India and China – two largest
nations on the Earth in population terms; chose different ways towards their right
to self-determination. While India, based on the earlier established limited
democratic framework under the British and the GoI Act 1935 decided for a
democratically elected bicameral legislature with President as the head of the
state; China went for a unicameral legislature with Communism as the core
doctrine – what Chinese call as ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’.
Despite China and India moving on
different political trajectories post 1940 – both of them have remarkable
similarities. Both the countries gained
total control to decide their future roughly around the same time – 1947 for
India and 1949 for China. It is notable that both the countries had similar
share of world GDP in 1950 [4.2% & 4.5% for India and China respectively]
and were agrarian in nature, both had to fight illiteracy, poor health care and
corruption; But China today is on much better footing than India, even HDI says
so.
The start for either of these
countries was marked with challenges – primarily being how to increase the pie
to be effectively shared amongst the population?
India followed the
Nehru-Mahalonobis model of development favouring heavy industries over
agriculture and China followed a similar path – both relying on USSR initially
to expand the industrial technology. Both the countries were averse to the idea
of ‘West’ helping them, leaning towards self-sufficiency. Then came the famines
– Earlier in China as a result of Mao’s ill-conceived Great Leap forward
[1958-1961] and in India as a result of poor monsoon [1966-1969]. For India, it
was a positive outcome resulting in ‘Green Revolution’. On the other-hand in
China, it resulted in heavy censure of Mao. Mao had to launch the ‘Cultural
Revolution’ unleashing his ‘Red Guards’ over his perceived enemies
consolidating this power from 1966 till 1978. This put Chinese development on a
stand-still till Mao’s death in 1978. India faced a similar situation much
later in 1975-1977 when Emergency was declared and India witnessed a
pseudo-dictatorial regime within a democratic framework. So for both India and
China – the periods from 1947-1980 and from 1949-1978 respectively were the age
of self-learning through mistakes.
China rebounded harder under the
leadership of her visionary leader Deng Xiaoping who is credited with Chinese
reform. One of the first things that Deng did was to make China more receptive
of growth of its Asian neighbours [Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea] and learn
from their experience and implement them under Chinese context. Introduction of
Family Responsibility System, allowing foreign capital and opening up SEZs were
great steps under communist regime. India partially opened up in 1980’s but the
shock of 1991 was the actual turning point when the doors were finally opened
to foreign competition ushering in LPG reforms. But, it was easier to introduce
reforms in China than in India – due to the political culture in place. Chinese
leader had the final say on all major reforms while Indian PM often had to
appease a larger audience in the political spectrum to remain in power given
the coalition politics.
The key takeaway is Chinese rise
as compared to other communist countries seems an anomaly, primarily due to the
fact that China has been able to segregate its Political ideology of Leninist
State from its economic prerogatives and decisions [allowing limited capitalism
within communist ideology]. In India’s case, economic socialism is inbuilt in
Indian democracy as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, but still has a long
way to go. India’s case seems to be driven primarily by private sector
entrepreneurial spirit that is best served by limited government intervention
unlike China. License Raj was a glorious failure. In today’s interconnected
world, closed economy is a guaranteed failure. A lesson learnt by both the
countries.
In conclusion, China will have to
eventually address the questions of political ideology when dissent happens –
but so long, the economic prosperity ensues, such questions can be kept in
check. India on the otherhand may remain a soft-state as compared to China, and
little chance that it can ever catch up with China in the next few decades
economically, but nevertheless, free speech and actions will ensure that
poverty is eventually a bygone word in Indian context.