[2020-05-02]中国为什么会比印度做得更好呢，而人口几乎差不多？

I was in China several times in 2003–2008.
One Thursday evening about 5pm, we were driving from one small town to another near Guangzhou, on a very good 4-lane road (2 lanes per side). Hardly any traffic—cars perhaps 100–200m apart. The road was being expanded. I asked our host why. Oh, due to the traffic. Which is the rush hour on this route? Right now is the busiest time. What??
Another trip. Driving through one of the main streets of Ningbo—a beautiful, wide road, nice buildings on both sides. Asked our host, so is this a new part of town? No, this is the old area. How come the roads are so broad, the old roads must have been very narrow? (Ningbo is a 2,000 year old town). Oh, this road has been widened 3 times in the last 15 years. How do you widen a main road, what happens to all the buildings alongside? The buildings are broken, the people are given apartments and offices in other areas, and the road is expanded. Simple!!

Manas Rath 社会影响企业，麻省理工学院毕业，灵气大师，住在孟买
2003年至2008年间，我曾多次来到中国。
一个星期四的晚上，大约下午5点，我们从一个小镇开车到广州附近的另一个小镇，在一条非常好的四车道公路上(每边两车道)。 几乎没有车辆ーー车距大约为100至200米。这条路正在扩建。 我问我们的东道主为什么。他说“哦，因为是交通堵塞才扩建。 ”“这条线路的高峰时间是几点？”“现在就是最忙的时候。”“什么？”
又一次旅行。 开车穿过宁波的一条主要街道，一条美丽宽阔的道路，两边都有漂亮的建筑。 我们问东道主，这里是城里新建的地方吗？“ 不，这是老地方。”“ 那为什么道路这么宽，老路一定很窄吧？” (宁波是一个有两千年历史的城镇)。“哦，这条路在过去的15年里拓宽了3次。” “如何拓宽主干道呢，旁边的建筑物会怎么样？” “建筑物拆了，人们在其他地区获得公寓和办公室，道路也能扩建。”就这么简单！！

At this time, I was running a factory in the SEEPZ SEZ in Mumbai. A thoroughly painful experience—costs were high, transporting goods would take long due to quality of roads and traffic, workers spent 3–4 hours getting to and from work so were tired, traffic was enough to give blood pressure to anyone, poor public transport—and SEEPZ, considered a premium SEZ of India, looked like a slum!! Seriously.
In China, single factories located in small towns would be almost the size of our entire SEZ. Quiet, clean, people working away peacefully, large meeting rooms with high ceilings, greenery outside, open windows due to low air pollution (now the big cities esp of the North are very polluted, these were mostly in Southern China). After a 10-day trip to China, my shoes would be cleaner than after a single day of visiting SEEPZ or the industrial zones around Mumbai where our vendors were located.

当时，我在孟买的SEEPZ经济特区经营一家工厂。这是一次极其痛苦的经历ーー成本很高，由于道路和交通的质量问题，运输货物需要很长时间，工人上下班要花3-4个小时，因此非常疲劳，交通状况足以让任何人血压升高，糟糕的公共交通状况ーー而被视为印度高级经济特区的SEEPZ，看起来就像一个贫民窟！！我说真的。
在中国，位于小城镇的单个工厂几乎相当于我们整个经济特区的面积。 安静，干净，人们安静地工作，大型会议室，高高的天花板，外面的绿色植物，空气清新打开窗户(现在北方的大城市污染非常严重，大部分中国南方空气较好)。经过10天的中国之旅，我的鞋子比参观一天 SEEPZ 或我们孟买周边工业区供应商的时候，更干净。

One “small” factory owner told me he was given 5 acres of free land outside a small town right off the highway, it took 13 months to get all permissions AND build a 4-floor ~120,000 sq. ft. factory (plus hostels for 250 workers) with a 5% interest rate loan from the local bank with no guarantees, and his electricity was 60% cheaper than what we paid!! His workers walked to work, the windows were open, he was using 2 out of the 4 floors he had built. Dude, was I jealous? Indian interest rates were 13–15% and you need 110% collateral to get a loan, painful to get any permits, land is expensive and where its cheap you probably wouldn’t get electricity, etc etc.
Anyway. So for starters, lets leave aside the social and environmental costs of China’s amazing rise and lets focus on how they have done it—and why India hasn’t.

