Inside China Today: Q&A with Dr. Robert Oxnam

tahmed32#34
I too am a supporter of pragmatism and do not like communism one bit. This is why I support what China has done. My point is that China followed the right course in loosening economic stranglehold while regulating the political discourse, while the Gorbachev approach of letting go of the political controls while keeping economic control in place has proved to be less attractive. Most of the Chinese I know are quite happy to accept some constraints on their freedom of speech and dissent as long as they are free to make money. But the Chinese too will have to ultimately move towards one form of democracy or another; indeed, China is a much more relaxed society now than it was 20 or 10 years ago and it will, in all likelihood, be freer in ten years than it is now.

dost-mittar #33 The fact that living conditions deteriorated after the fall of the Soviets can, I think, be compared to the withdrawal symptoms that a drug addict goes through when trying to kick the habit. Drug withdrawal symptoms can be quite severe, leading to death at times: but drug addicts are willing to take that chance. So, after 70 years of the drug habit where people lived in a hallucigenic world of the Worker`s Paradise, some withdrawal symptoms are to be expected. And some ex-communists did not even suffer much withdrawal symptoms (poland, czech rep., slovakia and the baltic states for example). The significant thing is that while some Russians (the egotists. obviously) miss the days when they had the glories of being a superpower, there is no serious movement to bring back the controlled economies of the communist era.

The watchword in economics, I think, is pragmatism (within the limits of certain universally accepted values like respect for life, belief in human progress) rather than ideology.
Pragmatism is rooted in the truth that we humans dont understand the complex forces that shape economic activity over time, and then dealing with things on a case by case basis over time within the constraints of certain basic values.
Ideology, any ideology, is rooted in the falsehood that some Big Brother who came up with the ideology Knows It All. And that is why I think the US has survived the Great Depression and later won the Cold War - not through force of arms, but through (as I said earlier on chowk) force of ideas, the ideas of pragmatism and human values.
Which brings us to india and pakistan: Bhutto nationalized banks, thus ruining a dynamic sector of the economy. His motivations were partly ideological (in those days, socialism was fashionable), and partly pragmatic BUT without the constraint of universal values (i.e. control of the nations purse-strings by the political leader Bhutto, rather than by individual businessmen driven by the dynamics of market competition). And so he ruined this sector (and for this alone, he deserved to be hanged). I think Indira was driven by similar motivations in nationalizing banks in India, but you would know better.

stuka #31 You say stiffling dissent frees the government to make ``decisions that are populist but harmful to economic engine``. This is true in the case of special interests influencing government policy. Washington thus has sackfuls of lobbyists for various economic interests (big business, big labor, environmentalists, and the most powerful being the association of retired persons). In a society where dissent is suppressed, the ruling clique, and the ``chain of bureaucrats`` down the line has performed this function.
The former, admittedly imperfect system, has nevertheless worked better in practice than the latter. In no small part because dissent is permitted, and the debate on important issues is in the open in newspaper columns and so forth.
Agreed that the Red Chinese and even the Soviets did some things right in the economic field: emphasis on education being the major one. Even here, the suppression of free thinking ultimately kept these societies backward. The most laughable case was the soviet genetecist Lysenko who flourshed under Stalin because his crackpot theories (that you could change plant species by chanign the environment) were considered more useful to State policy, and who single-handedly put russian biology in deep-freeze. The nazi scientist opposition to einstien`s theories (which einstein famously put down by saying if these people knew what they were talking about, only one of them would be enough to prove it) is another example.
My basic point is:
Aside from having delivered mass education, ``command and control`` economies have in practice proved to be failures. The control you need is in the legal framework (property rights in particular), and in its execution. This is what distinguishes the prosperous countries from the failed economies. And this in practice has been the case in developed economies - failed economies had their ``command and control`` in the form of direct interventions.
Anyway, my two cents here. This is of course a complex subject, and I am not saying that there are not elements of truth in what you write. But I think the bottom line is, that you can have what it takes to prosper without killing dissent. Even the East Asian Model and the talk of Asian Values that came out of Korea, Singapore has been toned down after the East Asian Crisis, and now they are focussing on strengtheing the legal framework (Korea having been the most advanced to date on this in terms of tightening controls ont he banking system) rather than on trying to prove why Big Brother knows whats good for you.

