|
|
|
|
|
|
by mc32
12 days ago
|
|
|
According to Lee Kwan Yew[1], apparently he identified two big factors: India's diversity is not its strength -whereas China's relative homogeneity allows for easier governance(no contending non-pluralistic factions) India's federation is not its strength either. India's central government, unlike the Chinese, cannot unilaterally execute national plans. [in his example, they can't modernize a single international hub without having a fight that engenders delay and even kills projects] [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaTNpw0-wAk |
|
|
They don’t have the appetite to be socially modern anyway. Every Indian passport still has the holder’s parents’ name within (in Indian bureaucracy your parents seem to essentially own you regardless of age), which as TFA contends ties them to a social unit in a way that hampers the fungibility needed for smooth industrialization. Is it possible to argue that the central government doesn’t control even the passport it issues itself? It’s obvious that the motivation is simply absent, same as it was nearly a hundred years ago.