[throwaway32189]

India setup the "protectionist" license raj to protect a few reigning industrial houses for "nationalistic" purposes [1]. The predatory state made it difficult not only for offshore companies, but practically impossible for domestic upstarts (without political arm-wringing). No doubt, it protected the folk it was meant to protect. In a "history-repeats-itself" moment Indian unicorns like Ola/Flipkart are seeking similar "nationalistic" laws today, seeking "protection" from "foreign capital" when it comes via Amazon and Uber - but not via VCs investing in Indian startups. Of course, all this was dressed up in "nationalistic" and "socialistic" costumes, with the media playing the tune.

China on the other hand went full Leninism and destroyed the elite (which TBH might have been more suited in India's case after Independence), so when Deng Xiaoping opened up, there were few "special interest groups" to guide things in their favor. Things today are different. China appears to me to be increasingly taking the old (crony-)capitalist route (is there any other ?). China does exactly what Ola/Flipkart want. Let's be clear as to who this benefits.

One moral is that systems can't compensate for a systematic destruction of social ethics. The other probably is to not fall into the word trap. Things meaning vastly different things are "PR-ed" with similar names to attain semantic advantages over the plebs.

[1]. Amusingly, many of these houses were built in collusion with the British Empire, and some even had their origins in the Opium trade with the Qing.