People's Republic of China Nov 22, 2009

[abhishek_sharma]

‘Can’t ignore Chinese threat to N India, Himachal’

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/-Can- ... al-/727827

Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal on Tuesday raised an alarm over the UPA government’s “lack of concern” in upgrading and expanding rail, road and air infrastructure in his state — strategically important since it abuts China. He pointed out that India cannot ignore Beijing’s threat to northern India and its aggressive infrastructure development on its border areas.Painting an alarming picture, Dhumal, who completes three years in office this month, said the government is also ignoring the fact that China is making its presence in India’s neighbouring countries.

[Pratyush]

Hmm.........

First Mulayam now Dhumal. Thing must be dire for on the ground for them to raise this concern.

[SSridhar]

The country needs a more informed debate on China: Ms. Nirupama Rao
Excerpts

Q: The press has interpreted this to mean that India would like some significant recognition by China of India's total sovereign claim on Kashmir.

I think there have been a lot of dramatic assumptions that have been expressed through various sections of the media and a number of opinion makers, or at least analysts have alluded to what you have just said. But obviously in any relationship there has to be mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Q:Is this in the context of the stapled visas, in the context of China's increasing involvement in PoK, another development that worries us about the Chinese overall attitude to Kashmir?

I think you have to search even more deeply in this. And I think our vision in this sense must be directed westward and looking at the China-Pakistan relationship. And there is every indication, and the Chinese also leave us in little doubt about this in terms of their actions and statements, about the depth and substance of the China-Pakistan relationship.

It is a strategic relationship that has acquired momentum over the last five decades directly after the India-China conflict over the border in 1962. And it shows no signs of diminishing. It is not that we have sought to turn a blind eye to it when we engaged the Chinese. What is important now is that we are directly raising issues of concern with the Chinese side in a very candid and in a very forthcoming way.

Q:The media seem to be convinced that the Chinese are either rethinking or perhaps even resiling from the 2005 agreement that settled areas would not be disturbed.

I would not make those stark conclusions. We have had the agreement on Guiding Principles and Political Parameters for the settlement of the boundary question way back in 2005, and those agreements still hold.

Q:Any rethinking in Beijing ...?

I would disagree with that. I think it is more a question of we are getting down to working out a framework for a boundary settlement. And obviously it is extremely complex. You know the discussions that have been held from 1960 onwards on this question.

Q:The two countries are hoping to achieve $60 billion worth of trade this year. You have set a target of $100 billion for 2015. But at the same time you have a worrying trade deficit which is just over $19 billion. Can you achieve $100 billion without the trade deficit becoming even bigger?

The record of the last few years would suggest the economic relationship, the people-to-people relationship, the connectivity between the two countries. So, this is really the future of the relationship. You are going to have discussions to resolve outstanding issues, as I said, on the boundary, but where do we move forward on the economic and trade relationship. And that is where the imbalance comes in. I saw Dr. Amit Mitra's very well-argued article the other day about the imbalance being unsustainable. And that is the message that we have made very clearly to the Chinese. They have to open the market to our IT services, to our pharmaceuticals, to our agricultural commodities.

Q:But are they prepared to do that because that is how they secure the trade surplus?

Well, when Premier Wen was here and you saw his public statements on the issue, I think he made the effort to convey to the Indian public that China took this issue seriously and they intended to work towards reducing this.

Q:Once again, the ball is very much in China's court.

I think so. But Indian business is doing well in China today. We have a number of our big names doing good business in China and there is that dimension also of the relationship.

Q:On the one hand, China is India's single biggest trading partner but, on the other, China supports Pakistan over Kashmir, it would not criticise Pakistan's use of terror as an instrument of policy, it bends laws to supply Islamabad with nuclear reactors, it seems to want to check India's emergence as a leading power, it disputes our sovereignty over Arunachal Pradesh. What sort of a relationship do we have?

It is a question of finding the right responses and charting a course that preserves and protects India's interests given the scenario that you just mentioned. On the trade front, I have said what we want from China and what we intend to engage them about as far as reduction of the trade imbalance is concerned. On the other hand, there is the strategic aspect of the China-Pakistan relationship and all the attendant complexities that it brings to bear even on the discussions on the boundary question. I think the public in this country also needs a more informed debate on China.

