If China can rise, why can't India?
It's not the easy questions that shape a nation. It's not comfort that builds greatness. If history has taught us anything, it's this: Real progress is born from discomfort.
Too often, societies fall into the trap of playing it safe – protecting old beliefs, avoiding friction, and choosing the path of least resistance. But no great story, no lasting success, has ever come from staying comfortable. Nations, like individuals, are destroyed not by what they face but by what they refuse to face.
Across history, the fate of countries has not hinged solely on wars, leaders, or wealth, but on their willingness to ask the uncomfortable questions. The ones that hurt. The ones that unearth contradictions, threaten pride and force a reckoning with the past.
Refusing to confront uncomfortable truths can be more damaging than any external threat. The Soviet Union collapsed not from outside pressure, but from its refusal to question its rigid ideology. The lesson is not that questioning guarantees success. It's that the refusal to question guarantees failure.
If America hadn't asked why African Americans were treated as second-class citizens, it might still be trapped in deeper institutional racism. The civil rights movement was born from confrontation, not comfort.
After WWII, Germany asked how it allowed the Holocaust to happen, choosing to confront its past. By remembering, not denying, it transformed from aggressor to the moral anchor of Europe.
The biggest example is China. Deng Xiaoping asked the unthinkable – Is this version of communism truly serving our people? Then, instead of abandoning communism, he reimagined it – blending it with market reforms and global ambition.
The result? The rise of a capitalist-communist state unlike anything the world had seen. The key was not ideology. It was introspection.
Before Deng's era, China was a rigid, feudal society dominated by a few elites and strict ideology. The Cultural Revolution under Mao deepened the crisis, causing widespread persecution and chaos.
In the late 1970s, China faced a choice: stick to traditional Marxist doctrine or reinvent its society and economy. Deng Xiaoping took two bold steps – first through a social revolution that dismantled feudal structures, then through pragmatic economic modernization.
He began by rehabilitating millions persecuted during the Cultural Revolution, restoring their dignity and fostering national reconciliation. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping launched the 'Open Door Policy,' inviting foreign investment and integrating China into the global economy. This, along with his broader reforms, fueled rapid growth—China's GDP grew by 9.5% annually from 1978 to 2013, lifting 800 million out of poverty in four decades.
Through the 'Four Modernizations,' Deng prioritized education, technology, national defense and agriculture, building a skilled workforce that powered China's rise to become the world's second-largest economy.
China's focus on innovation and talent over ideology drove rapid progress. Literacy rose from 20% (1949) to 97% (2020). It now produces 1.4 million engineers a year, leads in STEM PhDs and has more than 100 million small and medium enterprises generating 60% of GDP and 80% of the employment.
China's rise is rooted in long-term investment in human capital, making it a global leader in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and space tech. Deng's focus on practical solutions over ideology drove China's rise from poverty to prosperity.
By breaking feudal structures and embracing market reforms, China rebuilt its economy and fostered a nation of competent, forward-thinking citizens who empower the nation.
India today stands at a crossroads, much like China in the 1970s. A land of vast potential, India is held back not by talent or vision but by its reluctance to question deep-rooted beliefs about caste.
The caste system has long perpetuated inequality and limited opportunity. It's India's Achilles heel.
However, a major shift is underway. In April 2025, after persistent advocacy by opposition and civil society, the Indian government agreed to conduct a nationwide caste census as part of the decennial population survey. This step is vital for dismantling feudal structures and enabling data-driven, inclusive policymaking.
I've long argued in my columns for a caste census, as India's strengths are overshadowed by the caste system's deep-rooted flaws. The census is a step forward in addressing historical injustices and promoting equitable development, but the real challenge is turning the data into policies that drive social justice and inclusion.
A caste census, followed by land reforms, and then industrial reforms, will set India on the right trajectory, much like China. India must learn from China to invest in human capital and ensure equal opportunities for all, regardless of caste.