tahmed32#28
Sorry I didn`t get back to you earlier.
Stuka has answered some of your criticism. Here are some more points.
The citizens of the former soviet union were happy when they got their freedom from communism but were soon disillusioned. In Russia, there was a common feelings that living conditions were better for the common man under the communist rule. This situation continued during the free-for-all phase of Gorbachev/Yelzin. Putin has adopted a more pragmatic course and Russia now seems to be set on the road to development.
As regards China, it is true that some provinces and coastal areas are doing much better than the interior regions. As Deng had said, in new China, some people will become richer sooner than others. But I wouldn`t be surprised if there are more disparities in Pakistan, if not in India, than in the China of today. The point to note is that the poor in China are, in general, better fed and clothed than the poor of India.
As for the Chinese repression of its muslim province and Tibet, I think it would have been better for India and Kashmiris if India had made up its mind whether to be tough or democratic, being neither here nor there simply lands you into ``Na khuda hee mila na vasaal-e-sanam`` situation.

Tahmed:

``I find it hard to imagine why stiffling dissent is relevant to economic growth. ``

It frees the government from making decisions that are populist but harmful to economic engine in general.

``Indeed, a focus on economic growth alone is no guarantee that it will take place:``

Well, yes it will. The communist system was focused on removing class inequality more so than economic growth. China shed it`s ideological baggage and focused on pragmatic economic policies that were growth oriented. TheIndians are trying to do the same but dissent and democracy makes the system much more ponderous.

In Pakistan, Bhutto was pretty much the only leader who talked of economic issues. He however adopted socialism as the course of action. Assuming Bhutto had lived and pragmitically realized that the loosening of state control is good for growth, the Pakistani economy could well have transitioned into something else.

Now, you mention the issue of confrontation with India. Mind you, when I said Kashmir, I was not talking about the actual costs of the Kashmir policy. The Pakistani economy can easily sustain that. What I meant was that Kashmir gave a disproportionately large say to the army thereby creating it`s own institutional and corporate interests. That is harmful for economic growth. However, even now, if the Army said decided to concentrate on economic reform alone, the situation could well change in the future, provided it keeps a lid on the political discourse.

I just wanted to respond to Shammi at # 9. I hope he / she is able to read this. The delay in responding is regretted. I also request that if any one sees this message, please remind Shammi to go through it just to see that I responded.

Batcha Khan was truly a great person from Pakistan side of the divide. But the generation that I belong to gained awareness at the time of Afghan Jihad. So naturally I did not have that kind of loyalty towards Khudai Khidmatgaars (surkhposh) as my parent had. The process of their fading away started at that time. But more I read and hear about him more I think that my parents and us (me and my siblings) belonging to two different worlds altogether. As I have been exchanging views with romair and zakk somewhere else, I think that in todays violent world, he would have found it very difficult to carve a niche for himself.

The biggest tribute to him and his followers would be like some one said, each and every thing they predicted at the time of Afghan war came out to be true. However, the world was not kind to him. He never won any accolades like the Mahatama or Nelson Mandela did. But his followers, dwindling in numbers, remain a voice of peace and sanity in the turbulent world of Pakhtoons.

Btw, it was great to know you through your brief message. I will not be actively participating on this website for some time due to an off the map travel assignment, but will peep in from time to time and leave my email address also on my intro page.

Once again, if your grandfather and Batcha Khan were to see the new generation of Pakhtoons, they will be shocked at the marginalization of peace and sanity in our Pakhtoon world.

