Why the world needs India to win

Can a country be too diverse for democracy to work? India’s only path to superpower status lies in proving that the answer is no.

Ann Hermes/Staff
Khari Baoli Road in Delhi buzzes with workers handling sacks of spices. India needs to modernize its agricultural sector to move forward.

I can vividly remember the first time I set foot in China. That’s not because I had a particular fascination with China or because I was there in advance of the 2008 Summer Olympics. It’s because 

China was so jarringly different from the place I had just left. 

As the Monitor’s India correspondent, I had seen China and India as brothers that had taken different roads to the present. Both were the only members of the world’s billion-citizen club and both shared an agrarian past beset by crushing poverty.

Yet there I was in the Beijing airport, thinking the building itself might as well have been sticking its tongue out at India (and the rest of the world, for that matter). It was so mind-numbingly massive it felt as though it must have its own weather system. And it was immaculate – cool and quiet, radiating the hum of efficiency.

The Delhi I had left behind was one of daily power outages and water that came for only a few hours in the dead of night. Roads teemed with the homeless and harried, not to mention a menagerie of animals, all with only the barest hint of lanes beneath. India was a carnival of humanity, bursting at the seams. China was a meticulously drilled marching band, trained to the last note.

In this week’s cover story, staff writer Howard LaFranchi examines why India’s journey to global superpower status remains a work in progress. Its prosperity is growing yet its prospects for joining China are uncertain.

For me, the reasons were clear in the Beijing airport and also in unraveling how the two “brother” countries had reached such different places. In revisiting that mystery today, I keep coming back to the same point: democracy.

China was able to do the remarkable because it had the efficiency of autocracy. The Communist Party didn’t need to listen to the people. Quite the opposite. When people tried to get in the way of its grand plans, they were silenced. Slowly, the Communists figured out how to marry economic freedom with absolute political control. The result is an economic juggernaut run with exacting precision.

Indian democracy, by contrast, is a cauldron of ethnicities, religions, and language groups, all with a voice, with most people just scraping by. Even the most optimistic estimates of the Indian middle class – 300 million – mean there are still more than a billion Indians below them economically. The Indian state, to a significant degree, remains a chief engine for patronage and personal power. 

Can a country be too big, too diverse, too unwieldy for democracy to work? China thinks the answer is yes. India’s only path to superpower status lies in proving that the answer is no. Infrastructure woes and corruption are just symptoms of the broader problem: As a democracy, India is dependent on its people to fuel its growth, and its government must find a way to equalize opportunity for 1.3 billion people to truly succeed. It is a much, much harder road than China has taken. But if it can be done, it is exponentially more powerful.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.