一个“小型”工厂老板告诉我，他获得了一个小镇外的5英亩的免费土地，就在高速公路旁边，花了13个月的时间才得到所有的许可，建造了一个4层楼的120,000平方英尺的工厂(加上250个工人的旅馆) ，当地银行给他5% 的利率贷款，没有任何担保，而且他的电费比我们支付的便宜60% ！ 他的工人们步行上班，窗户是开着的，他使用的是他建造的4层中的2层。 哥们，我是吃醋了吗？ 印度的贷款利率是13-15% ，你需要110%的抵押品才能获得贷款，要获得任何许可证都是痛苦的，土地价格昂贵，而且便宜的地方很可能没有电力供应，等等。
所以无论如何。首先，让我们撇开中国惊人的崛起所带来的社会和环境成本不谈，让我们关注一下中国是如何崛起的ーー以及为什么印度没有崛起。

1. Top down decisions in a single-party political system: Chinese leaders can make decisions about infrastructure development, promoting industries, changing land use, creating cities, tax incentives etc, and just do it! A single party means decisions can be long-term and not dependent on election cycles, and unpopular decisions can also be pushed through relatively easily.
In India, political fighting is so bad that everyone is trying to pull the other one down, and every hard-but-good decision gets challenged or over-turned. Winning elections often comes down to handing out freebies to people so water and electricity are offered free, bank loans are waived etc—all destructive to long-term responsible development. No 2 below makes this competitive politics worse.

1. 自上而下的一党制决策：中国领导人可以决定基础设施建设，促进工业发展，改变土地用途，创建城市，税收优惠等等，而且只管去做！单一政党意味着决策可以是长期的，不依赖于选举周期，不受欢迎的决策也可以相对容易地通过。
在印度，政治斗争非常严重，以至于每个人都试图把对方拉下水，每一个艰难但是正确的决定都会受到挑战或被推翻。 赢得选举往往意味着向人民免费发放水电、免除银行贷款等等——所有这些都会破坏长期负责任的发展。 下面的第二点会让这种政治斗争更加糟糕。

2. Accountability of Government officers: There are generally 2 differences:
(a) In India, corruption starts right from the bottom. Therefore, in India, things get stuck right from the start and are slow to move while in China, once decisions are taken at the top, they move quickly.
(b) Low accountability of Government officers in India—despite huge corruption, things don’t get done in India. Billions of dollars are wasted on poorly planned, incomplete projects because money is siphoned away by corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen, and the work is never even completed!! Generally in China, the job will get done. In India, Government officials get transferred so often that there is just no accountability or ownership of anything.
China started processes like exams for government employees to be promoted, which is unthinkable in India. Even though India has very intelligent officers, they are often in the wrong job for which they have no experience or competence, or the system is so poorly designed and managed that people are inefficient.
Now due to the above, China was able to achieve the next 3 points

2. 政府官员的问责制：一般有两个区别：
(a)在印度，腐败从底层开始。 因此，在印度，事情从一开始就陷入僵局，行动缓慢；而在中国，一旦高层做出决定，行动迅速。
(b)印度政府官员的问责制效率低下ーー尽管存在巨大的腐败，但并没有解决印度的事情。数十亿美元浪费在计划不周、未完成的项目上，因为金钱被腐败的政客、官僚和商人抽走了，而工程甚至从不会完成! ！ 一般来说在中国，工作会很快完成。 在印度，政府官员经常调动，以至于不负任何责任和所有权。
中国启动了政府雇员晋升考试等程序，这在印度是不可想象的。 尽管印度拥有非常聪明的官员，但他们往往从事错误的工作，因为他们缺乏经验或能力，或者印度的体制设计和管理非常糟糕，以至于人们效率低下。
现在由于上述原因，中国能够实现接下来的第3点，

3. Timing—boom of the 1990s: China opened up before India, in the late 70s versus mid-90s for India. When the Western World embarked on history’s largest wave of outsourcing and liberalization in the 1990s, China was ready! They had a vast workforce, could make land available for factories, basic infrastructure was in place and could be developed rapidly (see my above stories) and there were no strong labour or environmental laws to stop industrialization.
Due to its weak land reform, terrible labour and industrial laws that, honestly, neither protect workers nor encourage industry, and poor infrastructure and inability to develop infrastructure quickly enough, India just could not take advantage of this outsourcing by after the Y2K scare around 1999–2000, developed a world-class information technologies India—but this is too small, employing only about 6–10 million people. Till today, despite the current Government’s Make in India program, industry remains very weak with a handful of high quality factories (mostly owned by MNCs but also some world-class Indian manufacturers), and running any blue-collar industry is quite painful.