May the Lord bless you in many ways.

stuka #21 I dont see how exchanging cheap insults and crowing about oneself (or the community one identifies with) can be called entertainment. I think a couple of monkeys pissing at one another in a zoo are probably providing a higher form of entertainment than these gentlemen.

stuka #23 I find it hard to imagine why stiffling dissent is relevant to economic growth. Indeed, a focus on economic growth alone is no guarantee that it will take place: the entire communist system was focussed on economic growth (everything else being seen as either the opium of the masses, or condemned as bourgeoise), and yet it failed. Agreed though that confrontation with India is costing Pakistan heavily in terms of direct and indirect effects in economics, politics, and even social development.

dost mittar #24 Personally, while I too have a love for panjabi culture I dont think it is very important. I think the really important thing is values. While it is nice to see kids growing up in US retaining a love for aspects of panjabi culture (dress, folk dances), what is really important is that they retain some basic values.
As for the breakup of the Soviet Union, I dont think there was anything sacred in that. The individual citizens in countries resulting from the break up of the Soviet Union are I think definitely better off than the people in China. In China, prosperity is limited to certain areas in the west only (e.g. the Guangdong province, and of course Hong Kong). Things get worse as you go further east - and there are actually people living in caves in certain parts (I saw pictures of them in a slide-show that a colleague presented after visiting those parts). And Sinkiang the muslim population is seething underneath the surface calm. And the same is true in Tibet, of course.
So, Tiananmen may have kept China intact - but all it gave the average Joe (or the average Chou) was continued state repression. And I think, the ultimate success of a society is in what there is in it for the individual. Not in whether it managed to expand or retain its political borders. But, that just me rambling on ;-)

ali87 #25 Agreed. This has been Pakistan`s mosfortune. I know of one expat pakistani who was invited by Bhutto to be his economic adviser - after one year, the man came back after having fallen out with Bhutto who refused to implement the land reforms this man thought were essential to move the rural economy forward in Pakistan. East Panjab has thrived after the land ceiling was set at 6 hectares, while West Panjab has fallen behind (although to some extent it has made up for this by small and medium scale industries started at private initiatives and no thanks to the government).

#20 by tahmed32 on April 7, 2003 8:49am PT

While comparing Pakistan and India we should not forget one of the main differences. Dismantling of fedual influences and land distribution. Even in japan land reform led to the beginning of a middle class.

While India was Ideologicaly predispsoed towards this and did achive some success Pakistans Ideology found no place for land reform. I feel even now this is the single most important reason for pakistan`s present state.

Wasey, China is more pwerful than India, and India considers itself the aggrieved party. Yet we have put the areas like the border dispute on the backburner and work on areas of complementary interest.

Why cannot India and Pakistan do the same?

TAhmed:

``single-minded and focussed leadership willing to subjugate dissent and to ignore the western noises about their less-than-perfect human rights record``. (If this was true, Pakistan would be WAY AHEAD of Singapore today.) ``

You ignore the most important part of Dost Mittars statement. If the leadership of Pakistan had been single minded and focused on economic development then yes, Pakistan too would have been way ahead of where it is. I will not compare it to Singapore, since each country has unique pecularities.

Pakistan`s leadership has been single minded only in terms of Kashmir and maintaining power. Chinese leadership too has maintained power with a single minded focus but beyond that their energies have been devoted to economic upliftment. There is a vast difference in the Pakistani and Chinese worldviews, though the two countries have good relationships.

tahmed32#20:
I too have a very good experience with my Chinese friends. A major difference I have found between Indians and Chinese is that they seem to have a lot of inner pride. Unless many of us who are always flaunting the superiority of our morals and religions, they are quietly confident about themselves but extremely careful not to cause offense to their host societies. While our children (and here I am talking mostly of Panjabi Indians) rarely know our language, I have seen even third generation Chinese fluent in their language; they also tend to have two names, one like Frank, Dave or any such common name by which they are known to their colleagues and neighbours and another, a Chinese one, which they use at home.
But I hold on to my views about the role of the Chinese leadership and system in achieving their miracle growth. If they had not taken the tough measures during the Tinanmen Square crisis of 1989, China would have in all probability gone the way of the Soviet Union. Conversely, if Gorbachev, like the Chinese, had retained a tight political control over the Soviet Union while loosening controls over private enerprise, the Soviet Union would be a far more formidable force today.
And do not discount the gains made by China during the Mao dictatorship. As you are probably aware, the orthodox soviet communist leadership was against a peasant led revolt in China but Mao succeeded. He has, in fact, turned the Marxist theory of the historical evolution on its head and showed that a dictatorship of the proletariat can indeed be very useful in a socially (not culturally!) primitive society to breakdown the social barriers to mobility and growth.

