Indian media representations of China -- Part II

BY Subarno Chattarji| IN Books | 29/07/2005

Subarno Chattarji

In an op-ed piece in the Times of India, Ashutosh Varshney, Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, trots out the old rhetoric of India¿s democratic advantage over China (¿China Faces Uncertain Future: India¿s democracy holds long-term advantages¿ June 9, 2005, 14). Varshney¿s is a much more sophisticated argument stating that although China has short term advantages over India, in the long term India has certain institutional advantages over China in the economic and political sphere. ¿Of the many differences in economic institutions, two stand out: world class firms have emerged in India, but not in China; and India¿s capital markets are significantly more developed.¿ Varshney cites the authority of Lee Kuan Yew, the father of Singapore, to bolster this belief. The greater advantage, however, is political. ¿The odds are,¿ Varshney writes, ¿that Chinese communists will face a societal challenge in the next decade or so. A society that has gone through a market-based annual growth rate of 7-8% for nearly three decades is almost certain to witness the emergence of a vigorous middle class. Can one imagine a quiescent, 400-500 million strong middle class for long? […] Sooner or later, China¿s communist rulers will have to face the prospect of a middle-class unrest.¿

Predicting the future of nations as complex as India and China is always hazardous, but the trajectory of Varshney¿s formulation is interesting in the ways in which it posits an inevitable clash between the middle class and their rulers, perceiving that class as an engine for societal change. In India¿s case it is evident that internal economic liberalization and globalization have led to a burgeoning middle class that is increasingly conservative in its political and religious outlook. The rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coincides with the growing clout of the middle class (the main votaries of the BJP) and the besmirching of India¿s fabled democracy by genocidal religious riots and bigotry in the public sphere. The rise of fascism in Europe in the 20^th century was ably aided by the middle-class in Germany and Italy. To perceive the middle classes as an agent for societal or pro-democratic change in a post-industrial, globalized world seems optimistic.

Varshney¿s is a comforting argument but he too ignores the obvious and seemingly insurmountable problems that beset India¿s economic and political institutions. While India has an enviable institutional framework for everything ranging from poverty eradication to laws that will protect the elderly against their ungrateful children, there seems to be an almost total disconnect between the framework of laws and institutions and their functioning. The institutionalization of corruption and communalism, the poor infrastructure - roads, power generation, airports, ports - that continue to hold up economic development, massive poverty and inequity, and almost total lack of social security networks are just some of the problems. China too faces its share of poverty and inequity as a result of the rapid economic growth over the last two decades and the dismantling of communist economic structures. When the Indian media carries stories and analyses trumpeting India¿s democracy one wonders how that in itself is an advantage over China or any country. Is the dichotomy and choice between democracy and what Varshney calls the ¿communist monopoly on power¿? The Indian media casts the differences in these terms and often overlooks endemic problems within India, casting aspersions on China¿s human rights records and smug in its own democratic virtue.

While the Chinese paradigm is omnipresent it is seldom analyzed for models that India might emulate. The economic boom in China has created inequities but it has the advantage of a revolutionary past which emphasized social equality and literacy, among other aspects of social capital. China also has a solid manufacturing base which powers its growth. India seems to be attempting to leapfrog over and ignore dire problems (such as poverty, illiteracy, female infanticide) and create a globalized utopia for its middle class. Gautam Adhikari¿s op-ed piece, ¿Dancing Their Way To Oz¿ (Times of India, May 16, 2005, 18), is emblematic of this desire. He lists the discomfiting facts: ¿A majority of people lives on less than two dollars a day, with a quarter of the population scrounging for subsistence daily on less than a dollar. India figures way near the bottom of the United Nations¿ quality of life chart, barely above sub-Saharan nations. A third of the population still can¿t read or write after more than half a century of independent growth.¿ Yet these facts can now be discounted because young India is dancing its way to ¿individual dreams of a happy life¿ and even if this is illusionary ¿illusions must not be dismissed out of hand¿. Perhaps these illusions of democracy, human rights, and moral capital sustain the media in its continuous comparisons with China.