Q:People like Brajesh Mishra often sound concerned about the possibility that Beijing and Islamabad may work together thus posing for India the unique problem of two troublesome neighbours on the north and the west.

I think we have to think smartly about dealing with such scenarios. We run the risk very often in this country of reducing the relationship with China to one issue or another issue and then developing scenarios around it. We need a much more comprehensive appreciation of what the challenges are in this relationship and how do we address these challenges.

Q:What about the fact that today China is the world's second biggest economic power? It is heading fast towards becoming in fact the biggest. Some people say that by 2050 it would probably replace America as the biggest superpower.

It should concern every Indian and I think it should really spur us on to narrowing this divide or this gap in the race with China. It should not be a relationship defined by competition or rivalry alone because it does not suit either country. Look at the stakes involved. Look at the tasks before us in terms of our development. Look at the miles that we have to cover. We have to understand China better, to engage it in a way that defends our interests.

Q:To what extent is the popular appreciation of the relationship with China hampered by a lingering trauma or complex from 1962?

I know there is a generation of Indians that still thinks of 1962 and in many ways our opinions and images of China, the scratches on our minds as it were — to use a term from Harold Isaacs — very much defined by the trauma of 1962. But there is a whole new generation of Indians and Chinese that has grown up after that. I would say issues like stapled visas, the hype and debate that has surrounded the possibility of China building dams on the Brahmaputra, or the reports that surface from time to time about how the Chinese look at the border, these are issues that are affecting the public psychology on China today.

Q:Some people say India and China are wary rivals who will perhaps cooperate when their interests converge but will be suspicious of each other when they do not.

I think there will be competition in this relationship and there will be collaboration also. There will be areas of collaboration, areas of cooperation. And I think the challenge is to find the right balance and maintain a kind of steady equilibrium in taking the relationship, the dialogue particularly with China forward so that we are able to articulate our concerns, we are able to tell the Chinese where we stand on issues of absolutely fundamental interest to us, and at the same time try to build greater mutual confidence in this relationship.

[Stan_Savljevic]

‘24 new Chinese projects on Brahmaputra’
http://www.sentinelassam.com/mainnews/s ... pr=1#57601

[brihaspati]

China is toasting Begum Khaleda Zia, and is an important signal for the west and India. BD seems now to be a new experimental field on the subcontinent for a repeat of cold-war style proxy games. However could this be the beginning of the end for BD given now that its internal politics is no longer going to be a matter of one-sided domination from the west but a contest between the east-west axis?

[Stan_Savljevic]

http://telegraphindia.com/1101223/jsp/f ... 338315.jsp

Even before the Chinese Prime Minister returned home via Pakistan, India initiated a series of measures which will make it difficult for Chinese companies to engage in unfair trade practices and boost their exports to India.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article970661.ece

But it is with China that India hit a roadblock. Not only were Chinese negotiators unwilling to speak of “states possessing nuclear weapons” in the joint statement Premier Wen Jiabao issued with Dr. Singh, they also baulked at the Indian proposal to speak of disarmament on a “non-discriminatory” basis, a formulation India has pushed to ensure that a nuclear weapon state such as itself, which is outside the NPT, is treated at par with the five “official” NWSs and not singled out for special attention.

[Raghavendra]

China bars English words in all publications http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 8d79ee4.a1

BEIJING — Chinese newspapers, books and websites will no longer be allowed to use English words and phrases, the country's publishing body has announced, saying the "purity" of the Chinese language is in peril.

The General Administration of Press and Publication, which announced the new rule on Monday, said the increasing use of English words and abbreviations in Chinese texts had caused confusion and was a means of "abusing the language".

Such practices "severely damaged the standard and purity of the Chinese language and disrupted the harmonious and healthy language and cultural environment, causing negative social impacts," the body said on its website.

"It is banned to mix at will foreign language phrases such as English words or abbreviations with Chinese publications, creating words of vague meaning that are not exactly Chinese or of any foreign language," it said.