Tahmed:

``We will always have idiots to fight their paper india-pakistan wars on chowk``

well, yeah but this is entertainment. I am surprised that Ahmadzai actually takes posts from Indians on chowk that seriously. He should depend on Indians he interacts with in day to day life as an example. Any wanker can write anything on an internet forum..an one can see from posts :)

dost-mittar #19 Good to hear from you. OK, agreed that generalizations (even positive ones, as in this case) about a community are bound to prove so full of exceptions as to be meaningless. And true that Chinese were once considered opium smokers - however, that was during the 19th century and early 20th century only. Remember also, that opium was foisted on the Chinese (hence the Opium Wars) as a means to pay for tea imports from China by the Brits. But for thousands of years before that, and ever since the early 20th century, China has been a leader in world civilization. Admittedly again with brief dips, like Mao`s cultural revolution.
I have had some personal experience working with Chinese emigres (Chinese-Indonesians, Chinese-Malays, Chinese-Philipinos, and of course Chinese-Americans), and they have always struck me as a down-to-earth, hardworking, and friendly people.
While leadership does indeed play a decisive role, I think that you go offtrack when you think that this leadership means ``single-minded and focussed leadership willing to subjugate dissent and to ignore the western noises about their less-than-perfect human rights record``. (If this was true, Pakistan would be WAY AHEAD of Singapore today.)
The leadership a country needs to move forward, I think is one that has a sound and practical vision of the kind of SYSTEM that best fits ones needs: thus, in China, Deng-Tsao Ping quietly rolled back the communist system (which had proven its ineffectiveness) and adopted some basic features of the capitalist model of the US. The large and rich Chinese expatriate community then was attracted to invest its energies and funds in China. In Pakistan and India, I think the key is to free up these economies from the bureaucrats - in India, e.g., they say the IT industry took off because the Indian bureaucrat had not figured out a way to screw it up with rules and regulations (trade that goes over the internet is not as easily controlled as shipping ports and airport warehouses, for example. And thus there are no kickbacks to be given). In Pakistan, I think the population is no less industrious than the Chinese or Indians - the problem has been nationalizations (starting with the Bhutto era and ending with Nawaz Sharifs first prime ministership), and of now now the political insecurities due to ethnic and religious extremists in karachi, and religious extremists in the rest of the country.

tahmed32#14
``Chinese attitudes: Chinese are known to be an industrious and business-minded people``
As the cliché goes, nothing succeeds like success. These same Chinese were at one time condemned as lazy, opium eating, good-for-nothing people. These characheristic of industry and a business mind was there all along and yet, until the 1960s, China was somewhat behind India and a lot more behind Pakistan in economic development. As for diaspora, the Indian diaspora did very well in the Chinese dominated Hong Kong and Singapore as long as they were under the British.
Giving too much credit to the Chinese ``industry`` and ``business mind`` will detract us from learning the right lessons from the success produced by a single-minded and focussed leadership willing to subjugate dissent and to ignore the western noises about their less-than-perfect human rights record.

nazarhayatkhan #15 Excellent post. This mindless confrontation with India has cost us severly in terms of political stability and economic growth. It must come to an end, and we must learn to live in peace. We will always have idiots to fight their paper india-pakistan wars on chowk.

re: #5 by ahmadzai
``....to seek your opinion on what do you think how well India is doing, especially since an extremist Government has taken over it and has made a U-turn on the philosophy of its founding fathers...``
The following Url will tell you that, under BJP govt, the country has actually made more progress than under the socialist congress. Besides, congress was never secular. It covered its fundamentalist agenda well. The result can be seen by the dismal number of professionals, middle class among the muslim community. Its socialistic agenda gave india the dismal growth rate (laughingly described as the Hindu growth rate).

http://www.sulekha.com/redirectnh.asp?cid=306983

Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

reply #12 Ahmedzai

I agree with you that at times one sees very revolting posts on Chowk on the topic of India-Pakistan.

