Report of IPCS Seminar held on 20 December 2007

Speaker: Dr. Dibyesh Anand, University of Westminster, UK

Historically, non-western nations viewed Asia through the lens of orientalism. With the rise of China and India, the question now arises about the continued status of Western dominance. Will the non-west play a greater role in the international community? An example of the curiosity around this issue is seen in the current writings about the Chinese involvement in Africa. This has been a major topic over the last two years.

The readings about Chinese involvement in Africa reflect a certain degree of neo-colonialism, as opposed to the Chinese view, which highlights its own role in a positive light. India remains secondary in the way the great power game has shifted. Many people usually talk about China, or talk about both China and India - India's rise is always compared with China. From the economic perspective, these two countries are also looked at through the prism of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and the challenge it provides to the existing trade union of western powers.

The focus of studies is on the rapid economic development of the two economies in terms of GDP growth. Despite recent observations that the size of the economies of China and India has been exaggerated, the fact remains that China is the second-largest and India the fifth-largest economy of the world. Comparisons in the West of China and India are often depicted as a battle between the Dragon and the Elephant. It is widely believed that the Dragon (China) was asleep but is now awakening and the world is changing as a result. It is interesting to note that the two animals mentioned are exotic creatures, for they are both not found in the west. And therefore a greater aura surrounds them, for they are non-western entities.

There exists an economic dynamism in China and India, and this is why they are studied. Until 1995-1996, a large population was looked as a bigger threat, much more so than global warming. Therefore, the threat to human security came from unchecked population growth. In that sense, China was better than India for it had managed to control its population growth. However, what is seen now is a change in perception, large populations with a relatively young demographic profile are welcome. In that sense, India with a much larger younger population than China is looked at favorably. Population is therefore, seen as an asset as opposed to being a liability. For the West the growth of India and China is viewed as being an anomaly. The question of how could "they" rise, is the main reason for the attention being given to these economies. If it were a Western nation involved, such a response would not have occurred.

The rise of China has led to an increasing focus on the creation of new opportunities, basically market opportunities. In academic circles, the rise of China is seen as a threat in many ways, in complete contrast to views in business circles. The threat perception from China is not limited to the military sphere but also extends to the environmental sphere. If the Chinese population starts to consume higher quantities, it is feared that the planet is going to collapse. For example, a recent news report in Europe stated that because a Chinese politician had called for increased consumption of milk, the price of milk rose in Europe.

An important comparison between China and India lies in the way the two countries promote their rise in the world. China does not advertise its rise, and relies on letting its growth and infrastructural changes do the talking. In the case of India, there is a conscious effort to show that India is also rising and that the world should invest in India. A growing India subscribes to the notion of 'to be a good citizen you have to be a major consumer.' This is also the line adopted by a number of western nations, most notably the United States.

India needs to be conscious of the image it shows to the Western world. It is increasingly showing itself to be a consumerist market, which offers little to those not interested in a consumption-driven economy. In the early 1990s, the image of India in the Western media was poor - its abject poverty and low standards of living were the main themes. Over the last two to three years, the dominant representation has been extremely positive, to the point of being indiscriminately positive. The media coverage of Pakistan and Bangladesh has, by contrast, been far more balanced.

Meanwhile, India underplays its cultural influence and political non-influence with the rest of the world. In the annual Indian government-organized gathering of people of Indian origin around the world, termed the Pravasiya Bharitya Divas, the main constituents are from North America and other parts of the Western world and not are from say, Africa, for example. India's cultural linkages to the rest of the world are not adequately utilized.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has spoken about how the United Kingdom has to change in order to tackle the threat from India and China. Interestingly, he has not spoken about the threat from the United States or the European Union, while it is the latter that remain the dominant powers. Therefore, his focus on China and India is of interest. The talk about the rise of China and India is being used by the British Prime Minister to discipline workers in the United Kingdom. This is reflected when he speaks about economic reforms which would slowly do away with the concept of the welfare state.

In India and China, talk about the 'rise of the economy,' is about pride and national consciousness. In terms of business possibilities the Chinese rise is looked upon favourably by the West while in terms of political security it usually favours India. It is seen that Western discourses on Chinese investment, taking the example of Africa, regard such investment to be unethical and morally repugnant - the West suffers as a result of adopting ethical standards, while the Chinese do not because of their unethical practices.

The biggest drawback of using the GDP as an indexing factor for the economies of India and China is that it takes the focus away from the high levels of inequality in each country. By using the GDP as a benchmark, the deprived and the poor are ignored as a result of which social tensions are bound to increase whether because of the rural-urban divide, the urban poor, or regional inequalities..

The rise of China and India is a sales pitch for the idea of free market. It is therefore, ultimately the validation of the West. The two countries are rising because they have adopted the Western concept of the free market. While their own experiments with socialism failed, it was the West which taught them the concepts of free market, and while the student may have become better than the teacher, the adage of the success of the Western concept of free market continues.

DISCUSSION

• India's interest in Africa is as strong as that of China's. Chinese investment policy in Africa is not going all that well - while, the Chinese are investing heavily, they are not particularly welcome by the local populace and this is reflected in the high number of kidnappings of Chinese workers in the continent.

• India does not take China as a threat but as a challenge. It is an economic powerhouse which India seeks to match. The border dispute with China should not colour the future of Sino-Indian cooperation.

• While no official Chinese promotional video exists, it is Western companies investing in China that produce the videos which promote China.

• Democracy in India and calls for it in China are primarily viewed in terms of a Western paradigm. There is a difference between a just democracy and an efficient one. India might be a democracy but it remains a deeply unjust democracy whereas China is perhaps moving slowly in the direction of being an efficient democracy.

• It is not surprising to see that China and India are rising, for in the eighteenth century the total GDP of India and China was over half of the world's total. It is therefore a re-emergence of both India and China rather than their new emergence. India and China should not be viewed only through the prism of balance of power but also through the concept of a balance of vulnerabilities. Both countries need to move beyond the narrow description of state and nationalism.