为什么民主没有给印度经济发展带来相对于中国的优势？ [美国媒体]

Why did democracy not give Indian advantages in its economic development compared with China?

为什么民主没有给印度经济发展带来相对于中国的优势？




回答一：
Sam Qwato
Answered Jan 30
Q. Why did democracy not give Indian advantages in its economic development compared with China?

问题：为什么民主没有给印度经济发展带来相对于中国的优势？

(1) Short answer:

(1)简短的答案：

Functional, if not high-performing, democracy rests on 2 pillars.
Rule of law to constrain the power of the political leadership, and the State.
State capacity (aka state machinery, the bureaucracy, Civil Service) to execute economic and social programs, to deliver public services. The implementation, delivery and operations arm of the political leadership.

有效的——如果不是高效的——民主制度建立在两个支柱上：
限制了政治领导和国家的权力的法治。
执行经济和社会计划、提供公共服务的国家能力(也就是国家机器、官僚机构和公务员)。政治领导的实施、交付和运营能力。

India has an inconsistent and uneven state capacity.
Space program
Struggles to provide basic sanitation to rural areas.

印度的国家能力是不一致和不平衡的：
太空计划；
努力为农村地区提供基本的卫生设施。

(2) China has a high-performing state capacity dating back to the Qin dynasty (221 BCE). Per sociologist Max Weber's 'Weberian state'. (Sam Qwato's answer to Who invented bureaucracy?)

(2) 按照社会学家马克斯韦伯提出的“韦伯国家”概念来说，中国的国家能力可以追溯到秦朝（公元前221年）。

(3) Historically, East Asian heritage countries tend to have robust state capacities.
    Japan
    China
    Asian Tigers
        South Korea
        Taiwan
        HK
        Singapore
    They routinely deliver economic miracles in blxtime.

(3)在历史上，东亚传统国家往往拥有强大的国家能力：
日本、中国、亚洲四小龙——韩国、台湾、香港、新加坡

That said, the strong state often overwhelms Rule of Law. E.g.
    Militaristic WW2 Japan
South Korea and Taiwan military dictatorship eras.

也就是说，强大的国家往往会压倒法治。
比如：二战时期的军国主义日本；军事独裁时期的韩国与台湾

——————————————

回答二：
Wang Di, Lucid dream master
upxed Feb 9
In all fairness, it’s not entirely democracy’s fault, if it ever was.

公平地说，这并不完全是民主的错，如果它曾经存在的话。

India was once very close to the USSR, whereas China ended her honeymoon with the Russians after Khrushchev defamed Stalin. So while India was never remotely socialist politically, her economy was once heavily so, and tied more to the hammer and sickle side in the cold war.

印度曾一度非常接近苏联，而在当时，中国恰好在赫鲁晓夫诋毁斯大林之后结束了与苏联的蜜月期。因此，尽管印度在政治上从来都不是一个社会主义者，但她的经济却曾经带有非常浓的社会主义色彩，在冷战时期，她与锤子和镰刀的联系更加紧密了。

And if only India had copied Stalin’s style of economic development. With his horrible errors and sometimes downright malice, Stalin was a genius at authoritorian economic planning with a low starting point, as well as a competent leader on international strategic thinking.

要是印度全盘照抄了斯大林的经济发展模式就好了。尽管斯大林犯下了可怕的错误，有时甚至是带着彻头彻尾的恶意，但他在起点很低的威权主义经济计划中是个天才，同时也是一位具备国际战略思想的领导人。

So without a thorough agrarian reform, without a countrywide emphasis on heavy industry like Stalin would definitely suggest, without a series of successful and affordable hydraulic, irrigation, and many other civil projects like Mao had done, and in India’s case without an effective social reform against her special quirks like religious conflicts and the remnant of a caste society, she just head dived into a socialist economy mimicking that of Stalin’s less than mediocre successors’, starting off with a largely colonial style bureaucracy.

