In his article “The myth of Chinese invincibility” (October 19), Shyam Saran draws a convincing picture of China’s troubles arising from the declining Western economies that have provided the engine for its unprecedented growth rates over the past two decades. Though it’s true that China has suffered economic ills by contagion in the last three years, it has escaped contracting the infection of Western consumerism that India was quick to acquire. This leaves China with a shortage of domestic customers to offset the loss of purchasing power in the West.
However, Saran omits the fact that China recognised its vulnerability to the West’s decline almost a decade ago. It launched a major programme to bring the fruits of its prosperity to the impoverished interior provinces that, for the most part, had provided the cheap labour that attracted huge foreign investments in the last quarter of a century. A number of astute economic reforms to take away incentives for investing in the shoreline provinces and to entice investors to build industry in the middle of the land have sown the seeds for a large consumer market within the nation. After all, where in the developed world can they find over half a billion people who are on the verge of becoming customers for the basic necessities that they never enjoyed before? The move is a stroke of genius because the attempt to close the gap between the coastal rich and the underprivileged interior has also added to the credibility and longevity of the government system.
When a country faces such urgency in solving its poverty problems, a strong and purposeful government comes in handy indeed. It may be authoritarian, but the ancient Chinese wisdom has developed a different kind of authoritarianism — one that is benevolent to its people and looks after their welfare in the long run. In arguing against authoritarianism, we would do well to examine whether taking democracy to the other extreme of having an unmanageable multitude of parties – all pulling in their own directions – is also likely to harm the welfare of the people. Freedom it may be, but so is anarchy.
Venkat Krishnan, Toronto
Readers should write to:
The Editor, Business Standard,
Nehru House,
4, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi 110 002,
Fax: (011) 23720201;
letters@bsmail.in
All letters should have a postal address and telephone number