But I guess the correct approach is not an angry reply. Because an over-emotional or abusive post loses all the logic.

The broader aim between the two countres should be to coalse and co-exist. I think the Indians are right about our Kargil misadventure. It was a stupid action of a Pak Army mind-set. It brought us bad name and weakened the genuine Kashmiri cause. We also lost that goodwill of an average Indian that was always there.

Even when Pakistan puts forward a hand of friendship to India, the last sentence ruins the entire content. (but if someone tries to do this, then we will do this .........)

So our leaders need not respond to every Indian statement and fall in a trap. Most Indian statements are for the consumption of their own electorate.

As for Kashmir, let this issue pick up its own dynamics without any effort on our part to accelerate it. Our trying to be too clever has invariably backfired on us.

China is a good example of how to live in this world amicably with others, and getting benefitted, without shooting in your own foot. And all the while not compromising on any principle.

nazarhayathkhan at # 11:

Thank you for your response.

No body in Pakistan denies that we belong in South Asia, even though two of our provinces are more Central Asian in character than South Asian. In another post, I had responded to you saying that I have found this whole confusion prevailing on Chowk. In effect, Pakistan is multi-ethnic and its people can trace their family histories back to South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. As long as they can and feel comfortable in doing so , there should be no objection to it.

To be honest, I was kind of baffled by your posts. All your posts have subliminal negativities about your homeland even though any Pakistani can become easily irritated and hardened by constant Indian criticism of our religion, Pakistan and its Government. Even a diehard nationalist like myself, who had actually joined this website to thrash Pakistani Islamic parties, made a u-turn after reading posts by Indians. Admittedly, this led me to believe that you are an Indian with muslim identity taken for this website. I am sure I am wrong. If I am, then you are the most tolerant person that I have run into my entire life.

A question if you don`t mind. Why do you feel that its Pakistan who is confrontative? If you have read some of my posts on the topic, then you know my position on the matter. I would like to debate this matter with you. If you feel interested, I would be honored.

harimau @ # 7:

You asked:
``Does that mean that Pakistan is on track with regard to ikmplementing the philosophy of its founding father?``

My answer:
Yes. Conclusively. The open society as seen by free media debates, making a u-turn on our tunnel vision policy on Talibans and religious groups, return to democarcy with a strategy for stability, etc. are all positive steps.

You also asked:
``So, what is wrong with an extremist government taking over in India and administering the same medicine to Pakistan that Pakistan has been prescribing ever since its founding?``

My answer:
No harm. If its good for you its good for Pakistan. However, remember that India is heading for the same quagmire that Pakistan came out of subsequent to 9/11 through cesearean (spelling?) operation. Your extremism will only divide your population along religious and ethnic lines. If that is what you want, so be it.

While the interview correctly points to the rapid growth rate of China, what I find interesting are the underlying reasons for this which is certainly a result of government policies as the professor indicates, but also includes other important aspects:

a. Chinese attitudes: Chinese are known to be an industrious and business-minded people. Indeed, many people attribute the growth of South East Asia to the Chinese living in diaspora in those countries (Singapore of course, but also other countries like Indonesia, Philippines).

b. Expatriate chinese capital: Much of the growth was financed by direct investments from expat Chinese. I think this has matched, if not been greater than, Japanese, US and European capital has also flowed into china. Foreign direct investments in Pakistan are essentially negligible (thanks to the aura of instability and physical danger created by our political situation), and (as I recall) in India they remain at much less than 10 percent of the amount going to China.