所以印度没有进行彻底的土地改革，没有像斯大林肯定会提出的对全国性的重工业发展的重视，没有像毛曾经做过的那样建设一系列成功的和可负担的水力、灌溉以及许多其他民用项目，在印度自身的情况中，它没有实施有效的社会改革，以铲除诸如宗教冲突和社会种姓的遗迹等怪异的社会模式，它只是一头扎入了斯大林的社会主义经济中，但模仿的却更多的是其继任者，而非斯大林，并且是背负着一个大规模的殖民式的官僚机构起步的。

Man, democracy has never been the elixir for such boldness.

伙计，民主从来都不是如此大胆的灵丹妙药。

Now for about 30 years India has been back on track with a more “capitalist” model, and in many aspects she is catching up just fine. It is still too early to say that India’s political system cannot perform competently in her future development, though many challenges are surely ahead.

如今，印度重返一种更加“资本主义的”模式已经有30年的时间了，在许多方面，它的“资本主义”模式已经回归了正轨，她正在迎头赶上。现在说印度的政治体制不能胜任她未来的发展还为时过早，尽管许多挑战肯定会到来的。

I still have another related issue to address.

我还有一个相关的问题要回答。

A lot of people tend to judge “active” regimes and relatively “less active” regimes with different criteria.

很多人倾向于判断“积极”的政权和相对“不那么活跃”的政权有不同的标准。

When an “active” regime does something out of good will but backfires, bam, the blame is all yours, and the regime as well as its leader become the personification of all evil.

当一个“积极的”政权出于好意做了一些事情，但结果却适得其反时，那么，这一切就都是你们的责任，政权以及它的领导人都变成了所有邪恶的化身。

When a “less active” regime does little to nothing as usual, and the shit just casually hits the fan like always, this somehow is not generally considered the government’s fault. Even when people try to blame this on the establishment, as long as there is no one person that fits the “evil dictator” trope, this is not a selling story.

当一个“不那么活跃”的政权像往常一样毫无作为时，尽管事情总是会有败露的一天，但它在某种程度上并不被认为是政府的错。即使当人们试图把责任归咎于既得利益者，只要没有一个人符合“邪恶独裁者”的比喻，这也不是一个能热卖的故事。

For example, I do not believe Hindu people are genetically inferior to Chinese nor vice versa. Circa 1950, India and China were in the same league economically, with India clearly ahead. The life expectancies of the two were both pitiously low.

比如，我不认为印度人在基因上不如中国人，反之亦然。大约在1950年的时候，印度和中国在经济上处于同一阵营，而且印度显然处于领先地位。这两个民族的预期寿命都很低。

In the period from 1950 to 1980, China managed to reduce her mortality rate greatly, although with a serious bump that was the infamous Great Leap Foward.

从1950年到1980年，中国的死亡率大大降低了，尽管这一时期出现了一个臭名昭着的大**事件。

At the same time, India also did OK by third world criteria, but was clearly not comparable to China’s achievement. Even in the GLF period in China, the whole bump was just that China’s mortality rate jumped back to third world average. India in her good years was barely above that average.

与此同时，按照第三世界的标准，印度也做得不错，但显然无法取得与中国相提并论的成就。即使是在中国的“***”时期，中国的死亡率也只是上升到了世界平均水平的三分之一左右。而即便在繁荣年景里，印度的平均死亡率也要略高于水解的平均水平。

It is on this basis some people argue that Mao “murdered” tens of millions of people, while none of those guys credits Mao for saving far more lives with his other successful policies.

在此基础上，一些人认为***“杀害”了数千万人，而他们中却没有一个人认为***用他的其他成功政策挽救了更多的生命。

If we accept the fact that India could have done at least as good as China in her normal years, then by the same criteria accusing Mao as the greatest mass murderer, the contemporary Indian government should also be counted as one of the most murderous regimes in world history, who “killed” millions annually by hunger and malnutrition, without much effort.