3. 20世纪90年代的繁荣时期：中国在印度之前开放，中国在70年代后期，而印度在90年代中期。 当西方世界在20世纪90年代开始有史以来最大的外包和自由化浪潮时，中国已经准备好了！他们拥有庞大的劳动力，可以为工厂提供土地，基本的基础设施已经到位，可以迅速发展(见我上面说的故事) ，而且没有强力的劳动法或环境法来阻止工业化。
由于印度薄弱的土地改革、糟糕的劳动法和工业法(坦白地说，这些法律既不保护工人，也不鼓励工业发展)、落后的基础设施以及无法足够快速地发展基础设施，印度无法利用这些外包——在1999年至2000年的千年虫恐慌之后，印度发展出了世界级的信息技术——但这个规模太小，只雇佣了大约600万至1000万人。直到今天，尽管政府实施了印度制造计划，工业仍然非常薄弱，只有少数高质量的工厂(大部分由跨国公司拥有，但也有一些世界级的印度制造商) ，经营任何蓝领工业都是相当痛苦的。

4. Low-cost to High-Quality: China started out by making junk at scale. It could have stayed there, but its commendable that they had the vision to move up in terms of quality and up the value chain. By the mid-2000s, China was becoming seriously competitive with global companies and they had the scale that for many materials and products, you just had to go there. No choice. Chinese companies bought European and American ones, they invited Western companies and people to set up in China so they could learn from the West. In the consumer electronics and loudspeaker industry, I saw a tremendous focus on quality and productivity—only a handful of Nordic factories would compare with what I saw in China. And I saw the remarkable change during my travels from 2002 to 2008.

4. 从低成本到高质量：中国从大规模制造垃圾开始。 它本可以保持那样，但值得称赞的是，他们对质量和价值链有提升的远见。到2000年代中期，中国与全球性公司的竞争变得越来越激烈，它们的规模之大，足以满足许多原材料和产品的需求。 别无选择。 中国公司收购了欧洲和美国的公司，他们邀请西方公司和个人在中国设立公司，这样他们就可以向西方学习。 在消费电子产品和扬声器行业，我看到了中国对质量和生产率的极大关注ーー只有少数北欧工厂能与我在中国看到的情况相比。 在2002年到2008年的旅行中，我看到了显著的变化。

5. Technology and Innovation: Moving away from imitation, China started investing heavily in innovation and technology, including attracting thousands of expat workers who were treated like kings. And they learnt fast! Today, China is cutting-edge in many sectors while India is nowhere to be seen. Artificial Intelligence, biotechnology, materials—China is in the league of US, Israel and Germany, India…nowhere. India’s tech industry is all owned by US/European companies, or US/Chinese VCs. Indian entrepreneurs will set up 25 food delivery companies fighting each other for market share, but there aren’t 5 AI companies worth speaking about!

5. 技术与创新: 中国从模仿中走出来，开始大力投资创新和技术，包括吸引成千上万被视为国王的外籍工人。 而且他们学得很快！ 如今，中国在许多领域都处于领先地位，而印度却不见踪影。 在人工智能、生物技术、材料上——中国是美国、以色列和德国的联盟，而印度...没有。 印度的科技行业全部为美国 / 欧洲公司或美国 / 中国风险投资公司所有。 印度企业家将建立25个食品配送公司互相争夺市场份额，但是拿不出5家人工智能的公司！

6. Vision and The Basics: None of this would be possible if the Chinese political and business leadership did not have the vision to make China a global leader. India has had no such vision. Well, we talk about it but don’t do much—happy to brag about how we speak English well and have democracy, and think that qualifies us for super-power status.
China upgraded its education and healthcare sectors to improve the basic elements of human productivity. It built infrastructure like crazy, even irresponsibly at many times leading to “Dead Cities”—huge townships built in the middle of nowhere financed by cheap credit, but people just wouldn’t move there. or the Roads to Nowhere—highways and railways connecting uninhabited areas. But this created employment and generated industrial demand.

