|
 Email This Post
|
 Print This Post
|
Dec. 14 – Following last week’s news from India that the state of Andhra Pradesh would be split up, with the northern portion going to create a new state of Telangana, I was left to think, could the same thing happen in China?
India is actually a relatively new country, its current form only being finalized several years after the end British rule. Some regions of India – including that of Telangana – were never actually part of the British rule and remained independent from the British, having sufficient political clout and wealth to maintain erstwhile independence from the Raj, while the most recent Indian State of Sikkim was only formally made part of India in 1975. This last piece of the current Indian jigsaw was formally recognized by the entire United Nations interestingly with the exception of China, which protested as it viewed Sikkim as an independent state and viewed its absorption into India as illegal. That position is linked to the perennial Sino-Indian matter over Tibet, which over the centuries had occasionally claimed part of northern Sikkim as its own as borders waxed and waned.
However recent the actual Union of India is, the current map of China has also only recently been defined following border skirmishes with India (largely over Tibet again), Vietnam and Russia. That said, with Tibet being part of modern China since 1959, both countries have major border areas only properly defined within the last 40 years or so. With such young, and in several cases still disputed, borders to protect and politically justify, the position over borders may not actually be the spark that ignites confusion as has seemingly occurred with Andhra Pradesh.
The answer more likely lies in what some would describe as one of the weaknesses of the democratic system – the right to free speech. The issue over Telangana has been simmering for decades, ever since the then state of Hyderabad was subsumed along with the state of Andhra into contemporary Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Since then, the local Telanganese, with their Islamic background, own language and distinct culture, have felt increasingly marginalized as traders and businessmen, largely Hindus, poured into the state for jobs, commerce and trade. The region is India’s rice basket. And the capital, Hyderabad has become a global center for IT and software development.
Discontent, a largely parochial train of thought, and a belief that “outsiders” were taking the best of the jobs, income and natural resources is always a magnet for the politically astute, and within India’s democratic framework, dissent began to be fomented and spread. The stakes are high – Hyderabad is India’s fifth largest city. The equivalent behavior in China would be an errant mayor in Chengdu going on hunger strike to force the State Council to declare part of Sichuan an autonomous region.
However, the Chinese would not put up with such behavior. Unrest would be quelled, by military force if necessary, and the working apparatus of government swiftly restored. Peace on the streets – as in Lhasa and Urumqi where peace was forcibly restored – and what the Chinese label “social stability” is paramount. Whether the protagonists of democracy like it or not, order is maintained, even if it is under the barrel of a gun.
Therein is the great truth of the political experiment that both India and China represent. While India maintains its democracy and free speech, the riots and unrest in Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad could conceivably boil over into killings, murder and unrest not just in that state, but also in next door Tamil Nadu, where the Tamils are also hankering after greater autonomy. What has begun as a small, one off piece of acknowledgement of the rights of the dispossessed Telanganese has the potential to turn very bloody, very fast. In China, such behavior would result in a swift crackdown, the patrolling of the streets by the military, and any activists responsible being jailed for a very long time. It’s a classic example of a democratic model against a totalitarian state.
The question these recent events pose therefore is to ask whether an Indian democracy at all costs is preferable to a benevolent, military-backed, one party dictatorship?
Chris Devonshire-Ellis is the publisher of 2point6billion and founding partner of Dezan Shira & Associates. Comments are welcome.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I take benevolent dictatorship over an incompetent democracy as I like some sort of order. In turn I would take the latter over a corrupt dictatorship any day as hopefully in an educated, informed democratic population they can get rid of their incompetent & corrupt politicians and leaders. The key though is education and freely available info. on the workings and actions of those same politicians and leaders. This should be India’s path as they were left their political system by the British.
The best hope for China because of its large population and history is that she will eventually become a one big Singapore.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Yes, I also prefer dictatorship, as long as it is only Chinese&Tibetan people who get jailed and not foreigners and expats.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Those who would trade freedom for perceived safety deserve neither. We could create a special state just for them.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
I prefer dictatorship as well intellectually blind deserve it.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Score so far:
Individual Rights & Democracy: 0
Dictatorship As Long As It Doesn’t Affect Me: 4
December 17th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I simply can’t imagine the Indian demo-crazy would do any good for the Chinese nation and its people. Actually, I don’t believe the Indian demo-crazy has been working for India either, but if they are so obsessed with their demo-crazy, then perhaps they deserve it and its fruitions, good or bad.
December 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
See an interview with Martin Jacques, author of “When China Rules the World”, on truthdig.com:
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/a_chinese_primacy_in_the_making_20091130/?ln
He explains why the 2000 years of the Civilization State, China, is robust and he negates the early pessism on China’s development (e.g. Gordon Chang comes to my mind). He also discusses the Chinese, their type of government, that her rise has been and is beneficial for the world economy.
I would add that although China has been building infrastructure in Africa since the 1960s it is the last decade where she has become the main contributor to developing African countries. Western and other countries were reluctant to invest in parts of the continent but China being there has acted as a spur to others to get involved. This can only be good for Africa and I would say that this is an example of where China is starting to influence economic and political decision-making worldwide.