如果我们接受了这样一个事实：即在正常的年份里，印度至少可以做得和中国一样好，那么按照指责***是最大的杀人狂的统一标准来说，当代的印度政府也应该算作世界历史上最凶残的政权之一，它每年不用太费力就可以通过饥饿和营养不良“杀害”了数以百万计的人。

But noooooo. Nobody seems to go that far since India is a holy democracy.

但绝对不是这样。由于印度是一个神圣的民主国家，似乎没有人会这么说它。

Logically, I think this forgiving attitude towards the Indian Government is quite insulting to Hindu people and the very concept of human right, as if being merely above average was all that could be expected from them.

从逻辑上来说，我认为这种对印度政府的宽容态度是对印度人民的侮辱，也是对人权概念的侮辱，就好像仅仅高于平均水平是他们能期待的所有一切。

And also logically, those accusations towards Mao factually, though not necessarily willingly, hold us Chinese in embarrassingly high regard, for they must take us as naturally superior, so that when we were significantly better than world average of the same income group, we were just being “Chinese average”, and when we bumped back to average level, world-class atrocities and injustice must have taken place.

而且从逻辑上来说，尽管不一定是有意的，但这些针对*的指控确实令人尴尬地让我们把中国置于一个高标准上，因为他们必然认为我们自然是更优秀的，所以当我们明显比世界平均水平更好时，我们只是“中国的平均水平”，而当我们跌回平均水平时，那么就一定是发生了世界级的暴行和不公正行为。

That’s a compliment I think most Chinese are happy to do without.

这是我认为大多数中国人都很乐意摆脱的一种赞美。

——————————————

回答三：
Lei Zhang, lived in China (1980-1991)
Answered Feb 5
I feel like not a lot of straight answers to this specific question, some people argue over true meaning of democracy vs communism, some people have wrong information, some are answering previous India vs current India and a lot of people are not talking about Economic policies.

我觉得很多回答都没有直接回答这个特定的问题，有些人争论的是民主与共产主义的真正意义，有些人提供了错误的信息，有些人对比了之前的印度和现在的印度，还有很多人根本没有谈论经济政策。

Any time you talk about economic growth, you need to mention about economic policies. Advantages from democracy, population, geopolitical allies, natural resources, etc. does not directly benefit an entire country unless it has the right economic policies in place.

每当谈论经济增长时，你都需要提到经济政策。民主、人口、地缘政治盟友、自然资源等的优势并不会直接惠及整个国家，除非它有正确的经济政策。

Let’s do the easy thing and follow the money. What did China do to grow its economy? Simple, it became the manufacturer of the world. What did India do to grow its economy? It became the IT service sector of the world.

让我们去繁就简，追循钱的足迹。中国在经济增长方面做了些什么？很简单，它成为了世界的制造商。印度在经济增长方面做了些什么？它成为了世界的IT服务部门。

China covers about 80%+ of the world’s manufacturing, that means the profit all goes to the low wage, hard labor workers and their companies. If you look at income disparity, China has far less disparity (in growth), meaning it distributes money to the lower classes better than India (whether it is forced or natural).

中国的制造业占全球的80%以上，这意味着利润都流向了低工资、艰苦的劳动工人和他们的公司。如果你看看收入差距，就会发现中国的差距就小得多（尽管在增加），这意味着它向下层阶级分配财富的情况要比印度号（不管是被迫的还是自然的）。

India’s service sector contributes around 58% of total GDP, but it goes to call centers, programmers, analysts, consultants; this makes the money more concentrated compared to China. For example: Chinese factories hire 100 workers, make a profit of $50,000, each worker gets $500. Indian IT consulting company make $50,000, it only hires 2 (because a programmer makes more than a factory worker), each person makes $25,000.