6. 愿景和基础: 如果中国的政治和商业领导人没有让中国成为全球领导者的远见，那么这一切都不可能实现。 印度则没有这样的远见。 好吧，我们总是在谈论，但没有做什么ーー我们喜欢吹嘘自己英语说得好，有民主，并认为这让我们有资格获得超级大国的地位。
中国加强了教育和医疗卫生部门，提高了人类生产力的基本要素。 中国疯狂地建设基础设施，有时甚至是不计代价地建设“鬼城”，建在偏僻地方的巨大的城镇，由廉价的信贷提供资金，但人们不愿意搬到那里去。或者是连接无人居住地区的公路和铁路。但这创造了就业并产生了工业需求。

On one hand people complain about lack of political right, lack of freedoms etc. On the other hand, China has raised quality of life for more people, more quickly, than any other country ever in history. So perhaps…its justified? Depends on who one speaks with. Hundreds of millions of poor workers and farmers seem to prefer economic growth over political freedoms. Many better-educated people probably demand Western-style freedoms.
On the other hand, with its liberal(ish) democracy and wide-ranging freedoms and rights, still has hundreds of millions of people living in deep poverty without basic facilities, livelihoods or social justice—crimes and prejudice against women, low castes etc, are still very high.

一方面，人们抱怨缺乏政治权利，缺乏自由等。 但另一方面，中国比历史上任何国家都更快地提高了更多人的生活质量。 那么，也许... 这是合理的？ 那要看和谁说话了。 数亿贫穷的工人和农民似乎更喜欢经济增长，而不是政治自由。 许多受过良好教育的人可能会要求西方式的自由。
另一方面，尽管印度有自由(略带民主色彩)和广泛的自由和权利，仍有数亿人生活在极度贫困之中，没有基本设施、生计或社会正义ーー对妇女、低种姓等的犯罪和偏见仍然非常严重。

I am all for freedom and human rights, but with those, you kinda get…India—which is great in its own way. Just different. You just cannot get the kind of development China has delivered by letting people have their way, listening to everyone and protecting their rights. To move fast, you gotta shove obstacles out of the way, not negotiate with the obstacles to move and let you pass.
So here, one really has step back and ask what the purpose of life and society is. And depending on your answer, you can go the India or China route.
Environmental damage: I say that China’s development was on the back of screwing the environment. Water pollution, air pollution, dumping hazardous chemicals. Man, I’ve seen horrors myself. But the same way, around 2015 they decided to start cleaning up and shut down thousands of factories that did not comply, just like that! But by this time, the economy was large and diversified enough that the economy was not dependent on small, low-cost factories that ignored environmental norms to keep cost low.

我完全支持自由和人权，但有了这些，你就有点... 印度——它有自己的伟大之处。只是不同而已。 你不可能通过让所有人按照自己的方式发展，听取每个人的意见，保护他们的权利来实现类似中国的发展。为了快速行动，你必须把障碍物推开，而不是和障碍物谈判后行动或让你通过。
所以在这里，我们真的需要退后一步，问问生活和社会的目的是什么。 根据你的回答，你可以选择印度或者中国的方式。
环境破坏：我要说中国的发展是建立在对环境的破坏之上的。水污染，空气污染，倾倒有害化学品。朋友，我自己也见过这样恐怖的事情。但是同样的，在2015年左右，他们决定开始清理并关闭数以千计的不遵守规定的工厂，就这样做了！到了这个时候，中国经济已经足够大和多样化，经济不再依赖那些忽视环境规范以保持低成本的小型工厂了。

India’s environmental pollution is also very high due to lack of sewage and waste management infrastructure, and a very lackadaisical, disorganized and uninterested approach by the government to improve these. But chemical pollution is much lower due to our smaller industrial base, through agro-chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers) are doing a great job of polluting the soil and water and causing runaway cancers and disease. India still allows many pesticides banned in Europe to be freely used.
I hope this answer has given a good sense at why China achieved what it has, and India just cannot be compared to China. Many Indians may not agree with what I have written—but I assure you, they have never been to China.