"Publishing houses and the media must further strengthen the regulated use of foreign languages and respect the structure, glossary and grammar of the Chinese and foreign languages."

GAPP said companies which violated the regulation would face "administrative punishment" without offering specifics.

English abbreviations such as NBA (National Basketball Association), GDP (gross domestic product), CPI (consumer price index) and WTO (World Trade Organization) are commonly used in Chinese publications.

They are also often used in everyday conversation, and government officials routinely use the abbreviations at press conferences.
The body left a small loophole, stipulating in the regulation that "if necessary", English terms could be used but must be followed by a direct translation of the abbreviation or an explanation in Chinese.

The names of people or places in English also must be translated.

One editor at a Beijing publishing house told the China Daily that the new GAPP regulation could actually result in reduced understanding.

"The intention of protecting the Chinese language is good. But in an age of globalisation, when some English acronyms like WTO have been widely accepted by readers, it might be too absolute to eliminate them," the editor said.

"Conversationally, people also use these words all the time, so the regulation could create discord between the oral and written uses of language."

China has launched several campaigns in recent years to try to root out poor grammar and misused vocabulary in official usage.

Sometimes those campaigns go awry, resulting in awkward Chinglish. In the run-up to last month's Asian Games in Guangzhou, signs were posted in the metro that read "Towards Jichang". "Jichang" means airport.

Earlier this year, China Central Television and Beijing Television told the China Daily that they had received notification from the government to avoid using certain English abbreviations on Chinese programmes.

But English abbreviations are still commonly heard on regular news and sports broadcasts.

The Global Times quoted an editor at a Beijing publishing house as saying finding translations for globally used acronyms would be time-consuming and confusing.

"I wonder how many people understand 'guoji shangye jiqi gongsi', when IBM is instantly recognisable," the editor said.

[RamaY]

Its a good sign that PRC paranoia is increasing day by day. The day it directly blames India for its internal problems; that is the indication of an imminent attack.

In the meantime India has to close the loose ends on its side; the chini media, intellectuals and anti-national elements...

[wasu]

Beijing's traffic woes drive talk of relocating capital
http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_new ... ng-capital

..The situation has led to the emergence of a radical solution.

“My suggestion is to relocate our capital,” declared one internet commentator. “We not only will solve Beijing’s traffic problems, but will also promote the development of other parts of the country.”

“The major cause is the excessive concentration of power,” said another. “Beijing is the political center, the economic center, the technological centers as well the entertainment center, while in America it’s decentralized, with Washington DC as the political center, New York as the economic center, Silicon Valley as the technological center and Los Angeles as the entertainment center.”

“Is it time to drop Beijing as capital?” asked Zhang Han, writing for Global Times newspaper.

“Traffic jams and environmental problems in Beijing are leading some experts to revisit a decades-long proposal for China to relocate its capital to Central China or another part of the country,” he added.

To relocate the capital to an inland area is an “emerging and necessary step”, concurred an economic consultancy expert as quoted by Global Times.

[Lisa]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f38e08ce-0e84 ... z18y9pNQ6T


China’s growth model is unsustainable and the country faces a sudden slowdown unless it undergoes urgent economic and political reforms, according to a renowned Chinese academic and former member of the People’s Bank of China’s monetary policy committee.
In a scathing indictment of the country’s extraordinary growth story, Yu Yongding listed rising social tensions, choking pollution, a lack of public services and an over-reliance on exports and investment, particularly in real estate, as threats to the country’s economic future.

“China’s rapid growth has been achieved at an extremely high cost. Only future generations will know the true price,” Mr Yu wrote in an opinion piece published in the state-controlled China Daily. “[China’s] growth pattern has now almost exhausted its potential. So China has reached a crucial juncture: without painful structural adjustments the momentum of its economic growth could suddenly be lost

[Gerard]

Rent a White Guy

[Suppiah]

^^ this is just a modification of an old trick...when HK was in UK hands, some high end smugglers of valuable stuff like watches, perfumes etc., used unemployed British as coolies and pack mules to carry stuff on their personal baggage...knowing no customs officer in HK airport would search a white guy's bag..