For India to rise, it must first dismantle its traditional internal beliefs and ask uncomfortable questions to unleash its potential. The day we choose competence over complacency, equity over entitlement, and nation over narrowness, India's rise won't just be possible – it will be inevitable.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
2 days ago
- Asia Times
Karl Marx is back—and he thinks you Americans are clowns
Karl Marx is having a moment—again. Not a polite classroom cameo. Not a dusty citation buried in a syllabus. No, we're talking prime-time revival, with publishers, podcasters and politicos all vying to resurrect the bearded prophet of class war. Princeton just dropped a new translation of ' Capital ' —the first in 50 years. Bernie Sanders remains the most famous living socialist on Earth. TikTok teens quote 'seize the means' between lip-syncs and thirst traps. And MAGA diehards bark 'Marxist!' at everything from school libraries to seatbelt laws. Welcome to the fourth Marx boom, as historian Andrew Hartman calls it. But let's get one thing clear: most people talking about Marx—left, right or libertarian—have no idea what they're actually invoking. Because Marx, the man, the theorist, the firestarter, has become less a thinker and more a Rorschach test. A ghost conjured by the Left for moral clarity and by the Right for moral panic. And yet, buried beneath the hysteria, is something worth looking at. Not because Marx offers the answers but because he was asking the right questions. And America—bloated, twitchy, unequal—is finally in a position to understand them. Marx wasn't about equality. He was about power. This is the first mistake people make. They think Marx was some utopian, frothing about 'fairness' or 'equity' like a modern DEI consultant. He wasn't. Marx was a power analyst. His lens wasn't moral—it was mechanical. You either owned the means of production, or you didn't. Everything else—religion, culture, law—was scaffolding. Set dressing. A way to keep the underclass sedated. Marx never said capitalism made people mean. He said it made them replaceable . A system that turns humans into units of labor, not out of malice, but efficiency. And if you don't see that reality in Uber drivers, Amazon warehouses or AI ghostwriters cannibalizing creative work, you're blind. Why Marx appeals to America's lost generation Marx is back in fashion because America, in many ways, is more Marxist in condition than it has ever been. Not ideologically but structurally. A bloated elite hoards wealth and real estate. The middle class is evaporating faster than coastal cities. Work offers no security, only subscriptions. And even the fantasy of upward mobility has been repossessed. Enter a generation saddled with debt, raised on screens, priced out of housing and force-fed bootstraps ideology while watching billionaires LARP as demigods. These young Americans don't want communism, but they're furious at capitalism. Marx didn't give them hope. He gave them blame . And blame is power's most dangerous counterforce. The irony of the American Marxist boom The deeper irony? Marx wouldn't have recognized most of today's 'Marxists.' Cultural obsessives more focused on pronouns than property. Tenured radicals clinging to academia like landlords to rent checks. Corporate HR departments using DEI training as a smokescreen for crushing union talk. Marx believed in material struggle, not identity kabuki. To him, class wasn't just one axis among many—it was the engine room. Everything else, including race and gender, flowed from the economic base. The modern Left has flipped that model inside out, often without realizing it. That's not Marxism. That's mood-board activism. The 2025 translation of ' Capital ' by Princeton is being billed as 'Marx for the twenty-first century.' But that phrase is more revealing than it intends. Because it's not about updating Marx—it's about updating us . It's about whether we're finally ready to read him not as a revolutionary or relic, but as a systems analyst. A brutal, unsentimental one. He didn't want your virtue. He wanted your audit. He wanted to know who owned the factory, and why. Who owned the newspaper? Who funded the revolution? And who pretended they didn't? What the Right Gets wrong Conservatives love to shout 'Marxist!' like it's a spell that makes your enemies disappear. But what they often miss is that capitalism itself has become post-capitalist in structure. The free market is a museum piece. What we have now is something closer to algorithmic feudalism, where tech oligarchs own the infrastructure of communication, culture and commerce. Not factories—servers. Not railroads—data. Marx saw feudalism mutate into capitalism. What he didn't live long enough to see was capitalism mutate into platform monopolies. If the lords once controlled land, and the industrialists controlled labor, today's titans control the interface. And when you control the interface, you don't need to own the worker. You just own their access to work. What the Left gets wrong The Left romanticizes Marx but forgets he was diagnosing disease, not prescribing utopia. He didn't tell you what to build—he just showed you what would collapse. Every time someone waves a hammer-and-sickle flag while sipping Starbucks and tweeting about revolution, a ghost in Highgate Cemetery rolls its eyes. The real tragedy is that the Left, by abandoning class for cultural abstraction, has forfeited the very tools Marx gave them. They're trying to cut steel with slogans. They've replaced critique with vibes. And the ruling class couldn't be more thrilled. Marx doesn't need to be right, just useful. Of course, Marx got many things wrong. He underestimated capitalism's plasticity. He misunderstood the role of the middle class. And he didn't see how consumerism would morph exploitation into entertainment. But he understood cycles. He saw how inequality, left unchecked, hollows out empires. He saw how narratives are used to justify hierarchies. And he saw that the people most confident in their system are usually the ones who benefit most from not questioning it. Sound familiar? You don't have to be a Marxist to read Marx. You just have to be awake. Because for all the noise, what's unfolding in America isn't a cultural revolution—it's a class reckoning. And if you look past the hashtags and hysteria, you'll see that Marx isn't returning as a prophet. He's returning as a mirror. And America, bloated and broken and blindfolded by its own exceptionalism, is finally starting to look.