印度的环境污染也非常严重，因为缺乏污水和废物管理基础设施，而且政府在改善这些方面采取了非常懒散、无组织和毫无兴趣的做法。 由于我们的工业基础较小，工业化学污染要低得多。但通过农业化学品(农药、化肥)污染土壤和水，导致恶性肿瘤和疾病。印度仍然允许许多在欧洲被禁止的杀虫剂，在印度自由使用。
我希望这个答案能够很好地解释为什么中国能够取得现在的成就，而印度却无法与中国相提并论。 许多印度人可能不同意我写的东西ーー但我向你保证，他们从未去过中国。

以下回复: -------------------------------------------------------------

Had we begun a couple of decades earlier, we could have not only caught the train of IT revolution but also manufacturing and production.
And IT is underutilized in so many cities. Bhubaneswar, Indore, Guwahati etc all these cities have tremendous untilized educated youth.
So basically we were too little too late.
Exhaustive answer!

Desh Kumar Rath
如果我们早几十年开始开放，我们不仅能赶上 IT 革命的火车，还能赶上制造业和生产业的火车。
布巴内斯瓦尔、印多尔、 古瓦哈蒂等许多城市都有大量的知识青年，在很多城市IT的利用率很低。
所以基本上，我们太小也太晚了。
很详尽的回答！

I agree that starting our reforms earlier would have positioned India to capture more of the outsourcing boom. But it isn’t just timing.
India’s politics is just too too destructive and negative. There is no debate on actual issues, voters themselves don’t know what they want or how to get it so how can they demand the right things from politicians?
So even if we had been at the right place at the right time, we just would not have been able to mobilize the capital, land, resources, people, the way they did. Just impossible for India to have done it the way China did.
The problem is also our human resources are such poor quality. Education remains neglected and is becoming worse in many ways. And I honestly feel the work ethic in India is also very poor. Most people want to chase money, forget about what you are good at or want to do in life. On one hand, corporate corruption is amongst the highest in India. On the other hand, within a few years, people plateau out because they are not truly interested in their work, and get replaced by younger people.

（作者）Manas Rath
我同意，如果我们早点开始改革，印度就能抓住更多的外包热潮。 但这不仅仅是时机问题。
印度政治的破坏性和负面性太强烈了。在实际问题上没有辩论，选民自己也不知道他们想要什么或者怎么得到，所以他们怎么能要求政治家做正确的事情呢？
所以即使我们在正确的时间和正确的地点，我们也不可能像他们那样调动资金、土地、资源、人力。印度不可能做到像中国那样的。
问题还在于我们的人力资源素质太差了。教育仍然被忽视，而且许多方面变得越来越糟了。 老实说，我觉得印度的职业道德也很差。大多数人追逐金钱，忘记了在生活中擅长或想做的事情。 一方面，企业腐败在印度是几乎是最严重的。 另一方面，几年之内，人们就会因为对自己的工作没有真正的兴趣而停滞不前，从而被年轻人取代。

In school, you are are told, study hard or you wont get a job. Never told, study hard so you learn things, become intelligent and capable of thinking, become a better human being and citizen. Nope…its all about the money and then youth will turn to any means to get it (except, by and large, violent crime which remains low. But financial crimes and scams are huge!!)
When we should have more civil and mechanical engineers to build the infrastructure of India, most kids want to work in AC offices and have a shot of going abroad so chase computer science. And then, as you say, sit jobless either cause there is over-supply or they are just not good at it.
So I think we have many political, cultural and social issues that keep us from moving ahead in the capitalist system where economic growth is equated with success.