[Pratyush]

People's republics

There are growing doubts over the sustainability of China's authoritarian model of development and greater recent praise for India's democratic version. In October, US President Barack Obama's economic adviser Larry Summers told a meeting of business leaders in Mumbai that the world in 2040 would be talking, not about a Washington or Beijing consensus, but a 'Mumbai Consensus' on economic development in the future. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao did not go as far as Summers in elevating the Indian approach above China's. But the premier ended his three-day visit to India last week by declaring that India's rise had enhanced the confidence and strength of all developing countries.

Despite praise for both systems, the common wisdom is that the Chinese approach is superior to the Indian one in one respect: poverty reduction. After all, in 1980, around 80% of people in both countries lived in poverty. In India, it is now around 22% compared to about 12% in China. The assumption is that China's State-led authoritarian model, although more menacing than India's chaotic democracy, allow its leaders to plan China's rise in a more ordered and manageable environment, to the ultimate benefit of its poor. But such an argument is less compelling than it would first appear when we take a closer look at what actually occurred since China began its reforms in December 1978.

Because China has been growing at almost 10% since 1980 (except for the 'Tiananmen Interlude' period from 1989-1992), the assumption is that the country has followed one model towards prosperity and poverty alleviation. In fact, China has actually gone through two significantly distinct reform periods.

The first was from 1979 until the Tiananmen protests in 1989. After the disasters of centralised Maoism, Deng Xiaoping did two big things. First, power was decentralised and local officials were given much more power to make economic decisions. Second, the four-fifths of the population who were peasants were allowed to use their land in any way they wanted and sell their products at market prices.

This so-called 'household responsibility' structure gave rise to millions of 'township and village enterprises' (TVE) — small-scale industries that began the industrialisation and urbanisation process. These TVEs were technically owned by the local collective but many were run like private industries. In Deng's words, this was a "completely unplanned, spontaneous revolution that took us by surprise."

But it worked. Eighty percent of the poverty reduction that occurred in China took place from 1979-1989. It had little to do with any authoritarian model or supposed authoritarian qualities, or the far-sighted long-term planning and wise counsel of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders. Significantly, it was actually about the CCP relinquishing economic and social control over the country.

During this period, the de facto private sector received about three-quarters of all the country's capital in the first 10 years of reform – the reverse of what is happening today. There was no discrimination against the private sector in favour of the State-controlled one; meaning that household incomes across-the-board were rising with the tide. It was a genuine bottom-up rather than the present top-down approach.

Following the countrywide protests that almost brought down the regime, the CCP deliberately retook control of the economy from the mid-1990s onwards: favouring the State-controlled sector over the private one in key economic areas in order to prevent the emergence of an independent economic middle class. Although GDP has continued to expand at an impressive pace, household incomes have been growing at a paltry 1-3% each year even as profits in the State-controlled sector expand by 15-20% per annum. Significantly, since the rise of 'authoritarian development' in China, poverty reduction advanced by approximately 1.5% each year,meaning that China has underperformed vis-a-vis India since the latter began reforms in the early 1990s. Indeed, given the State-controlled bias that accelerated from this century onwards, poverty alleviation has remain stagnant and some studies even suggest that absolute poverty in China has actually increased.

Compared to the Indian bottom-up approach which is driven by the private sector and domestic consumption, China's top-down State-led model has created a country of some 150-200 million 'insiders' who benefit disproportionately from the fruits of economic growth. While measurements of income inequality have remained fairly constant even as India rises, Chinese society has become the most unequal in all of Asia. Although far from being a tranquil society, India does not have anywhere near the reported 124,000 instances of 'mass unrest' that occurred in China in 2009.

Even if Premier Wen and Prime Minister Singh would want to deny it, the Chinese and Indian approaches to economic development and poverty alleviation are being watched and compared by the 150 undeveloped and developing countries. Larry Summers might have been flattering his hosts in preparation for Obama's visit to India which took place in November. But the weaknesses of the Beijing Consensus mean that we will be hearing much more about the Mumbai Consensus in the years to come.

