The future belongs to India, not China

The future belongs to India, not China

12 May 2009

India, a democracy of over a billion people, has a rate of growth almost as impressive as China's, a burgeoning middle class, a highly skilled work force and an abundance of raw materials. More important still, it operates under the rule of law not the rule of the politburo. Could it be that India ends up the dominant power of the eastern hemisphere?

Arguing in favour of the motion are Deepak Lal, Sir Mark Tully, and Gurcharan Das. Lal begins by stating that the economic reforms in both countries have been extremely successful, despite the fact that India lags ten years behind China. He points to India’s comparative success in reducing economic repression, its establishment of the rule of law, its use of the English language, and its civil society as reasons for its more promising future compared to China’s. Defending the motion, Sir Mark argues that India is attempting to turn a country with a legacy of poverty into a democratic nation with a government that acts for the common good. The quality of the progress is what matters. India’s greatest problem – its malfunctioning government – is improving, and it will in future be a country we look to as a model of democracy. The quality of the progress is what matters. India’s greatest problem – its malfunctioning government – is improving, and it will in future be a country we look to as a model of democracy. Gurcharan Das finishes by arguing that it is possible to feel frustrated at India’s chaotic democracy, but that Indians would choose democracy over a China's slightly higher growth rate. He believes that China’s rise has been induced by a purposeful state, while India’s growth occurs in spite of the state. Therefore India’s will be a more long-term success.

Arguing against the motion are Lord Powell, Danny Quah and Sir David Tang. Lord Powell begins by arguing that China’s strength lies in the fact that it does not allow itself to be diverted from its goal of growth due to its political system – unlike democracy. He states that Chinese standing around the world is growing rapidly, whilst their relationships with their neighbours are far better than those between India and her neighbours. Danny Quah continues by arguing that the important difference is between democracy and state control, and what effects these two systems will have on India and China's respective futures. China has been far more successful at bringing its citizens out of poverty, and this is partly due to its swift-moving, economically literate government, which can shift economic resources quickly and effectively. Finally, Sir David discusses his historical interactions with the Indian people. He compares the current situations of the two nations' roads, airports, goods, trading operations, trains, and literacy to demonstrate that India could not catch up to China in the near future.

First vote: 264 For, 223 Against, 221 Don't Know

Final vote: 261 For, 421 Against, 23 Don't Know

The motion is defeated by 160 votes.

BUY THE DVD

Speakers for the motion

Deepak Lal

Development economist
Sir Mark Tully

Broadcaster
Gurcharan Das

Author, consultant and public intellectual

Chair

Edward Lucas

International Editor of the Economist

Speakers against the motion

Lord Powell

Diplomat, politician, and businessman
Danny Quah

Professor and Head of the Department of Economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science
Sir David Tang

Businessman and entrepreneur