The one constant in the surfeit of recent India-China comparisons is the abundant use of animal-related cliches—tigers, dragons, elephants and peacocks, dancing, lumbering or prancing about. Media guru Raghav Bahl’s debut book, Super Power?, adds to this pantheon by framing his analysis as a race between China’s hare and India’s tortoise.
The purpose of Bahl’s exploration of the differential dynamic between the two giants is ostensibly to answer the trillion Yuan question of who will win this contest. Unfortunately, the answer he provides (warning, spoiler ahead) is an exercise in prevarication: it’s “advantage China” and “odds on India” with the ultimate outcome a “Fifty-Fifty” guess.
Bahl contends that the financial crisis provoked by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 has spiced up the race. Where once the outcome was a foregone conclusion in China’s favour, Beijing’s troubles and India’s resilience post-Lehman have thrown the race wide open.
On the surface, it still is somewhat of a no-contest. Bahl bandies around plenty of statistics—and yet more animal metaphors—to illustrate the point. The “hare” is after all a “$5 trillion gorilla” compared to the piffling “$1.50 trillion cub” that is the “tortoise”. To cite another example: China adds 105 GW power in one year, equal to the entire generating capacity of India.
But such sobering facts aside, Bahl argues that the hare’s twin demographic and democratic deficits make it less than a sure shot to win. Meanwhile, the tortoise is steadily moving towards the finishing line of superpowerdom.
Bahl compares the countries on a variety of parameters, including legal systems, foreign policy and influence, entrepreneurship, English, urbanisation, infrastructure, education and agriculture.
There are few surprises here: China has done a better job when it comes to both physical and social infrastructure— roads, ports, schools and factories, while India trumps its neighbour in entrepreneurship and ease with English. Moreover, China’s growth is potentially unsustainable, being overly dependent on hyper-investment. India is more balanced, with stable domestic consumption.
So far, so standard. But Bahl puts forward the intriguing hypothesis that China might be rescripting conventional economic theory according to which hyper-investment (China invests nearly half its GDP) creates a bubble and eventual collapse. But by investing on a scale hitherto unknown or tested, “China might have created a new escape velocity” that allows it to escape conventional constraints on growth. By investing in “big infrastructure and life-enhancing social assets”, China might be rewriting the economic textbooks, Bahl muses, provoking an exciting line of questioning that he unfortunately fails to follow up.
Most of the book will please the Indian reader, being part of the shining-India-of-the-twenty-first-century school of thought. The blame for India’s woes is placed on a timid leadership, in direct contrast to China’s dynamic, visionary powers. But India is shining despite its leaders. And post-Lehman, the stars are aligned for its world-class businesses and demographic dividend to begin delivering on the tortoise’s solid and often underestimated potential.
Then suddenly, in his two-page epilogue, Bahl once again makes a statement that begs elucidation. He claims that having “done a deep dive into the legacies” of the two countries, he is confronted by the “shocking realisation” that India’s democratic strength “may have been overestimated by the world”, while China’s “drive and ambition” might have been “underestimated”. Bizarrely, the bulk of his book seems to have been arguing precisely the opposite, making it less than clear how and why he arrived at this interesting conclusion.
If there is an answer whether it is the hare or the tortoise that will win, it appears to be in the tried and tested answer of: it depends. Will India fix its governance ills first or will China pip it to the post by addressing its political lacuna?
Bahl admits at the outset that his book is a “work of instinct, intuition and experience”. Tomes by economists and geo-strategic pundits rarely have mass-market appeal. But Bahl’s racy, anecdotal style makes Super Power? accessible and, in parts, enjoyable.
However, a little less instinct and a bit more research would not have gone amiss. For instance, when we are informed that “Taot” is China’s eBay when in fact it is “Taobao” that is being referred to. Or when we are informed that China “is a country almost indifferent to God and religion”. Really?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT