China’s Humane Development – and India’s Tragic Path

 China and India are always mentioned n the same breathe. One reason is the enormous mass of humanity  of over a billion in both countries. India proclaims itself as the world largest democracy, and is projecting itself to the world as a shining liberal democracy. Most Western commentators usually avoid the negative language bias when writing about India, as compared to China. Perhaps, it’s due to the apparent similarity of shared values that makes India seem more benign to the West.


However, a number of facts just cannot be conveniently ignored when comparing India and China. I believe this writer have made an astute observation regarding India – that India is still being handicapped by its colonial mentality, and has under achieved when compared to China. It followed a development path that is not neccesarily in its best interest, serving or pleasing its imperial masters in the West. The gap between China and India, will only widen in the forseable future. However, there is another factor that was not discussed by the author – the  caste issue and the problem of upward mobility . In a way, it is a cultural problems that  India inherits, despite the few hundred years of British Raj rule.


The talk about shared values with the West is just a way for the Indian elites to feel good about themselves and their country. There are just so many pressing issues that India seems unable to resolve – from overpopulation, lack of water, farmers’ problems, ethnic strifes, armed rebellions, inability to do things on time (case in point, the Delhi Commonwealth game in 2010) etc. While the Chinese people may have their own ideas , language and world view, there are also much in commanality with the West. It’s hard to find word to describe it – probably the best word is Modernistic outlook , i.e. the vision of a better world the relies more on science and technology, and that people act rationally, gender equality, and people have freedom of choice to chose life parners and not constrained by arranged family marriages.

by John Walsh / November 27th, 2009

As I was leaving China in September, a well-travelled, heavy-set Australian woman plopped herself down at a table in the Shanghai airport where we were having our last cup of tea in the Middle Kingdom. She immediately volunteered that China is not a poor country any more – not like India, she said. She was also quick to maintain that the Chinese were not as intelligent as the Indians, because the latter “speak English better.” And she felt that India was more “charming” than China once one got beyond India’s “squalor.” If one can take that step, simply “get past” Indian poverty and squalor, she informed us, one could see the inferiority of China.

China’s literacy rate is 90.9%; India’s is 61%. 95.1% of Chinese males are literate and 86.5% of females (2000 census). But only 73.4% of Indian males and 47.8% of the females can read and write. This last is quite astonishing – less than half the female Indian population can read and write in the 21st century.

The facts on literacy cited above are to be found in that most unimpeachable of sources, the CIA World Factbook, which defines literacy as the percentage of the population over 15 that can read and write. (There is more recent data, which puts the Chinese literacy rate at over 96%, but we can stick with the CIA data since the differences are small.) The India-China comparison is of interest for three reasons. First, India and China are often equated in the Western press as equivalent, both great developmental successes – but they are not the same, as the literacy rates indicate and as we shall see below. Second, these November weeks are the weeks of China and India, with Obama’s ill-starred expedition to China and the Indian PM’s excursion to the US. Third, the US has been developing India as an ally and surrogate for decades to bring China low, although such a criminal strategy, which would involve untold suffering across Asia, seems increasingly dubious and perhaps downright absurd. (More on that absurd and criminal strategy later). So let us compare the two countries in some more detail.

On the face of it India and China would seem to be quite comparable. China is, after all, the most populous nation on earth, with about 1.3 billion humans, and India is second, with approximately 1.1 billion. China won Liberation by force with Mao’s Communist revolution in 1949 and India was “granted” Independence by Great Britain at about the same time, in 1947. At that time India’s GDP was estimated to be about twice that of China’s. But today China’s GDP is about 3.6 times that of India’s. The per capita GDP’s for China and India are $6000 and $2900, respectively, as estimated by the CIA in 2006. 25% of Indians live below the poverty line whereas 8% of Chinese do. For comparison, 12% of the US population lives below the poverty line – worse than China, but not so bad as India. (Only on the CIA’s Gini index of family income inequality does China do worse than India, 46.9 and 36.8, respectively – but China there is pretty much the same as the U.S., with its score of 45.

What then puts China so far ahead? The conventional wisdom informs us that it is all due to the reforms instituted by Deng Xiaoping beginning in 1978 and accelerated greatly in the early 90s with Deng’s symbolic “southern tour.” On that PR jaunt, Deng put his stamp of approval on the export driven economy which had its first Chinese home in the southeastern coastal cities and which has now made China the greatest of the East Asian “tiger” economies, about to surpass the first tiger, Japan, in GDP.

But is this piece of conventional wisdom the whole story? The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) uses three important indices to chart the effectiveness of development. These are the Human Development Index (HDI), the Gender Related Development Index (GDI and the Human Poverty Index (HPI). Each of these is a number between 0 and 1, and the greater the number the better a nation is doing. The third is given as a %, and a higher number indicates less poverty. China and India fare thus:

   HDI: China – 0.745 India- 0.595

   GDI: China – 0.741 India- 0.572

   HPI: China – 13.2% India- 31.4%1

The first of these the HDI is the oldest going back to the 1970s and combines three categories in the measure — long and healthy life; knowledge; and a decent standard of living, this last including GDP. Clearly China leads India in the HDI and the gap was growing at least up to the time of the 2004 report from which these numbers are taken. But most interestingly the gap existed in 1975 when the HDIs for China and India were 0.523 and 0.491, respectively. Recall that this was the year that Mao Zedong died, and the reforms were only a gleam in Deng’s eye.

So why the difference? One can only hypothesize about these matters, but this writer would point to one big difference. China by virtue of its Revolution completed Liberation from the Western Imperial powers in 1949. From that point on China could go its own way. It certainly made great mistakes, most notably and tragically in the Great Leap Forward of the 1950s. But there were no longer any strings attached.

And what about India? We can get a good idea from John Pilger’s superb essay “Shining India.”2 Pilger quotes Nehru writing ruefully on the legacy of empire, “Entangled in its meshes, we have struggled in vain to rid ourselves of this past inheritance and start afresh on a different basis.” (Italics mine.) Today Pilger notes that India’s burdensome legacy from Imperialism has a new life in the modern imperial cult of neo-liberalism with the US as its new master. And with the suffocating embrace of the U.S. (and Israel) accelerated in the 90s, things have been left pretty much the same.

The dramatic differences between India and China outlined above are not reflected in the mainstream media. There the two countries equated as fast developing and making their mark on the world. Little distinction is drawn between them – except for the relentless reminder that India is the “biggest democracy in the world,” just as Israel is the “only democracy in the Middle East. No mention is made of the differences in developmental pathways on the billions of human beings in the two nations. But the bottom line is that India is still very much caught in the clutches of Empire and as a result it is in a sad state in many ways. And Empire will use India mercilessly to maintain its sway in Asia no matter the human cost.

The data here are taken from “Development Indices: A Comparative Study of India and China,” by Anjani J. Kochak. It is brief and well worth reading for the wealth of detail it provides on these indices. Kochak takes her numbers from the 2004 report by UNDP. [↩]
The essay is to be found in Pilger’s book, Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire. The essay that follows in the same volume is on South Africa and makes the point that despite the formal end of Apartheid, little has changed in South Africa, a sad fact that friends of mine who have lived there before Apartheid ended and have visited since have confirmed. Given the failure of India and South Africa and the success of China, it is not surprising that Gandhi and Mandela are lionized in the West whereas Mao is hated to this day by the Western punditry and too hot for the Western intelligentsia to handle. But these facts must make us ask whether we do not need more leaders of Mao’s mettle if the world is to change for the better. [↩]


About kchew

an occasional culturalist
This entry was posted in India and China. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s