Jeff Ooi made an interesting and persuasive argument on how South Korea beats Singapore (interpreted here as LKY vs PCH), but there was still lots of room for debate.
Not so in AsiaPundit’s second round of battles between the founding fathers of modern Asia; Atanu Dey’s essays on how Lee Kwan Yew beats Jawaharlal Nehru really leave little room for argument. Read Part 1, Part 2: and Part 3 (part 4 pending):
LKY transformed a third-world mosquito infested swamp into a rich developed city state within one generation. An autocrat to the core, he sequenced the changes and orchestrated the development of his city without apologizing for what he had to do. Singapore is one of the least corrupt economies of the world. He made Singaporeans clean up their act, both figuratively and literally. No other dictator has been able to achieve that sort of transformation. It is a random draw from which dictators are drawn. India drew a lousy hand and got saddled with dictators that were incompetent to the core. And staggering from one calamity to another, the country got rid of the dictators and with only a brief break, got a government that is headed by a foreign-born rather reluctantly naturalized citizen of India and supported by a bunch of treasonous communists.
There is sweet irony in LKY delivering the Nehru Memorial Lecture: a successful dictator lecturing the family members of a failed dictator who made a mess of the economy that was so full of promise. Just in case it is not entirely clear, Nehru was a dictator, never mind the fact that there may have been an election. The laws of the universe do not preclude the democratic election of dictators. Adolf Hitler was also elected, and he enjoyed the confidence of the majority just as much as Nehru enjoyed the confidence of the people of the newly minted republic of India. There was no opposition worth its name and Nehru did precisely what he willed.
Based on Nehru’s policy prescriptions, the Indian economy grew at a sorry 2 or 3 percent a year—the aptly named “Nehru rate of growth.” Per capita figures were even more dismal than that because the population grew rapidly. The Nehru dynasty continued to favor policies that kept India locked into the Nehru rate of growth until about 1991. Then economy grew at a more respectable rate but only compared to the Nehru rate of growth. In absolute terms, the “post-reform” growth rate was nothing to write home about. China had been growing for over a decade and at a much faster rate.
Technorati Tags: asia, east asia, economy, india, singapore, south asia, southeast asia
[powered by WordPress.]
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
« Nov | Jan » | |||||
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
26 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Mao: The Unknown Story - by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday:
A controversial and damning biography of the Helmsman.
31 queries. 0.400 seconds
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:01 pm
i really can’t agree with Nehru being called a dictator. I am not a nehru fan, especially of his economic policies. But, Nehru wasn’t elected once, but elected term after term, till he died. Maybe his wins were based more on personality than merit and also the fact that there was hardly any opposition to the Congress party till after his death. But he was elected in free n fair elections each time. So, honestly its really uncorrect to call him a dictator. And really dumb to use Hitler as a comparison. His daughter on the other hand was a whole another story, she was India’s one true dictator.
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:09 pm
Actually Jatin, I’m with you on that. It’s a major point that I would break from Atanu’s argument. Unless you’re talking about Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and others of the sort - any comparisons made to Hitler really just weaken your own argument.