enforcement system. Exactly, on the count of education. An effective law and order / justice system does exist. It's the enforcement that has failed. That again leads to education and literacy. > Democracies can succeed only if their > institutional foundations are strong. Wrong. Democracies can succeed only if their citizens make it work. Democracy by itself is a concept and not an institution. Whether it works or not depends on the people.