John Lee is director, Foreign Policy, Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. The views expressed by the author are personal.

Posting in full as it deserves to be read in full. Provides a nice little contrast for us SDREs who start shivering in their Dhoties at the mear mention of PRC.

[Suppiah]

The author does not explain one thing - if the 79-89 era was one of genuine bottom up development and real poverty reduction, what caused all that trouble in 89?

[Lalmohan]

(in 89) once people stopped worrying about daily bowl of rice, they stopped to look around them. and didn't like what they saw...

[Suppiah]

The great thing about this Indian model is that thanks to the built-in takiya factor of chaos, endless argument, self-effacing criticism, confusion and conflict as seen superficially from outside, no one can learn from it - not even the chinese who are masters in copying.

[Suppiah]

(in 89) once people stopped worrying about daily bowl of rice, they stopped to look around them. and didn't like what they saw...

does not explain...that should be even more true today...but it is not. And the commies have not loosed up one bit. In fact tightened screws a lot more...

I think just as there are many SDRE amongst us that are full of admiration for anything Chinese/Western, there are many bananas amongst them that are full of criticism for anything Chinese. Take both with pinch of salt..

[Lalmohan]

sorry, i should have introduced a comma

they stopped, (in order) to look around them

i.e. once rozi chawal needs were met, other needs suddenly rose up in prominence
as more chawal becomes available, the masses have to be diverted from the real problems

[Suppiah]

The key question that will decide the future course of China is this - Is the model of low wage, export led economy that makes population somewhat prosperous but has built-in diminishing returns and limits (i.e., raise wages, you lose export edge, keep them low, you remain perpetually low income and export driven) amenable to peaceful, gradual change or not?

The jury is still out on that...

Some countries go fast upto certain levels and get stuck when the limits are reached ...Malaysia is good example. Some manage to keep upgrading and keep moving up value chain...like Japan. But remember for all the talk of Japanese exports flooding US in the 80s, it is actually a very inward looking, non-export focussed economy. The best things they make they dont even export.

[vina]

Some countries go fast upto certain levels and get stuck when the limits are reached ...Malaysia is good example.

Malyasia shows the limits to which a resource cum investment led growth can take you to, especially if you have the toxic "reservation" /quota for Bhumiputras while kicking out and marginalizing the enterprising and merit oriented communities like the Chinese and Indians.

[Suppiah]

Some countries go fast upto certain levels and get stuck when the limits are reached ...Malaysia is good example.

Malyasia shows the limits to which a resource cum investment led growth can take you to, especially if you have the toxic "reservation" /quota for Bhumiputras while kicking out and marginalizing the enterprising and merit oriented communities like the Chinese and Indians.

I would agree as far as Indians go but it would be somewhat stretching the point to say that a community that controls most listed companies, most if not practically all unlisted and SME ones and perhaps 90% of private business and wealth other than some oil plantations and oil sector, can be called 'marginalised'....it may have chosen to live that way in a cocoon out of iconoclasm or worse. I have sat thru business meetings in KL where out of 20-30 participants not one is non-chinese...in big companies.

[Lalmohan]

it is a given that ethnic chinese are the brains behind malaysian economic success
the bumis cream off the top and act resentful at the bottom

[Suppiah]

thats why when Mahathir used to talk about 'brown man can also make it' and such crap, I used to laugh....perhaps brown man can make it, but not in his country..

[shynee]

China’s War on Dissent and Activism

[Gerard]

Military strength eludes China, which looks overseas for arms

[SSridhar]

China's dams in Xinjiang trigger concerns in Kazakhastan

China's dam-building spree in its far-west Xinjiang region has triggered concerns in the neighbouring Kazakhstan, where officials say two main rivers have begun to see water-levels recede at an alarming rate.

Officials from the Central Asian nation are expected to raise the issue with Beijing early next year and press for more information on hydro-projects in Xinjiang, officials in the Kazakh government told The Hindu.