在学校里，人们告诉你，要么努力学习，要么就找不到工作。 但永远不会说，努力学习，这样你才能学到东西，变得聪明和有思考能力，成为一个更好的人和公民。但没有... 一切都是为了钱，年轻人想尽一切办法得到钱(总的来说，虽然暴力犯罪率仍然很低，但是金融犯罪和诈骗的犯罪率非常高！)
当我们应该有更多的土木工程师和机械工程师来建设印度的基础设施时，大多数孩子希望在有空调的办公室工作，有机会去国外找计算机科学的工作。 然后，就像你说的，失业要么是因为供应过剩，要么就是他们不擅长这个。
因此，我认为我们有许多政治、文化和社会的问题，阻碍我们在资本主义制度中前进，在这种制度中，经济增长就等同于成功。

Question of course, is, is it worth winning at Extreme Capitalism? Look at American society…pitiable in many ways. Europeans with a small population that got rich on the back of colonization and technology seem to be better off. But without colonization, could they have got there? In their greed they also fought 2 world wars.
Maybe India can lead the world in ditching this stupid idea that only economic growth and income matters, and really focus on quality of life and happiness and peace. Which can be done without being “rich” and “developed”.
We can lead the way in creating a more thoughtful capitalist-cum-socialist society where businesses are encouraged to take care of people and do good quality work, where we celebrate not billionaires, but business leaders and entrepreneurs who do the most for society.

当然，问题是，在极端资本主义中获胜是否值得？ 看看美国社会... 在很多方面都很可怜。 欧洲人口很少，靠殖民地化和科技发家致富，他们似乎过得更好。 但是如果没有殖民地化，他们能够成功吗？为了他们的贪婪，他们还打了两次世界大战。
也许印度可以领导世界抛弃只有经济增长和收入才重要的愚蠢想法，真正的关注生活质量、幸福与和平。 这可以在不“富有”和“发达”的情况下实现。
我们可以率先创建一个更具思想性的资本主义社会，鼓励企业照顾人民，做高质量的工作，我们赞美的不是亿万富翁，而是为社会做出最大贡献的商业领袖和企业家。

Take under-employed people and put them on important nation building work. Even if you cant pay even minimum wages, give them food, housing, good training, pride in their work, a sense of contribution. They will learn skills instead of sitting around and wasting the best years of their life. Build communities, have strong law and order. Respect people’s traditions and ways and lets bring out the best in everyone.
Even with zero economic growth, India can become a greener, safer, happier, more productive, safer and better off country. We don’t need to strip our land bare, make people slave away for others and ruin life for everyone. There is enough work and leisure for everyone.
Indians need to re-discover our spiritual roots and find a different, true way to happiness and sustainability. Unfortunately, all our leaders are ignorant about India’s philosophy and religious teachings, and we are thoughtlessly caught up in the same race as every other country that is taking is to climate change, emotional breakdown and pollution and health crisis.
I went off topic here but I really don’t think competing with or catching up with China or the US should be our goal in the first place.

让不能充分就业的人们从事重要的国家建设工作。 即使你连最低工资都支付不起，也要给他们食物、住房、良好的培训、对自己工作的自豪感、贡献感。 他们将学习技能，而不是坐在那里浪费他们生命中最好的年华。 建设社区，拥有强大的法律和秩序。 尊重人们的传统和方式，让每个人都展现出最好的一面。
即使经济零增长，印度也可以成为一个更绿色、更安全、更幸福、更有生产力、更安全、更好生活的国家。 我们不需要剥夺我们的土地，让人们为别人辛苦劳作，毁掉每个人的生活。 每个人都有足够的工作和休闲时间。
印度人需要重新发现我们的精神根源，并找到一种不同的、真正的方式来获得幸福和可持续性。 不幸的是，我们所有的领导人都对印度的哲学和宗教教义一无所知，我们和其他国家一样，毫无顾忌地陷入气候变化、情绪崩溃、污染和健康危机的竞争中。
我跑题了，但我真的不认为和中国或美国竞争追赶应该是我们的首要目标。

Very insightful. Although I knew competing with China isn't the best case for us, this capitalist cum socialist idea makes so much sense.
I think the present race(the one you talk of) is so overwhelming, that nations across are getting under its wave. To do things differently today, we need to have ultra strong policies and determined folks in the government and other policy making bodies.

