Dragon v. Tiger

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Here is a BBC program about China and India. It is worth your time. Listen to it.

The Changing World

I myself don't care for the Chinese economist who seems to sneer at Indian democracy. Being our brothers/sisters keepers is also important, not just $$$$.

Cheers!

 

[tbs]

hi nara sir,
thank u so much....nice story....nice to listen....its reality..what next?......democracy vs communist party? rural vs urban?
any way thank u once again....

regards
tbs

 

[tbs]

hi nara sir,

just go through.....
Keeping jobs away from India, China helped US recovery: Obama

'Keeping jobs away from India, China helped US recovery'

courtesy sify news

regards
tbs

 

[prasanth1]

I myself don't care for the Chinese economist who seems to sneer at Indian democracy.

I didn't watch the video, but is there democracy in India now?

Democracy is when a unified group of people cast votes to determine what the majority of them feel is in the best interest of the whole. For example, the Japanese. The Japanese have very few divisions. Democracy works well in Japan because one Japanese man will vote in the way he thinks will benefit all Japanese people. Thus, because everyone thinks this way, democracy will be useful.

Can democracy work in a fragmented country like India? Just look at this web forum. So many discussions about different communities, religions, castes, and so on, is this the talk of a unified country? How many people here are thinking about all people of India when they put up their votes? No one. So it's not democracy. It's just a game of population numbers. TO call it democracy is a laugh.

 

[Nara]

Dear prasanth1, greetings!

I didn't watch the video, but is there democracy in India now?

To be technically correct what we have is indeed not democracy. The system can be called "constitutional republic", where the citizens as a group is sovereign, the nation fashions its life according to the laws passed in accordance with the constitution of the land, by representatives of the citizens, and minority rights are guaranteed. When people use the term "democracy" this is what is usually meant, not the absolute rule of the majority the term itself suggests.

Further, I think there is a major fallacy in your argument that a democratic form of government can work only if the population is some what homogeneous in their goals and wants. There are two obvious corollaries to this premise, namely, (i) a better form of government for united India is some sort of dictatorship, or (ii) for democracy to work, India must be broken up into homogeneous nation states.

(i) I submit to you, only a democratic form of government can work in a non-homogeneous country like India. A non-representative dictatorial form of government will alienate sufficiently large section of the population and will make the country even more non-governable than a democratic form. Otherwise, there will be constant strife which can be quelled only by brutal suppression. I hope you are not suggesting that would be better than the chaotic nature of democratic process.

(ii) Breaking India down to states that are predominantly homogeneous is an impossible task. Each state consists of many religions, castes, and even language groups. For example, Bangalore has a large Tamil minority. In Tamil Nadu we have large Telugu minority and so on. So, even if we break India down to smaller units, we will still have not enough homogeneity that you propose as a prerequisite for democracy to work.

Churchill is supposed to have said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Whenever I think of Churchill an intense sense of aversion rises in me, but in this case, he is right.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

... For example, the Japanese. The Japanese have very few divisions. Democracy works well in Japan because one Japanese man will vote in the way he thinks will benefit all Japanese people. Thus, because everyone thinks this way, democracy will be useful.

My son who had worked for nearly a year in Japan once told me that the Japanese society is not much different from any class-based society, that the old feudal classes like daimyo, samurai, merchant class, craftsman class etc., still had some relevance beneath the surface and the Japanese Dalits, called Etas are still having differences in opportunities to come up in life. But the merchant and craftsmen classes have cornered political power now, instead of the Shoguns. Hence I doubt very much whether every Japanese will think about the benefit of all the Japanese. Fortunately for them, I think their language acts as a strong bamboo curtain!

Can democracy work in a fragmented country like India? Just look at this web forum. So many discussions about different communities, religions, castes, and so on, is this the talk of a unified country? How many people here are thinking about all people of India when they put up their votes? No one. So it's not democracy. It's just a game of population numbers. TO call it democracy is a laugh.

The discussions here in this forum and how each member of this forum votes and for what reasons, are two entirely different issues. Unless there is some sort of KKK-like dispensation for TBs which will insist and implement its dictats, people will have different ideas of whom to vote. In the democracy as is feasible today, in a country like India we cannot expect everyone to vote for the benefit of all Indians.

 

[prasanth1]

My son who had worked for nearly a year in Japan once told me that the Japanese society is not much different from any class-based society

He is wrong. I too worked in Japan for five years. There are minor issues, like the treatment of the so-called "Japanese Dalits". But such divisions are not apparent in every day life. The modern generation knows nothing of samurai classes. And there is very little inequality compared to India, or America for that matter.

(i) a better form of government for united India is some sort of dictatorship

You have made several good points. I do not think dictatorship is better than democracy. In an ideal world, we would all have democracy. But we are not born into this ideal world.

I have noticed Indians often get "morally superior" when they talk about Chinese government, who is an oligarchy. But do you know why China is ahead of India now? Because they get things done, quickly. The government has the development of China as a goal, not the interests of dozens and hundreds of sub-communities.

Yes, there is corruption in China, yes, it doesn't have freedom, etc, but what has India done better with its democracy? We still have corruption, our system is infinitely slower thanks to hundreds of groups all trying to squeeze in their portion of "democracy", I guess the only benefit is that we can complain about it without getting arresting.

 

[Nara]

...But do you know why China is ahead of India now? Because they get things done, quickly. The government has the development of China as a goal, not the interests of dozens and hundreds of sub-communities.

Yes, this is true, Chinese system is very efficient. They are able to decide and implement anything they want done, in the interest of development of course. But this development comes at a cost.

Since you say you did not listen to the BBC podcast, I urge you to download it into you iPod/MP3 player and may be listen to it while driving or something. It tries to give a balanced picture of Indian and Chinese approaches, their relatives strengths and weaknesses.

I for one prefer a chaotic democratic model than the Chinese orderly top-down approach.

Cheers!