Asia Times
24-05-2025
- Asia Times
Civilizational multipolarity in a post-Pax Americana world
In 2016, Singapore's then-Defense Minister Ng Eng Hen was asked in Parliament how the country would respond if the United States were to pull back from its security commitments in Asia. At the time, the question was hypothetical. Today, with Donald Trump in his second term and Ng stepping down after 14 years as Singapore's longest-serving defense chief, the question has become reality. The American security umbrella – long taken for granted by many of its allies – appears to be fraying. The post-WWII order, underwritten by US military dominance and financial centrality, is no longer assured. And in anticipation of a post-Pax Americana world, states are adjusting accordingly for a new order. The first fault line lies in deterrence. For decades, US allies were content to rely on American protection rather than build up their own armed forces. That era is over. Germany has committed US$107 billion to defense upgrades. Poland now spends 4% of GDP on its military – more than any other NATO member. Asia tells a similar story. Japan is doubling its defense budget by 2027, upending long-standing pacifist traditions. In South Korea, 76% of citizens now support developing nuclear weapons – an idea once unthinkable under the US nuclear umbrella. Across both regions, allies are hedging against the possibility of American abandonment. The second fault line is financial. The American military's reach has long been sustained by global demand for US Treasuries. But the foundations of that system are weakening. In FY2023, the US ran a budget deficit of $1.7 trillion, $1.1 trillion of which went to defense and veterans' spending. Meanwhile, foreign appetite for American debt is shrinking. Overseas ownership of US Treasuries has dropped from 42% in 2013 to 31% in 2023. China alone has reduced its holdings by more than $330 billion. The dollar's share of global foreign reserves, once above 70% in 1999, has fallen to 58%. What's more, the weaponization of the dollar – through sanctions, export controls and financial restrictions – has spurred countermeasures. The BRICS bloc is expanding non-dollar trade and exploring alternatives like central bank digital currencies. Economist Dr Yanis Varoufakis calls this the rise of 'cloud capital', a global financial architecture slowly decoupling from American control. The third fault line is institutional. The legitimacy of US leadership was once rooted in its commitment to multilateralism. Today, that commitment appears selective. From withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Agreement to the chaotic exit from Afghanistan, Washington's global posture has become more transactional. Conditional support for Ukraine and shifting rhetoric on NATO have deepened doubts about America's reliability in its new role as an offshore balancer. The recent India–Pakistan conflict – killing over 50 civilians and inflicting $90 billion in economic damage by some estimates – revealed how quickly a confrontation between nuclear powers can now spiral without a more timely US intervention. Yet the greater challenge may not be the retreat of the American umbrella itself but rather what emerges in its absence – a shift I call 'civilizational multipolarity.' What makes this moment distinct from any other in history is not just the redistribution of power – it is the nature of the actors now asserting that power. For the first time, multiple civilizational states – China, India, Russia and Iran – are rising within a shared global system. Historian Professor Wang Gungwu calls this the return of 'civilizational consciousness' – a dynamic in which states derive legitimacy not from universal norms but from deep structures of language, religion and institutional memory. China exemplifies this shift. As scholar Dr Martin Jacques observes, China views itself not merely as a nation-state but as a 'civilization-state,' with 5,000 years of political tradition and moral philosophy. The Chinese Communist Party's claim to authority is not based on liberal norms but on restoring what it sees as the Middle Kingdom's rightful place in history. This has far-reaching consequences. Professor Graham Allison's 'Thucydides Trap' warns of conflict when a rising power threatens a ruling one. But in today's context, the competition is not only over power – it is over values and visions of world order. Professor John Mearsheimer has argued that liberal internationalism cannot survive in a world governed by nationalism and realism. Civilizational multipolarity intensifies that prognosis: Powers now export governance models rooted in their own traditions rather than converging on a single set of norms. Professor