Why has China developed so much faster than India?




Irwin Dsouza, Owner (1986-present)

Since there has been a lot of “misinformation” about Chinese development -I am setting the record straight the way I see it as under:


  1. China is producing for the world at a Loss : Does it make sense to produce & then sell at a loss-China produces & destroys it's environment for Apple, Walmart, Staples etc and the same products that China produces -is sold by large EU, American, Japanese, Indian firms who have the brand at huge profit -in fact all business folks who deal with China are “laughing all the way to the bank at such Chinese Stupidity”
  2. Then China invests it's Reserves into US TREASURY bonds which are paying below 1% -these treasury bonds are over 2 Trillion US dollars
  3. Then we have OBOR which is selling to Muslim countries & “totally broke 3rd world “ countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Kazakhstan etc

1. 中国为全球消费者开足马力地生产,其实根本就是亏本生意:试想,以破坏自然环境的代价为苹果、沃尔玛、史泰博等公司生产商品,有意义吗?而销售商品的是欧洲、美国、日本、印度等拥有知名品牌的大型企业,他们通过销售获取了巨额利润——事实上,所有与中国打交道的商界人士都“嘲笑中国的愚蠢”。

2. 其次,中国将其外汇储备投资于美国国债,收益率还不到1%——这些国债的规模超过2万亿美元

3. 一带一路面向的是国家及缅甸、斯里兰卡、巴基斯坦、哈萨克斯坦等国


Pratyush Pandey, interested in political science

Because human beings in general are rational, and usually act in their self-interest.

In China, there’s a high degree of alignment between the individual’s self-interest and the collective good of the nation.

If you’re a mayor in a town, and you don’t meet your targets (growth, infrastructure, electricity etc), and simply pocket the funds for yourself, you’ll lose your job, and be lucky if that’s all that happens to you.

Now come to India.

What’s the first thing you see when any decision has to be taken? Vested interests.

Consider an issue like reducing the role of the state in business - privatizing state firms, updating regulatory laws, or increasing foreign competition.







First you’ll run into the employees unions - it’s in their interest that their jobs are protected, and a private employer won’t ever offer the same security as the state.

Next you’ll alienate the go nment departments that derive their power (and money) from the rigid laws that allow them to interfere in business. It’s in their interest these laws aren’t relaxed.

Then you’ll come across those firms who’ve gamed the current system to their advantage, and don’t want to see it change to a level playing field. It’s in their interest to retain status quo.

After this, you’ll have to resist furious lobbying by smaller players who feel threatened by competition from abroad. It’s in their interest to prevent competitors from encroaching on their turf.

Now imagine you’re among those political leaders trying to push these changes.

You have almost no support.

The consumers would benefit probably - but they aren’t a single cohesive lobby, and it’s not a major rallying point for them to unite. So if you were the one making these changes, you wouldn’t find any support, barring a few intellectuals whose voice anyways wouldn’t be heard, and who are too small to matter in the game of numbers that is de acy .

You’re alienating the business who probably donate for your campaigns, the bureaucrats you depend on to implement your schemes, the employees and small businesses who make up the bulk of your voters.









Do you think you’ll get re-elected?

To make it worse, all your opponents will organize massive rallies, opposing you and obstructing your work. They’ll promise to undo all your changes to win over these groups, the same people who probably brought you to power.

You have no interest to do any of this.

You have no interest to undertake any action that promises long term benefits. Why? Because you can only think in terms of 5 year cycles. If the results show up after that, whoever is in power will simply claim them as their achievements. They won’t help you get re-elected.

Why undertake slow, complex, boring reforms that your voters won’t comprehend and will only resent? You have no interest to drastically alter the status quo., either or you’ll face a massive backlash. Much better to offer flashy schemes and doles, promising instant gratification. Because that’s how you’ll stay in power, and staying in power is probably in your interest if you’re in politics.





所以为什么要推行选民无法理解、只可能抗议的进展缓慢、程序复杂而又乏味的改革呢?你没有兴趣彻底改变现状,否则你将面临巨大的反弹。提出华而不实的改革计划和救济金,作出可以即刻得到满足的承诺,则要划算得多。因为这是你掌控权 力的方式,如果你从政的话,掌控权 力才是正道。



Talent appreciation and leverage of talent to increase productivity of a nation.

China excels in these parameters. Chinese are smart workers. They understand the trick of trade faster. Their go nment has built the infrastructure necessary for nurturing the talent and providing faster approval for start-ups. Entrepreneurs are encouraged to put their creative ideas to practice. Faster go nmental approval. Workers also understand their obligations and duties in addition to rights. They don’t get into mindless industrial strikes at the drop of a hat. Every project in China has a start date and an end date in letter and spirit. They really care about project completion and start delivering. Quality of their products and services is good, too.