印度服务业占国内生产总值的比重约为58%，但它继续朝呼叫中心、程序员、分析师、咨询师方向发展；与中国相比，这么做使得资金更加集中。比如：中国工厂雇用100名工人，盈利5万美元，每个工人挣得500美元。印度IT咨询公司赚了5万美元，它只雇佣了2人(因为一名程序员的生产力强于一名工厂工人)，每个人挣2万5千美元。

Now, the factory workers will be spending all the money on food, rent, clothing (let’s say $400), saves $100, this applies to all 100 workers, thus $10,000 saved total. A programmer will spend $5,000 on necessities and some luxury items and saves $20,000, for two people, that’s $40,000 saved.

现在，工厂工人将把所有的钱都花在食物、房租、衣服上(比如说400美元)，省下100美元，这适用于所有100名工人，因此节省下了1万美元。程序员则花费了5000美元购买必需品和一些奢侈品，节省了2万美元，这就相当于省下了4万美元。

The more money gets concentrated on the higher classes, the less an economy grow (velocity of money is a direct accelerator to GDP). IF this scenario is true, then what would likely happen is that a lot of people will be poor, and a lot of people will be rich, thus you would see not only wider income disparities in India, but every programmer would be able to hire servants, whereas in China, servants are less common.

越多的钱集中在更高等级中，经济增长的幅度就越少(钱的流通速度是国内生产总值的直接加速器)。如果这种情况是真的，那么可能会发生的是：很多人将很贫穷，很多人将很富有，因此你在印度会看到不仅是日益扩大的收入差距，而且每个程序员都能够雇用仆人，而在中国，仆人是不太常见的。

Now as India is beginning to go into manufacturing, you will see Indian economic growth suddenly accelerate even beyond the 7% that it saw last year.

现在，随着印度开始进军制造业，你会看到印度的经济增长突然加速，甚至超过了去年的7%。

There is an argument to be made that some western countries tried to distribute money to the lower classes but failed to stimulate the economy. So what made China’s case so special?

有一种观点认为，一些西方国家试图向下层社会分配资金，但却未能刺激经济。那么，是什么使中国的情况变得如此特殊呢？

China have a 43.3% in investment in fixed capital and a 45% savings rate, meaning it is investing in factories, machines, etc. to allow better products to be built; high savings rate means people have money to spend rather than paying off debt. Combined with rising wages, better products and very low personal debt, people are spending more, thus businesses make more money, increase their investments in fixed capital, and spirals upwards from there.

中国有43.3%的固定资本投资和45%的储蓄率，这意味着它正在投资于工厂、机器等，以使更好的产品能够被制造出来；高储蓄率意味着人们有足够的钱来消费，而不是偿还债务。再加上上涨的工资、更好的产品和非常低的个人债务，人们的消费就会增加，企业开始赚更多的钱，增加了对固定资本的投资，并从此处开始螺旋式上升。

The economic policies that allowed China to open up to the world, become its manufacturer, distribute money to lower classes more evenly, entice companies to invest (specifically targeting local populations that have rising wages), gave China the hyper-growth it saw. Now it is “slowing down” (not really) only until the next inventions become commercialized, then we would expect another boom but not as fast as the previous one, as this one will concentrate more money for white collars and upper classes.

容许中国对外开放、然后成为世界工厂、更平均地向底层阶级分配财富、吸引企业投资(特别是针对工资上涨的地区人口)的经济政策给中国带来了经济的高速增长。现在它正在“减速”(不是真正意义上的)，直到下一个发明被商业化，然后我们会期待另一次的繁荣，但是它不会像之前的那样快，因为这次的繁荣会把更多的钱花在白领和上层阶级身上。

India on the other hand, is actually implementing some of these policies like China did, thus definitely expect Indian economy to hit a growth curve (until automation kills off the competition).

另一方面，印度正在实施一些像中国这样的政策，因此肯定可以期望印度经济达到增长曲线(直到自动化杀死了竞争)。

——————————————

回答四：
Sean Ng, Data Analyst & Aid Worker
Answered Jan 30
Hmmmm… maybe to unpack your question a bit here, political and economic development, whilst intertwined are not the same thing and contribute to quality of life and living standards in different ways. China is not as “un-democratic” as one would think — whilst Beijing seems to have absolute authority, the system is heavily reliant on provincial party secretaries who wield enormous influence over policy and enforcement; the old saying being “the mountains are high and the emperor far away”.