The Chinese growth rate of 8 percent (and of course this is just an indicative figure) is something to be celebrated by everyone: after all they constitute one-sixth of mankind, and so can become part of the solution rather than become part of the problem. The Middle Kingdom rises again!

Reply#5 Ahmed Zai and # 9 Shami

To begin with, I have a great appreciation for your families. Bacha Khan, Wali Khan and now Asfandar Wali are perhaps the only honest and solid political faces in Pakistan. I have followed their stance for decades. All their proficies on Soviet War and Afghan War have turned out to be true.

And successive pygmy leaders in Pakistan, particularly the military ones, have not been taking their advice on India-Pakistan relations to the great peril of the country.

And a small section of Urdue media , led by Nawai-e-Waqt` , has even been continuously defaming them.

Ahmedzai, I am sorry I must have been busy and missed your post. I am from Punjab and have seen both the military and civil life, have spent a few years in the Missle East and have also travelled considerably.

The Present Indian government`s emphasis on `religion` is certainly harmful to the Indian long term interests and its ethos. But it is India`s problem.

Pakistani Government`s long term policies should not be made on the present Indian Government policies. The Policies should be made looking 50 or 100 years ahead.

The only way the South Asia can create a propsperous critical mass in the world affairs is through a policy of mutual collaboration rather than confrontation. Pakistan stands to lose more in this confrontation than India. India already has a sizable mass.

Historically, geographically, linguistically, culturally and even at the philosophical level, the Pakistanis only fit in the South Asia. Trying to find an intimate equation with the Arabs or the Far East or even in the Central Asia will be an exercise in futility as has been proved.

Ref ahmadzai #5

[I.... seek your opinion on what do you think how well India is doing, especially since an extremist Government has taken over it and has made a U-turn on the philosophy of its founding fathers.}

Does that mean that Pakistan is on track with regard to ikmplementing the philosophy of its founding father?

So, what is wrong with an extremist government taking over in India and administering the same medicine to Pakistan that Pakistan has been prescribing ever since its founding?

Zafar:
You have displayed good interviewing skills. One thing that the learned Prof. did not mention is that the Chinese are quite focussed about what needs to be done and how they are going to do it. He also ignores the obvious advantages or disadvantages their respective politcal setups of the two societies which, it is now generally agreed, works to the disadvantage of India. As India`s former Parliamentary Affairs Minister, Pramod Mahajan, stated recently, MPs agree with each other in the corridors of the Parliament but not inside the chamber. The opposition parties oppose the govt.`s proposals on power or labour reforms but would adopt the same policies when they come to power; indeed the same party will oppose a program in a state where it is in opposition and support it in the states where it is ruling.

Re: Ahmadzai
``...my parents point of view who still hold on to the legacy of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of the NWFP (the Frontier Gandhi)...``
You are one pathan that I would love to meet. My ancestors hailed from Peshawar (although the few that survived the Partition moved to India in `47). My greatgrandfather was a Congress leader in Peshawar and a VERY CLOSE associate of Badshah Khan, and was jailed in Peshawar Central Jail and Multan Central Jail while undergoing three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 40 Frontier Crimes Regulation, in connection with the first Civil Disobedience Movement of United India in the 1920s. Together, they founded a Peshawar newspaper called `Frontier Mail` that was dedicated to the Khudai Khidmatgars (Servants of God), that continues to be published from Dehradun, India even to this day, although the circulation is tiny - it still carries the dedication to the Khudai Khitmadgars! Badshah Khan visited India in the `60s, and there is a picture of my greatgrandfather with him and Indira Gandhi (Khan was very fond of her, having been a fatherly figure for her) that was proudly displayed at home. Badshah Khan was a noble man. What a long way the two countries and peoples have diverged since then!

re: doing business with India
This article is, i think, very appropriate for this forum. It talks about experiences of Singaporean businessmen in doing business with India.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/commentary/story/0,4386,181522,00.html
India is changing ever so slowly but surely. It is not the same it was 10 years ago.
Sridhar

If India and China an kiss and make up

Why can`t India and Pakistan?