Their education system appreciates and nurtures talent. They don’t compromise on quality of education.




For India, it is a long, long … way to catch up with China. Let people stop teasing Chinese as if we had produced top class products that sell worldwide. We haven’t produced yet like China. We may excel in services but not in production. The whole world is looking at how we are going to produce Apple products to the specifications set by the company. This is a litmus test for India. We may succeed or fail at the first instance. Failing is not a problem. China also faced failures in 1980s. But they came out successfully. The point here is that India would wake up to the challenges in producing goods to the standards set by MNCs, let alone competing with China or Taiwan or South Korea. Talented guys go to countries that welcome talent, get fancy jobs or promote start-ups, and deliver exceptionally well - far better than what they would deliver if they continued to be in India. Once they go out of their country, most wouldn’t want to return. I shudder to think what Sundar Pichai would have ended up if he chose to remain in India.

Long story short, India has to radically change its policies in creating talent, appreciating talent and making use of talent to full potential. Fix accountability for not delivering things like go nment approval, funding approval and so on.










 译文来源:三泰虎   http://www.santaihu.com/p/51625.html 译者:Joyceliu



Consider the following reasons:


  1. India inherited a Westminister de ratic system from their former British colonizers and this system was and is totally alien to India’s various cultures and traditions. Instead of promoting honest and experienced individuals, this system has enabled corporate lackeys, corrupt businessmen and bigoted caste leaders to rule India and plunder it to their hearts content. In the 2019 Indian General Elections, 43% of the elected MPs had a criminal record. On the other hand, most of China’s leaders are cadres and workers of the Communist party. From a very young age these men and women are taught how to run a country at various schools that are handled by the Communist Party. Whenever a disaster or a pandemic occurs, CCP cadres are at the forefront of the relief operations.
  2. In India corporations have a free hand and they can do whatever the hell they want as the “de ratic” Indian go nments have removed most of the regulations that were suppose to keep the corporations in check. Poor Indians, and especially the farmers and Adivasis have suffered a lot because of this. On the other hand, All the corporations in China (Both foreign and local) have a committee of Communist party members who make sure that these corporations aren’t trying to cross the line that was set by the go nment.
  3. China made a huge effort to learn from all the corporations that arrived in China after 1978. As a result of this, China is now develo its own products ranging from cell phones to Merchant Ships. It is behind the west in a few areas like Semiconductors and Civil Aviation but that gap would also close in the next 10 to 20 years. India made no such effort.
  4. China made an effort to reduce its growing population by introducing the one child policy in order to conserve its resources. India gave up on population control after the Privatization of the early 90s. This made sure that there would always be too many mouths to feed and not enough resources to feed them especially in this age of climate change and resource depletion. India is 1/3 the size of China but its population is almost equal to that of China.

1. 印度从早先的英国殖民者那里传承来了皿煮制度,这种制度过去曾经,现在依然,跟印度的各种文化和传统并不相融。这种制度没有培养出诚信老练的个人,反而让企业走狗、附败的商人和偏执的种姓领袖得以统治并尽情掠夺印度。在2019年印度大选中,43%的当选议员都被查出犯罪记录。但在中国,大多数领导人都是从很小的时候起,就在公立学校里学习如何管理国家了。每当发生灾害或疫情时,他们总是站在抢险救灾的第一线。

2. 在印度,企业可以做任何他们想做的事情,因为“皿煮”印度政府已经取消了大多数本应约束企业的法律规定。贫穷的印度人,尤其是农民和原住民,因此遭受了很大的损失。而中国的公司(包括外国公司和本土公司)都有党组织,确保这些公司不会试图越过设定的界限。

3. 中国做出了巨大的努力,向1978年以后进入中国的所有企业学习取经。因此,中国现在已开始研发自己的产品,从手机到商船,都是如此。在半导体和民用航空等一些领域,中国虽仍落后于西方,但在未来10到20年内,这一差距也将逐步缩小。印度并没有做出这样的努力。

4. 为了节约资源,中国实行了独生子女政策,努力降低人口增长速度。印度在90年代早期私有化后放弃了对人口进行控制。这就导致了需要养活的人口太多,但资源又太少。印度的面积仅为中国的三分之一,但人口却已几乎与中国相等。

三泰虎原创译文,禁止转载!:首页 > 印度看中国 » 为什么中国的发展速度比印度快那么多