The Irtysh and Ili rivers, crucial to Kazakhstan's water security, have their source in Xinjiang. Since 2000, China has accelerated development in the region, which has seen intermittent ethnic unrest.

Main reason

Kazakh officials say China's development push in Xinjiang, which includes a number of dams and irrigation projects, is the main reason behind the falling water-levels in both the rivers. The rivers drain into the Balkhash lake, which sustains the livelihood of more than two million Kazakhs.

“The water flow from China is much less now than it was before,” Gabit Koishibayev, a senior counsellor at the Kazakh Embassy here who is involved in negotiations with the Chinese government, told The Hindu.

Negotiations have made little headway so far, say officials. The dispute, which stretches to over a decade, could hold crucial lessons for India in managing water-sharing issues with China over the Brahmaputra river. China's plans to build dams in the difficult terrain of Tibet are still at a nascent stage compared with its projects in Xinjiang.

Kazakhstan has, however, been reluctant to publicly voice its concerns. China is a major destination for Kazakhstan's energy exports. In both cases, China, as the upper-riparian or upstream-lying state, holds the cards, having not committed to any bilateral water-sharing treaties and being entitled to, under international laws, use the rivers' waters for hydropower generation and other projects.

Persisting concerns

As with the Brahmaputra, there are also persisting concerns that China has plans to divert the Irtysh, though in both cases Chinese officials have stressed there are no such plans.

“We are very concerned about Chinese plans concerning the Irtysh,” said Mr. Koishibayev. “We also know that they are building channels and other infrastructure in Xinjiang.”

The Balkhash lake, he said, was “losing water.” “The water level is now lower by more than two metres to what it was three decades ago. Pollution is also rising, which has affected the banks and surrounding areas. Agriculture, the health of the ecosystem and the communities around it are at risk.”

Kazakh officials fear that the Balkhash will face a similar fate to the Aral Sea, which is on the verge of disappearing because of heavy pollution. Its mismanagement is regarded as one of the world's worst environmental disasters. Chinese officials stressed that China was “paying high attention to international communication on trans-border water issues”.

China was “carrying out related works according to principles of sustainable development,” the Foreign Ministry told The Hindu in a statement. “This is also in accordance with international laws and international principles.

At the same time, we are paying high attention to international communication on trans-border water issues.”

For China, managing water resources with its neighbours is emerging as an important diplomatic challenge, as it looks to balance the demands of its own spreading water shortages, especially in the arid north and north-west, with its foreign policy priority of maintaining a “harmonious” periphery.

China, which is increasingly reluctant to be seen as ignoring the concerns of its neighbours, has over the past year appeared to co-operate more in sharing information, Kazakh officials noted, both with Kazakhstan and southern neighbours who have voiced concerns about plans for the Mekong river.

In April, Chinese officials attended a meeting of the Mekong River Commission, which China has not formally joined, and promised to cooperate on flood prevention.

“We are providing information on floods and hydrological information related to the security of people's lives and wealth both upstream and downstream,” the Foreign Ministry told The Hindu.

China and Kazakhstan are now close to signing an agreement on quality protection, which will ensure that Xinjiang's industrial development will not continue to adversely reduce water quality in the two rivers, said Mr. Koishibayev.

[Haresh]

China preparing for armed conflict 'in every direction'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ction.html

[Altair]

BEIJING: The state-run China Radio International is trying to buy frequencies to launch services in India in a move to widen its influence in the country. It currently broadcasts in four Indian languages - Hindi, Bengali, Urdu and Tamil - from Beijing.

China Radio wants India to tune in

Has this been discussed before? If so My apologies. else WTF?

[praksam]

Nice article about china's ambitions and its limitation.

When China Ruled the World
Or why the "China Century" will be the shortest on record
By Thomas P.M. Barnett

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/china ... 1?page=all

[ShauryaT]

India’s faint attempt at playing Chinese checkers -- A bully goes only after the timid: the more feckless and fearful a policy, the more pressure it will invite

While India did well not to reiterate its usual ritualistic commitment to a one-China policy, it has pegged that move not to China’s refusal to accept the territorial status quo but to the lowest possible threshold—the stapled-visa issue. The implication is that if China abandons that small stick even while continuing to wave bigger sticks, India will happily go back to openly declaring that Tibet and Taiwan are part of China. In fact, despite the absence of a direct reference to “one China”, the latest joint communiqué affirms a commitment to “abide by the basic principles” enshrined in the 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2008 joint statements—all of which contain India’s pledge to a “one China” without a reciprocal Chinese commitment to a “one India”.

