India has much to learn from other East Asian countries, specially China. However, it is a curious mix which supports this view of emulating the Chinese example. It is no longer the Indian Maoists (Naxalites) proclaiming Spring Thunder over India and "China's Chairman is India's Chairman". It is, on the other hand, the neo- liberalists who does so ! The redoubtably fantastic rate of growth of Chinese GDP (presently 9.9%) is the basis for this school of thought.

China's Gross National Product (GNP) per head is estimated to be more than twice that of India and is projected to double every decade. "Since the economic reforms were started around 1979, China's example has been increasingly quoted by a group of political commentators and advocates, to wit, those keen on promoting liberalization- and integration of India into the world economy. China's successful liberalization programs and its massive entry into the international trade has been increasingly projected as a great model for India to act on".

What, however, is missed in these arguments is the context of Chinese and Indian liberalization programs. Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen argue that the Chinese liberalization was preceded by rapid strides in social developments, indicated primarily by the better expected life expectancy of 69 years (59 for India), better proportion of low- birthweight babies at 9% (33% for India) and a much higher adult literacy rate of 68% for women (39% for India) and 86% for men (64% for India). These contrasting statistics guarantee a much better condition of life to an average Chinese. It also provides for the workforce to meet stringent quality requirements for the international market and also a better spread of the gains of liberalization.

India's record places it more in the company of the Latin American countries rather than with China. Surprisingly, the Chinese achievements have been made prior to 1979 when the liberalization program was initiated. Between then and now, there has either been stagnation or a regression from the 1979 levels. Prior to 1979, interestingly, China had a more sluggish rate of growth than India. It faced a serious famine between 1958- 61, unlike India, whose record has been much better in this respect.

So, what has made the crucial difference ?

Dreze and Sen aver that it is the strong political commitment of the Chinese leadership towards social equality and progress that is responsible for the current "miracle". Indian leadership, including most of the political parties, have ignored these aspects. The unequal gains of the current economic policies, limited to about 20% of the population) create conditions for more unrest and social disorder. The reforms are perceived by a large populace with suspicion.

One result of the differences between the Chinese and Indian liberalization programs has been that while China has become attractive for its better manufacturing skills (made possible by a bigger number of population with basic education), India has been eyed primarily as a market for goods manufactured abroad. Where ever its skill level is higher (computer literacy, for example) it has made substantial gains.

Finally, while Indian reforms were initiated essentially in response to the crisis situation in 1991, and have been loosely defined, the Chinese efforts have been by a more theoretical elaboration, the cats changing colors not withstanding :-)

India, therefore, has much to learn from the Chinese experience. It also has to keep in mind what it should not learn: political totalitarianism and authoritarianism. These not only result in significantly lowering the quality of life of the people- who need to be seen not only as "instruments of development", but also as the end of the development. Above all, authoritarianism and the lack of democracy stop all feedback and control mechanisms, this results in tragedies like the great Chinese famine of 1958- 61 in which an estimated 30- 40 million Chinese perished, while during that period the leadership actually believed it had surpluses.

So, what India has to learn from China is in terms of its radical political commitments and certainly not authoritarianism. But, more than from China, India has to learn from itself, from within.

Indian states differ a lot among themselves, and some of these states are larger in terms of population and size than many of the Asian Tigers. Kerala among these has done better than even China as a whole as well as every single province of China.

The historical experience of Kerala, the authors assert, "powerfully brings out the dialectical relationship between educational progress and social change; the spread of education helps to overcome the traditional inequalities of caste, class and gender just as the removal of these inequalities contributes to the spread of education".

"Kerala does provide an interesting comparison with China since it too enjoys high levels of basic education, health care and so on. Kerala's birth rate of 18 per thousand is actually lower than China's 19 per thousand. and this has been achieved without any compulsion by the state. Kerala's fertility rate is 1.8 for 1991 compared to China's 2.0 for 1992. This is in line with what we would expect through progress in factors that help voluntary reduction in birth rates. Kerala has a higher adult female literacy rate- 86% than China (68%). In fact the female literacy rate in Kerala is higher than in every single province of China. Also, the male and female life expectancy at birth in China of 68 and 71 years respectively, the 1991 figures for Kerala are 69 and 74 years respectively. Further women have played an important role in Kerala's economic and political life and to some extent in property relations and educational movements."

"Since the achievement of low fertility rates in a poor economy has been achieved voluntarily, there are no signs of adverse effects that were noted in China, for example, heightened female infant mortality rate and widespread abortion of female fetuses. Kerala's infant mortality rate (16.5) is now much lower than China's (31), even though both the regions had the same rate around the time of introduction of one- child policy in China. Further, while in China the infant mortality rate is much lower for males (28) than for females (33), in Kerala the opposite is the case with female infant mortality (16) a little below that for males (17).

Between 1979 and 1991, the Indian states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu have seen sharper fall in fertility rates than China. While that for Kerala has fallen from 3.0 to 1.8 (fall of 1.2), for Tamil Nadu from 3.5 to 2.2 (fall of 1.3), that for China has fallen from 2.8 to 2.0 (change of 0.8) ! So much for the coercion in China. On the other hand, Indian states which have lagged behind in literacy and healthcare have atrociously high fertility rates- between 4.4 and 5.1. This is in spite of a persistent tendency to use heavy handed methods of family planning in those states in contrast with the more "collaborative" approach in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The regional contrasts within India strongly argue for collaboration based on the active and educated participation of women, as opposed to coercion.

The attitude towards women, has therefore to go beyond paternalistic betterment to viewing them as active catalysts.

The achievements of Kerala cannot be dismissed as that of a "mere" state, not a country. With a population of 29 million, Kerala has a larger population than most countries in the world (even Canada), including many from which comparative lessons are often drawn, such as Sri Lanka (17.4m) and Costa Rica (3.2m) and of course, the primarily city states of Hong Kong (5.8m) and Singapore (2.8m). Even South Korea, the role model for many, had about the same population in the early sixties (when its rapid transformation began) as Kerala has now.

In view of the substantial strides made by Kerala, the authors assert, it is today best placed to take advantage of globalization. It is placed in a highly enviable position to make an excellent use of the market system in a poor economy without losing the political commitment to economic development and the elimination of mass deprivation.

Bhupinder
1997