嗯……也许我在这里可以稍微解释一下你的问题，关于政治方面的发展和经济方面的发展，当它们纠缠在一起时却不是一回事，它们以不同的方式为生活质量和生活水平做出了贡献。中国并不像人们想象的那样“不民主”的国家——尽管北京看似拥有绝对的权威，但是这个体系却严重依赖于对政策及其执行有着巨大影响的省委书记；俗话说：“山高皇帝远”。

And whilst seemingly unitary (opacity is a feature of the Communist Party), there is much disagreement within the government of China on how the country should be run. Additionally, Chinese officials are keenly aware that they have no electoral legitimacy and are sensitive to public unrest — there are actually thousands of protests across China every year.

虽然表面上看起来是统一的(不透明是共产党的一个特征)，但是中国政府内部对于如何运行这个国家存在很大的分歧。此外，中国官员敏锐地意识到，他们没有选举的合法性，对公众的动乱也很敏感——中国每年都会发生成千上万的抗议活动。

But to get to the heart of your question, I think China has had the benefit of being a unified polity for thousands of years, with one, enforced common language — this, combined with an autocratic government, has allowed them to undertake rapid, painful reforms which displaced many people. But in India, there are a plurality of languages and ethnicities, which means that there is greater variation in priorities and needs across the country. India was unified only twice before its current form — under the British Raj and under the Mughal Empire (mostly). I know there have been numerous cases of anti-Muslim riots and purges and Hindi nationalism is on the rise, but I hope that Indians are able to enjoy the current uncertainty they face — they have much greater freedom to decide what type of country they would like to be and how they would like to live their lives than the Chinese.

但是，直入你问题的核心，我认为中国已经受益于几千年来的统一政体和强制推广的共同语言——这些因素与专制的政府相结合，使他们能够推行快速而痛苦、导致许多人流离失所的改革。但是印度有多种的语言和种族，这意味着它在全国各地的优先级和需求上有更大的差异。过去，印度在其目前的形式下只统一过两次——一次是在英国统治下，一次(主要)是在莫卧儿帝国统治下。我知道印度发生了很多的反穆斯林骚乱和清洗活动，并且北印度民族主义情绪正在上升，但我希望印度人能够享受他们现在所面临的不确定性，他们有更大的自由来决定他们想要什么类型的国家，以及相比于中国人，他们想要怎样的生活。

Also, the economy is growing at a tremendous pace in India. But in order for it to raise the living standards of the rural poor, substantive agrarian reform is necessary. This will ready many people for greater urbanisation and industrialisation. On the other side, in China, I fear that they have reached the end of their demographic dividend and their population has started to grey — this will place a greater and greater burden on the state and might slow economic growth.

此外，印度的经济正在以惊人的速度增长。但为了提高农村贫困人口的生活水平，必须进行实质性的农业改革。这将为更大规模的城市化和工业化准备许多人口。另一方面，在中国，我担心他们的人口红利已经走到了尽头，人口开始老龄化——这将给国家带来更大的负担，可能会减缓经济增长。

——————————————

回答五：
James Gong, lived in China (1974-2002)
Answered Feb 2
Every normal morden person loves democracy and freedom, including mainland Chinese. However, if democracy/freedom to others may cut your benefit or the public benefit, things become complicated.

每一个正常的现代人都热爱民主和自由，包括中国大陆人。然而，如果别人的民主和自由会减少你的利益或公共利益，事情就变得复杂了。

Juse use street camera as an example. Being monitored in the public area affects our privacy and is generally not allowed in USA. However, if the community is not safe enough, residents may sext to sacrify part of their privacy and install street cameras.