Samuel Huntington's 'Clash of Civilizations' posits that cultural and religious identities will inevitably drive global conflict in the post-Cold War era, as fundamental civilizational differences – rooted in history, religion, and values – become irreconcilable fault lines between nations and blocs. But there is still agency in how states respond. ASEAN, for instance, offers an instructive model through its principle of 'omni-enmeshment', an approach that avoids binary alliances while encouraging engagement across civilizational lines. Rather than choosing sides, ASEAN states create space for dialogue and cooperation, preserving autonomy while participating in global governance. If the global community can embrace this ethos, civilizational multipolarity need not be seen as a threat, but as an opportunity: the foundation for a more pluralistic order within a shared framework. Singapore's new Defense Minister, Chan Chun Sing, captured this outlook well when he remarked at the 41st IISS-Asia Fullerton Lecture in 2021: 'Middle powers and small states can help to build bridges, create platforms for dialogue and uphold the multilateral system. By working together, we can provide alternative pathways for cooperation, even when larger powers disagree.' If this transition is managed wisely, the post-American era need not mark the unraveling of global order. It could instead herald the rise of a more inclusive, resilient and balanced system, one not defined by dominance, but by the peaceful co-existence and constructive engagement of civilizations. That would be a first in human history. And perhaps, its greatest achievement. Marcus Loh is a Director at Temus, a Singapore-based digital transformation services firm, where he leads public affairs, marketing and strategic communication. He was formerly the president of the Institute of Public Relations of Singapore. He presently serves on the digital transformation chapter executive committee of SGTech, the leading trade association for Singapore's technology industry. Loh completed an executive program in public leadership from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and earned master's degrees from the Singapore Management University and University College, Dublin.
RTHK
20-05-2025
- RTHK
US sets up new unit to crack down on universities
US sets up new unit to crack down on universities Harvard University has been hit with a False Claims Act inquiry. File photo: AFP The United States has announced the formation of a new unit that will crack down on federally-funded universities that have diversity, equity and inclusion policies using a civil anti-fraud law, the Justice Department said in a memo. The creation of the "Civil Rights Fraud Initiative" marks the latest escalation by the administration of President Donald Trump against colleges and universities that it has claimed are pushing antisemitic, anti-American, Marxist and "radical left" ideologies. "A university that accepts federal funds could violate the False Claims Act when it encourages antisemitism, refuses to protect Jewish students, allows men to intrude into women's bathrooms or requires women to compete against men in athletic competitions," Deputy Attorney Todd Blanche wrote in the memo. "Colleges and universities cannot accept federal funds while discriminating against their students." The False Claims Act is a federal civil law that allows the government to recover funds lost due to fraud. Private citizens can also use it to sue on the government's behalf and can become eligible to receive a portion of the recovered proceeds. Last week, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration had launched a False Claims Act inquiry into whether Harvard's admission policies comply with a Supreme Court ruling that ended affirmative action. Harvard is currently suing the government, after the Trump administration canceled its federal grants in what the university alleges is a bid to "coerce and control" it. In a statement on the False Claims Act inquiry, a Harvard spokesperson said the school is committed to following the law. The investigation represents "yet another abusive and retaliatory action – the latest of many – that the administration has initiated against Harvard since the university was forced to defend itself from harmful overreach against higher education," the university said. In the memo on Monday, Blanche said the new fraud initiative will be co-led by the Civil Division's Fraud Section and the Civil Rights Division. He added that each division would assign a team of attorneys to "aggressively pursue" this work. He also said that each of the country's 93 US Attorneys' offices will be required to tap a prosecutor to contribute to the effort. (Reuters)