Desh Kumar Rath
非常有洞察力。 虽然我知道与中国竞争对我们来说不是最好的例子，但这种资本主义与社会主义的想法是非常有意义的。
我认为目前的竞争(你所说的那种)势不可挡，以至于全世界的国家都被它所影响。今天要想做出与众不同的事情，我们需要政府和其他决策机构有超强的政策和坚定的人民。

a., I’d say that listening to voters is ok for maintenance, day to day stuff but when there are big changes needed, voters need to be educated and guided. This is when leadership is needed. Just like you cant run change management at a business just by listening to everyone and taking votes, similarly I don’t think voters can play a key role in making global change happen. That process is too slow. But in the fractured, hyper-competitive and ideologically-driven politics we are seeing, even voter mandates are so sharply split that how does a democracy decide what to do? Hence the stalemates we see in climate change and other big, complex issues. So we need good leadership. How to put it up there in democratic systems? Intelligent people need to get engaged in politics again, we need local movements to make people aware of whats going on. That’s a start, I suppose.

（作者）Manas Rath
1、我想说，倾听选民的意见对于维持日常生活是没有问题的，但是当需要做出重大改变的时候，选民需要得到教育和引导。 这就是需要领导力的时候了。 就像你不能仅仅通过听取每个人的意见和进行投票，来管理企业的变革一样，我也不认为选民能够在促成全球变革方面发挥关键作用。 这个过程太慢了。 但是在我们所看到的分裂的、高度竞争的和意识形态驱动的政治中，即使是选民授权也很分裂，以至于一个民主国家如何决定该做什么？ 所以，我们在气候变化和其他重大而复杂的问题上看到了僵局的出现。 所以我们需要好的领导。 如何在民主制度中体现这一点？ 聪明人需要再次参与政治，我们需要地方运动来让人们意识到发生了什么。 我想这是个好的开始。

b. I think we should stop blaming colonization for anything. We need to take responsibility for our present and future. The more we blame others, the less responsibility we are likely to take. Everyone from our political leaders, to business leaders, to common citizens, are mostly focused on their own goals and cheating and lying wherever needed to get what they want. The British are not to blame for this!! Unless the narrative doesn’t change away from wealth as being the most important thing, until newspapers don’t spend more columns reporting on poverty and living conditions of people than reporting what actors did this weekend and whether GDP will be 0.2% up or down—I don’t see hope for meaningful change.
At some level, talking about social change has become so uncool in India. Dunno man, I don’t wanna be pessimistic but I’m not seeing a great near-term future. Maybe we need still more pain and disillusionment before we wake up to the need for fundamental change?

2、我认为我们应该停止把任何事情归咎于殖民地化。 我们需要对我们的现在和未来负责。 我们越是指责别人，我们可能承担的责任就越少。 从我们的政治领袖，到商业领袖，到普通公民，大多数人都只关注自己的目标，为了得到自己想要的东西，到处撒谎和欺骗。 这不是英国人的错！！ 除非报纸不再把财富视为最重要的事情，除非报纸不再花更多的篇幅报道演员们上周末的所作所为和国内生产总值是上升0.2% 还是下降，而是报道贫困和人民生活状况，否则我看不到发生有意义变革的希望。
在某种程度上，在印度谈论社会变革，已经变得不那么流行了。我不知道，朋友，我也不想悲观，但我看不到近期有什么太大的变化。也许在我们意识到需要彻底改变之前，我们还需要更多的痛苦和幻想破灭？

But when education increases. When wealth, employment and wages increase, people will talk about these things in a more structured manner. Until then it is up to the system, how fast it can provide decent basic universal education and ensure that people don’t have to struggle to survive.

Himanshu Singh
但是当教育水平提高时。 当财富、就业和工资增加时，人们会用更有条理的方式谈论这些事情。 在此之前，这取决于教育系统，它能以多快的速度提供像样的基础普及教育，并确保人们不必为生存而挣扎。

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides the obvious advantages of preference and the follower mentality of the Chinese, one thing we can learn from them and the Japanese is dedication. From everything I know, they’re taught that cheating is not right from a young age. On the other hand, while Indians are smart, we grow up thinking it’s okay to break rules and cheat(they may cheat at many things. We are human beings after all. But they don’t, from what I know, cheat at work and studies). Some students, even from my school days, used to wear it as a badge of honor. This particular attitude, more than just the education system, needs changing since it translates to inefficiency in many different ways growing up and there are instances of young, enthusiastic people being spoiled by their seniors in offices. Many students cheat their way through the system while the ones who don’t are the ones who land the best jobs, both local and abroad. They get by because of native intelligence but when push comes to shove, their skills in particular things could be considered inferior because they believe in survival over efficiency.