[Manny]

The assumption is that China's State-led authoritarian model, although more menacing than India's chaotic democracy, allow its leaders to plan China's rise in a more ordered and manageable environment, to the ultimate benefit of its poor.

That assumption is absolutely true. It makes common sense.

India is pretty much an anarchy. The Maoist and every other little group is running around creating their own writ in every part of India. A dysfunctional state for the most part. Because the vast majority of the people are illiterate and extremely poor. They are easily persuaded with easy way out which is what Indian politicians do. This is why we have a single Feudal family in power for 86% of the time since India's independence.

Even the United States during the early period did not franchise everyone to vote. Only land holding white men could vote. These were people who had a stake in the system and country. Not every riff raffs who came to the US could vote. It was only after a stable economic culture and model came to be were others slowly included.

Same thing in South Korea and Taiwan.

Today's China's model makes lot of sense in a highly populated and highly poor and illiterate society.

That's JMO.

[PrasadZ]

The assumption is that China's State-led authoritarian model, although more menacing than India's chaotic democracy, allow its leaders to plan China's rise in a more ordered and manageable environment, to the ultimate benefit of its poor.

That assumption is absolutely true. It makes common sense.

Even the United States during the early period did not franchise everyone to vote. It was only after a stable economic culture and model came to be were others slowly included.

Same thing in South Korea and Taiwan.

Today's China's model makes lot of sense in a highly populated and highly poor and illiterate society.

That's JMO.

Early industrialisation in US was driven by European know how and its security guaranteed by British mastery of the ocean. South Korea and Taiwan (and Japan and Singapore) got know how and security from the US, so their model followed the earlier experience of the US.

In all these cases, the nation state aided industry primarily by controlling the financial sector and channeling savings. So far, PRC has done the same. And thats the reason many analysts extrapolated a vision of gradual opening up and middle classification of Chinese society as well. Until recently. This decade, we are not seeing a society opening up, rather, we see increasing evidence of a chauvinist Chinese identity coming out. And thats the primary reason for the takleef.

South Korea Taiwan Japan managed an ethnic national identity with population sizes similar to those in Europe. China is aiming to build an ethnicity based national identity at a much larger scale. That cohesive identity allowed state direction of the economy (the converse has never happened - state sponsored economic development forming a cohesive identity).

So, we have ethnic nationalism at a huge scale and economic development at a pace that demands engagement. Both, if you note, are functions of size. Keeping that size humming in tune is a huge accomplishment for the CPC but the difficult years are always the transition years - we should wait and see

[wen]

The great thing about this Indian model is that thanks to the built-in takiya factor of chaos, endless argument, self-effacing criticism, confusion and conflict as seen superficially from outside, no one can learn from it - not even the chinese who are masters in copying.

I am sure Chinese don't have a hell lot of interests to learn from Indians.

In the eyes of quite some Chinese, India is still reviewed as a poor country which usually fails to achieve yet get a "boastful" ego.

The main difference between Chinese and Indians, I think, its their mind sets:

When China were in india's current position, there was simply no Chinese scream for "being superpower in 20 years" or "being surpassed whatever country in 10 years" etc, etc, actually even for now, the majority of the average Chinese still dont think China is a superpower or will be one in the feasible future.

Actually, just 5 years ago, there is a Chinese government official claimed China's GDP will surpass Japan by 2050, and guess what? almost all Chinese at that time made fun of his claims, think it is too ridiculus.

In Chinese culture, people despise these who make big words yet cannot deliever while admire these who make no noise yet get the job done quickly and quietly.

We could be wrong but however in indian's culture, many Chinese sense some opposite trends, thats among one of the many reasons why most Chinese aint really too fond of the idea of group China with India together, there are way too many differences between the two group of people to group them as a whole.