Thus far I have been looking largely at coverage of China in the Times of India which claims to be the largest circulating broadsheet in the world. I turn now to some newsmagazines which, while covering the visit of Wen Jiabao to India in April 2005, reiterate some of the themes addressed above. Raj Chengappa and Saurabh Shukla begin their article by citing Wen Jiabao¿s response to George Fernandes, former Defense Minister, who declared China as India¿s ¿enemy number one¿ soon after India¿s nuclear tests in May 1998. ¿On a patch-up visit to Beijing in 2003, he [Fernandes] was given a lesson in subtlety by Wen Jiabao. The Chinese premier told Fernandes "During the past 2,200 years, about 99.9% of the time we have devoted to friendly cooperation between our two countries." The 0.1% that Wen was referring to was the 1962 war that left deep scars in India¿s psyche but which China now is keen to heal¿ (¿The New Bhai Bhai,¿ India Today, April 18, 2005, 49). The article goes over familiar ground, outlining Indian business fears of being swamped by Chinese products, the need to solve the border dispute, and that the new China led by ¿young leaders who do not carry the baggage of the past¿ ¿is concentrating fiercely on its economic development¿. Chengappa and Shukla stress the importance of economic and political cooperation rather than conflict between the two nations.

This theme is carried forward in a follow-up piece, ¿Factory of the world… meets Lab of the World¿ (Rohit Saran, India Today, April 18, 2005): ¿Once called Asia¿s non-identical twins, India and China are becoming more of a twosome¿ (52). The emphasis again is on business rather than old border disputes, on Indian companies ¿looking at China as a cheaper and more efficient manufacturing base than India¿ (53), and on the fact that cooperation and competition can coexist. The IT sector comes in for its usual praise along with possibilities in steel manufacturing. Saran cites Joydeep Mukherjee, director with Standard and Poor¿s, New York, who declares that as the Chinese ¿engage more with India [they] are likely to realize that the Indian private sector is remarkably modern and sophisticated in comparison with the Chinese private sector¿ (53).

Mukherjee¿s assertion is not backed by facts in the article. The very next page highlights facts that seem to contradict Mukherjee. A table titled ¿Four Ps of India-China¿ indicates that in terms of Prosperity, People, Public Goods and Partnership, India lags behind. Its conclusions are fairly clear: ¿China is richer, but also more unequal; India is younger, but less productive¿ and in Public Goods ¿China¿s superiority is overwhelming¿. While lauding India¿s private sector, Saran simultaneously writes that ¿Haier and TCL, the Chinese consumer appliances and electronics giants, have entered India only to sell their products. That isn¿t surprising. Chinese companies will not leave an infinitely more efficient and abundant infrastructure in their country to come and manufacture in India¿ (54). In fact in July 2005 Haier declared that it was putting off all operations in India by a year; reasons were not cited. Saran¿s observation about China¿s manufacturing advantage is strikingly candid in the context of a media that shies away from dismal realities. However, Saran¿s piece itself veers from realism to optimism, displaying a schizophrenic awareness of India¿s negatives and attempting to cover up with hype and testimonials from ¿experts¿. This is a strategy that many media practitioners adopt in their attempt to be ¿balanced¿. In effect they end up highlighting what they may have wished to downplay.

In a ¿Guest Column¿ Tarun Khanna, Jorge Paulo Lemann Professor at Harvard Business School and teacher of senior executives in a HBS-Tsinghua University program, states that differences between India and China are huge, but that will be the basis for future cooperation. Unlike Varshney, he does not wish to predict the future of the Chinese polity or economy, but he ends on an upbeat note: ¿To me the most heartening aspect of the current bonhomie between India and China is that they have finally begun to understand and engage with each other. That will help fill the knowledge gap that persisted between them. And as that gap narrows, the huge potential-performance gap in the bilateral trade and investment will also shrink¿ (58).

Perhaps Wen Jiabao¿s visit contributed in part to the bridging of that ¿knowledge gap¿. Wen played up the importance of the trip to India way before it actually took place when he told his Indian counterpart, ¿My visit to India will be the most important event of my calendar for 2005 and the world will look at it¿ (Saurabh Shukla, ¿The Dragon Smiles,¿ India Today, April 25, 2005, 48). Shukla goes on to write that although problems persist, the agreements between the two countries represent what officials describe ¿as a "mindshift" - China was no longer doing business with the vanquished of 1962 but with an emerging global player¿. These officials are most likely Indian for they touch on two raw nerves at one go: the 1962 war which still rankles and India¿s not so major presence in the global stage. Perhaps China can assuage some of the insecurities.

To be continued.