China's rapid advances are unique. No country has ever lifted so many people out of poverty. This has created an aura of infallibility around the governance system. It has also led to questions about India's shambolic democracy. One school of thought says China has been able to accomplish this precisely because it doesn't have democracy.
Whether it's cleaning up Beijing and relocating quantities of people in order to hold Olympics, or setting up the Three Gorges Dam mega-project, or building bullet trains, China can certainly do things quickly. China can also do things slowly in that it is prepared to embark on very long-term projects.
No democratic government is much interested in projects with outcomes beyond the horizon of an electoral term. In contrast, the one-party system allows for long-term policy continuity. For example, the PRC seeks to dilute separatist sentiments in Tibet and Xinjiang through encouraging immigration by the majority Han community. The game plan is to eventually turn the fractious locals to an insignificant minority, even if it takes many decades.
The development of economic muscle also helps China aggressively pursue policy interests. China cannot be sanctioned. It is too large, and it contributes far too much to world trade. So, the PRC can build artificial islands in places where it is embroiled in maritime disputes and it can develop its so-called "string of pearls" network of bases across the Indian Ocean.
There are certainly lessons to be learnt here in terms of steadily pursuing national interests. But the downsides to the Chinese approach are often ignored. For example, there is no accurate accounting of the environmental damage caused by a focus on forcing through infrastructure development at all costs. But the damage is of truly enormous dimensions.
Also, non-democratic systems can really hurt ordinary people. Tens of millions died in China during the 1960s, due to famines and during the purges of the Cultural Revolution. Then, there was the Tiananmen Square massacre, which is believed to have logged 10 times the casualties of Jallianwala Bagh.
Democracy gains here. India's population was one meal from starvation in the 1960s. But famines did not occur on the same scale. The Emergency, terrible as it may have been, was a minor event compared to the Cultural Revolution.
The aura of infallibility is now wearing off, given recent missteps. It may be noted that India has a more free economic system in many ways. Once Shanghai's stock market boom turned to bust, the authorities resorted to crude threats in what can be described as an attempt to terrify the stock market into recovery.
The hukou system of internal passports restricts the freedom of ordinary citizens to live, study or work where they choose. This is significant, given large economic differences between provinces. The landlocked parts are much worse off and hukou hobbles labour mobility. Plus, interest rates are controlled, cutting down returns on household savings. And, of course, Facebook, Github, YouTube, Google, CNN and Twitter are not legally accessible. Quite apart from restricting freedom of expression, this also means Chinese software developers cannot operate on, or exploit, the world's most popular platforms.
A democratic system can and often does, impede policy implementation. Sometimes - when the policies are bad - that can be a good thing. A fortnight or so after Good Governance Day, it behoves Indians to be thankful that those checks and balances exist.
Twitter: @devangshudatta