[sanjaykumar]

You mean words like South Tibet, Spatrly Islands, Senkaku Islands, peoples democracy, Tibetan splittist clique. Superpower China only rants and raves about its humiliations yet does precious little. Ah so.

[wen]

You mean words like South Tibet, Spatrly Islands, Senkaku Islands, peoples democracy, Tibetan splittist clique. Superpower China only rants and raves about its humiliations yet does precious little. Ah so.

Chinese, no matter mainland Chinese or oversea Chinese, seldom call themselves as a superpower or a future superpower or a potential superpower or whatever even by now. Its usually the outsiders call China such names.

As for indian's case, there are way too many indians call themselves "knowledge superpower", "superpower in making", "potential superpower", "world office" or whatever at the time they have yet to show many elmentals to the outside world.

That's why Indians give quite some Chinese that rather unpleasant impression.

[wen]

As for the terrority disputes?

Note the fact whereever China occupied, there is no dispute at all, where-ever there is some disputes, there is someone-else who occupied.

Kind like what is mine is mine and what is yours is subject to dispute, I am not implying China is a bully, but I guess you get my point here.

[Hari Seldon]

Yindia allows free expression of opinion and in a billion+ people, rest assured there'll at least be a billion+ opinions - some of the rather dumb, premature, silly variety like, e.g. "Yindia==sooooberpower by 20XX only!".

In china, the more rabid jingoism, xenophobia and racism is hidden behind firewalls and the mandarin language. If you continue to insist that nah, such stuff doesn't exist in china and still expect to be believed, given credence or cosnideration on a roily noisy and blunt forum like BRF, you might wanna reconsider what you're doing here. cheers.

[wen]

Yindia allows free expression of opinion and in a billion+ people, rest assured there'll at least be a billion+ opinions - some of the rather dumb, premature, silly variety like, e.g. "Yindia==sooooberpower by 20XX only!".

In china, the more rabid jingoism, xenophobia and racism is hidden behind firewalls and the mandarin language. If you continue to insist that nah, such stuff doesn't exist in china and still expect to be believed, given credence or cosnideration on a roily noisy and blunt forum like BRF, you might wanna reconsider what you're doing here. cheers.

China is way more open than you ever thought, there are many very popular BBS who critize anything done by the government, for example one of such BBS is here: http://club.kdnet.net/index.asp.The average Chinese enjoy very high degree of freedom, there are many different opinions among Chinese.

And don't forget, even oversea Chinese don't scream China for being a superpower or would-be-one in the feasible future, so you know its a culture thing instead of your typical "Chicom's fault".

If anything I would say the westerns and indians are probably more brain-washed than the average Chinese now.

[sanjaykumar]

The world is sick of China's sob story over Taiwan, Tibet, Falun Gong, eastern Turkestan, Chinese catholic church, prisoner execution. And it is sick of drones abusing the free world's hospitality.

If you must know Indians recoil in horror at the Chinese and their culture. Perhaps you need to abuse their hospitality some more and set up more Confucius Institutes.

As an ancient civilisation I am sure you will understand why Indians are too polite to openly jeer at Chinese. But understand that China is dismissed as a land of rat eaters. Well okay Buick driving rat eaters. You got an image problem, bud. Kill a few more tens of millions of Chinese-the last time around did not make an adequate impression.

[Pranav]

The world is sick of China's sob story over Taiwan, Tibet, Falun Gong, eastern Turkestan, Chinese catholic church, prisoner execution. And it is sick of drones abusing the free world's hospitality.

If you must know Indians recoil in horror at the Chinese and their culture. Perhaps you need to abuse their hospitality some more and set up more Confucius Institutes.

As an ancient civilisation I am sure you will understand why Indians are too polite to openly jeer at Chinese. But understand that China is dismissed as a land of rat eaters. Well okay Buick driving rat eaters. You got an image problem, bud. Kill a few more tens of millions of Chinese-the last time around did not make an adequate impression.

And India is a nation of Kalmadis and Nehrus? No point.