Varun Venkatasubramanian
除了中国人明显的偏好优势和追随者心态之外，我们可以从他们和日本人身上学到的一点就是奉献精神。 从我所知道的一切来看，他们从小就被教导欺骗是错误的。另一方面，虽然印度人很聪明，但我们在成长过程中认为打破规则和欺骗是允许的(他们可能在许多事情上作弊。我们毕竟是人。但据我所知，他们不会在工作和学习中作弊。）有些学生，甚至从我上学的时候，就把它作为一种荣誉徽章。 这种特殊的态度，不仅仅是教育系统需要改变，因为它在人们成长过程中导致了许多不同方面的效率低下，而且有一些年轻、热情的人在办公室里被他们的上级宠坏的例子。 许多学生在考试中作弊，而那些没有作弊的学生才能在国内外找到最好的工作。 他们靠天生的聪明才智而勉强度日，但是到了紧要关头，他们在某些特定领域的技能可能会被认为低劣，因为他们相信生存比效率更重要。

They are creative people, dont beg for aid! Mao said that support yourself with that, I am not going to get aid from other countries. He himself wore thesame clothes which poor farmers wore. Same with population, he imposed fines, those having more children. They are practical people. See in this virus issue, they are fully covered, disinfecting their streets, houses on war basis, unlike our country, who woke when the disaster happened. Their politicians are responsible ones, our govts and politicians fool us, cheat us and loot us. Did their president started begging for money, inspite of economic fall out, as our prime minister?

Narayana Vishnu 巴罗达大学机械学士(1970)
他们是有创造力的人，不会乞求帮助！ 毛说过，自己养活自己，我不会从别的国家得到援助。 他自己也穿着穷苦农民穿的同样的衣服。 人口也是如此，对那些生育更多孩子的人处以罚款。 他们是实际的人。 看看这次的疫情问题，他们完全消毒他们的街道和房屋，以战争的方式，不像我们的国家，灾难发生的时候我们才醒来。他们的政客负责任，我们的政府和政客愚弄我们，欺骗我们，掠夺我们。他们的领导人像我们的总理一样，在经济衰退的情况下乞讨钱财了吗？

What is better than India? killing and eating any animal? Then it is better not to have the so called development.

Srinivasaraghavan Sridharan 住在印度
有什么比印度更好？ 杀死并吃掉任何动物？ 那么最好不要有这种所谓的发展。

If we want to emulate China let's take few small steps first. Implement minimum wages to lift the bottom strata of people out of poverty. Invest heavily in health and education. Most important of all ,let's bury populism like loan waivers and forget the caste and relegious politics practiced by all mainstream political parties. That includes removing caste based reservation which perpectuates divisive politics.
No nation has improved it's economy by dividing its own people by caste, relegion or reservations.

Mohan Kalaiselvan 住在印度金奈
如果我们想要效仿中国，让我们先迈出几小步。 实行最低工资，使底层人民摆脱贫困。 大力投资健康和教育。 最重要的是，让我们扼杀民粹主义，比如放弃贷款，忘记所有主流政党实行的种姓制度和相关政治。 这包括取消基于种姓的保留，这造成了分裂的政治。
没有任何一个国家是通过按种姓、宗教信仰或保留地划分自己人民，来提高自己的经济水平。

One is a much bigger landmass than ours with only a little more population
More rich in natural resources
A well developed inland water transport
very little or no adverse impact of colonisation by western powers
A bureaucracy and system of governance that has developed atleast over 1500 years
An almost ethically homogeneous society
One party rule
Interaction with US that began in later nineteenth century
Expats returning to serve the country

Sanjay Puranik
一个是比我们大得多的陆地，人口却只多一点点。
自然资源也更加丰富，发达的内河运输。
西方列强殖民的负面影响很小或者没有。
至少发展了1500多年的官僚主义和治理体系。
一个几乎道德上同质化的社会。
与美国的互动始于19世纪晚期。
海外人士回国为国家服务。

The quality of the population. counts more than the quantum

Balachandran Krishnamoorty 前管理会计师
人口的质量比数量更重要