Let Chinese companies come in, do not get hung up on small things,” advised former World Bank Chinese economist Andy Xie. Based in Shanghai now, Mr Xie’s words need analysis through Beijing’s politico-diplomatic prism.
Let us pose a few queries to Mr Xie: “Let Chinese companies come in” is understood as long as they are bona fide business establishments without any economic offence record. Nevertheless, what does “do not get hung up on small things” imply? Further, can Mr Xie clarify and cite examples on “small things”; who is getting “hung up”?
Developed economies are facing hurdles owing to their “inability to meet global demands” any more, said Mr Xie. The unsaid point is: China has assumed, owing to a vacuum created by the developed economies, its role “to meet the global demand/supply channel” and India should join, whatever the role, China offers New Delhi. Indeed, but how? What has been the modus operandi: past, present or proposed? There is silence. Instead, there is a fresh tangential advisory: “India is one of the most closed economies in the world” resulting in a lot of business groups dominating the economy. One wishes to ask Mr Xie: are not there Chinese business groups who dominate their own as well as overseas markets? What is great about picking up India?
The silence on his own country’s possible faulty system became clear as Mr Xie suggested India that “let foreign money come to own power plants. For Chinese companies, it is difficult to get in. There must be foreign ownership of toll roads, ports and power plants. If you are willing to let people own, capital comes and stays here permanently”. The question to Mr Xie is: Is it a sugar-honey entry for non-Chinese foreign companies to China? Can they just go, throw “foreign money (i.e. US dollar)” and take over power plants and own electricity generating systems of Beijing? If so, one wishes to know the names and numbers of such successful foreign companies operating from mainland China.
Mr Xie may have had rich experience in the US and China, but he needs to grasp the ground reality of Ganga-Godavari terrain, as China and India are two different cultures. They have a different history, tradition, polity, economics and society. China is a country of 94 per cent homogenous Hans. India is a cauldron of numerous systems and sub-systems. China at best is a single party, authoritarian Communist state with a “command” capitalist government. India vide its Constitution is a “socialist, secular, democratic republic” with hundreds of dissenting, debating voices. The Chinese government, through remote, but rigid control of the centralised Communist Party, dictates and shapes the lives of 1.42 billion heads wherein dissent is suppressed and debate abhorred. Hence, there is little to manipulate the Hans by outsiders. In India, however, it is the opposite. Foreigners and outsiders, even today, try to manipulate and influence large sections/groups of people. Further, the Chinese are not known to accept foreigners as equals. In fact, historically, Chinese invariably look down upon foreigners as “inferiors”. That is what is taught to the children in China. Indians, on other hand, usually tend to be friendly to foreigners and psychologically continue to have it as a weak spot in their characters. Hence, an unbridled entry of foreigners deep into Indian economics to make money like that of Indian business houses (about which Mr Xie complained) will end up with the eventual control of the Government of India with foreign investor profit. Should India see the history being repeated with the readvent of another band and brand of foreign traders turning into a “Chinese East India Company”! Controlling the polity, economics, society, thought, belief and ultimately imposing dictatorial streaks of a proxy Mao Zedong-type Communist rule, resulting in slaveing the lives of 21st century Indians?
Understandably, one’s thoughts here go out to the (early) October 1962 utterances of Mao Zedong: “China and India had fought only one and half wars. The first war occurred 1,300 years ago during Tang dynasty (618-917 AD) when China dispatched troops to support the Indian kingdom against an illegitimate and aggressive rival.” Thereafter, the two countries “enjoyed centuries of flourishing religious and economic exchanges”. The second was a “half-war” which took place 700 years later when “Mongol ruler Taimur Lang sacked Delhi 1398 AD”. According to Mao, since Mongolia and China were then part of the same political entity, this was a “half Sino-Indian war” and there followed another long era of peace till 1962. The Chinese thinking is clear. “Post-1962 Sino-Indian war” relations are bound to be “peaceful for hundreds of years”! Though heartening, yet future looks disheartening. Does intention match the utterances and actions of Beijing?
The unkindest of cuts of Mr Xie was on Chinese companies and security issues: “If you are poor, what’s the point of being secure? Chinese don’t think like that. They think that if you are poor, you have nothing much to lose.” Really? Does Mr Xie honestly have such a poor impression of his countrymen? And is he happy to proudly tom-tom about it on foreign soil? That is okay. But can he really make such wishful assertion in the guise of an advisory to Indians about (future) actions of Indians? Is he doing justice to his judgment and reputation? “Poor Indians” need “not bother about security” even if China poses threat to their security? Because they are needy? Even if security endangers sovereignty? How bizarre! Will any Indian economist, even a Nobel laureate, be able to utter such potentially explosive words in front of leading Chinese daily without provoking a “persona non grata” demand by the host?
Therefore, China does not yet inspire confidence among Indian citizens. Most Indians do not even know the ABC of the Chinese language. Also, they are uncomfortable with the Chinese because they are inscrutable. They neither laugh, nor do they act friendly. The Chinese do know Hindi and other Indian languages inside out, but pretend to be ignorant, thereby giving the impression of being undependable, unfriendly and insincere. Since Indians are usually comfortable with English, understandably it is easier for them to interact with English-speaking foreigners, bitter experience of history and racism notwithstanding.
The icing on the cake, however, comes with the a parting shot of Mr Xie: “It is all about getting capital, whoever can give it… be practical. Be colour blind.” Following Mr Xie’s Chinese wisdom there’s a counter-question: What about a $10 billion capital investment from Dawood Ibrahim and be totally “blind” as well as “colour blind” about it? Will Beijing accept or axe Mr Xie’s advice?
