Don't ape China

The shadow of China is lately apparent in the Government of India. The influence of China’s successful manufacturing model of growth can be seen in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” programme. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley spoke about matching China’s rate of growth in discussing banking outreach to rural areas. The Jan Dhan Yojana, apparently, aims to enable the inclusion of spending by rural people in GDP growth. This would help in catching up with China’s rate of growth. In this milieu, Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman struck a sombre note, referring to India’s widening trade deficit with China and the need to bridge it.

There has been a tendency, particularly in western media, to bracket India and China together since the advent of globalisation over two decades ago. This also found expression in BRIC, an acronym that grouped together Brazil, Russia, India, and China, identifying them as fast-developing economies.

In economic growth, China was remarkable in the recent decades, but now slowdown has set in. India is now presented as the next big thing and the election of the business-friendly regime of  Modi has encouraged the trend. A debate is needed on what India can learn from China. Undeniably,there are commonalties between India and China. They both represent ancient civilizations, are located in Asia, and are the only members of the billion-plus population club. Probably, the similarities end here.The two countries are markedly different from each other in most other respects. India, with multiple ethnicities, languages, and faiths, is pluralistic – a feature that inspired the “subcontinent” label. China is essentially homogenous. India has a history, indeed an innate culture of liberalism reflected in the democratic institutions that have survived and, to some extent, flourished in the country, post-independence. This contrasts with one-party polity in China and intolerance towards opposition.

Not surprisingly, the recent eagerness in India to catch up has drawn attention in China. A report in Chinese official media, with a whiff of patronising, referred to India’s “messy democracy” and how it obstructs swift progress in development projects. This effectively endorses a totalitarian approach.

Large projects are, perhaps, a necessity in the current model of development but they do not generally result in dispersed benefits. Immediate benefit goes to people at the top, both in government and private sector companies usually with political connections. Distributive justice and individual development are usually the victims in large projects and top-down models of development. These issues are especially important from the perspective of poverty alleviation and uplifting the masses that are vital for India.

Without holding a brief for obstructionism, yet in India a question is whether open debate and democratic traditions should be sacrificed at the altar of a top-down model of economic development and large infrastructure projects that go with it. It would be more productive to have a structured dialogue that considers cross-sections of interests and this can facilitate greater consensus in implementation. The approach requires leadership and empathy at all levels, instead of totalitarian responses. Totalitarian approaches can possibly deliver better results for specific activities in the short term. India’s educated classes often display admiration for authority and order, which probably explains the rule of law in the country and reasonable integrity of its institutions, yet authority is the defining feature of India. Another question is how far totalitarianism will work in India.

In dealing with China, it is necessary to understand its model. China followed export-driven growth with mass production of all sorts of goods at low prices. This enabled the country to generate large-scale employment and build up huge wealth. The success of the Chinese manufacturing model was largely due to the industriousness of the people and their willingness and ability to perform repetitive tasks with great efficiency and speed.

It is not clear if Indian people are endowed with similar qualities needed for the success of the “Make in India” program. An option is to stress their importance and make a concerted effort to develop the needed work ethos. Another would be to tap India’s relative strengths, such as creativity and craftsmanship, and explore how these can be put to best use in promoting economic growth. In the pre-globalisation decades, exports of crafts and arts received considerable focus from policymakers in India but this has since fallen by the wayside. Of course, the two – large-scale industrial production and better use of India’s traditional skills – can co-exist. This is perhaps the best way forward. The combination will probably produce the best results.

In China’s production model, environmental degradation has emerged as a major byproduct. People now regularly wear masks in large Chinese cities to protect themselves from air pollution. A question is whether India must follow this path. Another problem is the enormous corruption China’s success has spawned. Deng Xiaoping’s famous statement that it is glorious to get rich is remarkable for its incompleteness and a shortsighted approach to pursuit of wealth. It is insensitive to issues such as sustainability, social values, and ethics. These are vital omissions, another lesson India can learn from China.

Modi is a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi. In his famous debate with Rabindranath Tagor, Gandhi warned against getting blown off our feet by winds even while keeping the windows open for fresh air and new ideas to enter. This underscores the need for caution in dealing with ideas. Another gem is found in the Khata Upanishad, which points out that the human face has seven openings all turning to the world outside. It is only the wise that gaze inward. India can benefit equally from an inward focus in policy in finding solutions to problems.

(The writer is Associate Professor, Faculty ofLaw, University of Ottawa, Canada)