We need more Sir Syed`s in Pakistan....


Ras

nazarhayatkhan @ # 2:

Exceptionally good post. Where in Pakistan are you from? I ask this to better know you and to seek your opinion on what do you think how well India is doing, especially since an extremist Government has taken over it and has made a U-turn on the philosophy of its founding fathers. I am asking you this in order to find out what does a Pakistani/person of Pakistani origin thinks about India living in the USA. Also, my interest is in from my parents point of view who still hold on to the legacy of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan of the NWFP (the Frontier Gandhi).

Finally, since I have noticed you interacting with Indians much more than any pro-Pakistani, I am interested in knowing your viewpoint of Indian grievances against Pakistan. Surely, you must have found our (Pakistani) weaknesses from Indian point of view by now.

Since you have not responded to my few earlier posts specifically addressed to you, I hope you will do this time.

In my opinion, India should be extremely cautious of China. The Chinese are basically a very cunning people who say one thing and mean something else. They may appear nice and friendly but underneath they are scheming and plotting all the time. They will not hesitate to doublecross anyone, as is evident from what happened in 1962. While Pakistan is open in its enmity with India, the Chinese mask it with a veneer of politeness. If we have open trade, China will take over Indian markets without giving much on a reciprocal basis.
The Chinese have expertly exploited the Indo-Pak tensions to their benefit. They have benefited from our desi stupidity by arming Pakistan with advanced weaponry to check India`s influence in Asia. At the same time, they keep their options open by maintaining relations with India and ditching Pakistan at times of crises. While we fight and argue, they are positioning themselves to be the next superpower. We desis need to wake up and smell the coffee.

#2 by nazarhayatkhan

I agree. The transformation of China has indeed been a miracle.

In comparison - the subcontinet has been a huge failure. Even though India has taken some small steps in right direction in last decade - it has been held back by a strange confluence of both right wing and left wing forces of economic obscurantists. It is a weird sight to behold - how Communalists(RSS) and Communists think alike when it comes to economic issues!!

The degree of such incompetence on part of Indians is evident in this example - Even after 5 years the gov`t declared its intent to build international standard airports in 5 metros, nothing has happened as yet. The software hub of Bangalore is bringing in billions of dollars to the economy and yet it has the worst airport in the world. It is crystal clear to any dumbf**k in the world that the city needs a modern aiport to grow a vital part of the economy. Yet - the corrupt, incompetent a**holes running the country have not realised this simple fact.

In contrast - Beijing has a spanking new airport, bullet fast trains, superfast highways.

What a f**king shame!

Good interview, thanks.

I have a great admiration for the Chinese. Whatever their system, their leaders look at least 50 years ahead.

I visited China many times during the cultural revolution. I was ferring Migs from the Sinkiang province to Pakistan. At that time, every Chinese wore a blue bush-shirt, a blue baggy trouser, a Mao cap and had the Mao`s Red Book in hand. Every one got a bowl of rice and soup. Their ambition in life was to get a watch, a cycle and a transiastor.

In our Pakistani stupidity, we used to think what kind of people are these flying outdated Migs whereas Pakistan has F-104 Star Fighters, much better cars and a much higher standard of living.

In front of my eyes, I have seen the miracle of China.

If China was Pakistan, it would have done the following:

(a) We would have been trying our best to capture Taiwan by Force.
(b) Would have tried in vain to capture Hong Kong and Macau.
(c) Would have stopped trade and relations with India because of border dispute.
(d) Would have tried to spread the teachings of Mao on a worlwide basis.
(e) Would have struck with what Mao said and would have quoted each sentence and phrase of the Mao`s book and would have resisted all changes from the Mao`s socialism.
(f) Would have by now had many cultural revolutions by the different groups of Mao`s ideology.
(g) Would have remained poor, backword, unstable and of no consequence in the world.