就拿街头的摄像头作例子。在公共区域受到监控会影响我们的隐私，这在美国通常是不允许的。然而，如果社区不够安全，居民可能会选择牺牲部分隐私，并安装街头的摄像头。

If people in a society can use the democracy in a reasonable scale, democracy will provide positive reinforcement. But if there are too many extreme ones over use their rights, democracy may lead bad results, and hurts the benefits of others.

如果一个社会的人能够在合理的范围内使用民主，民主就会得到积极的强化。但是，如果有太多的极端分子在使用他们的权利，民主就可能会导致糟糕的结果，并且损害其他人的利益。

India somehow falls into such trouble. The democracy system as well as the natural diversity of people’s ideas and benefits makes it much harder to do a longterm planning.

印度不知何故陷入了这样的困境。民主制度，以及人们的思想和利益的自然多样性，使得制定长期计划变得更加困难。

——————————————

回答六：
Paul Clifford
Answered Jan 31
Why did democracy not give Indian advantages in its economic development compared with China?

为什么民主没有给印度经济发展带来相比于中国的优势？

Of course you mean India’s version of democracy. The reason that the Indian version of democracy has not received the advantages of China, is because India is a democracy only in name.

当然，你指的是印度版本的民主制度。印度版本的民主制度之所以没有获得中国的优势，是因为印度是一个只有名义上的民主国家。

India has some huge hurdles to overcome…

印度有一些巨大的障碍需要克服：

The caste system that still prevails.

仍然盛行的种姓制度。

Here in Oz I’ve worked with lots of Tech guys born in India and have witnessed or had related to me some ridiculous travesties...

在奥芝，我和许多在印度出生的科技人员一起工作过，并且目睹过一些可笑的经历，或者与它们有所关系。

For instance…

比如：

* In IT we worked in teams. One of my colleagues was brilliant but of a lower caste, another was a complete moron of a higher caste who was made subordinate to the brilliant fellow. The moron made it obvious he resented it. He was abusive to the brilliant fellow and disruptive to the team. He ended up getting discharged (sacked) and took the company to court for discrimination. Business hasn’t the time, money or patience for such shit heads and they are common.
I asked the brilliant guy why he took the abuse of the moron and hadn’t put in a complaint to HR. His reply: There would be ramification back in India for his family.

*在IT行业，我们是以团队形式工作的。我的一个同事很聪明，但他出身于低种姓，另一个一个出身高种姓的人是个彻彻底底的白痴，并且是前者的下属。那个白痴的怨恨情绪非常明显。他辱骂那个聪明的家伙，对整个团队造成了破坏。他最终被解雇了，又将公司告上了法庭。公司没有时间、金钱或耐心来应付这些混蛋，他们是很常见的一种人。
我曾经问过那位聪明的家伙，为什么他要忍受这个白痴的辱骂，并且没有向人力资源部门投诉。他的回答是：回到印度，他的家庭将会产生分歧。

* The company I worked for used 3rd party consultants for project management, many of the guys I worked with were from an upper caste and had been trained in India as engineers. One of them tells a story of how when he first came to Australia he had to go to the bank and there were long lines. So, as he would do in India, he went to the front of the queue and demanded the immediate attention of the teller. The teller, an Asian, told him to get in line. He relates how he became loudly vocal demanding to see the manager. The manager (an Australian) told him to piss off and line up like everyone else. He now conforms to Australian standards but resents them.
This self perceived god then went around proclaiming that Australians discriminated against Indians.

*我曾为项目管理的第三方顾问公司工作过，在其中，我共事过的很多人都来自上层种姓，他们曾在印度接受过工程师培训。其中一个人讲过一个故事，当他第一次来到澳大利亚的时候，他不得不去银行办理业务，但是那里排着有长长的队伍。因此，正如他在印度所做的那样，他走到队伍的最前面，要求出纳员立即办理他的业务。一位亚洲人告诉他要排队。他讲述了他是如何大声地要求见经理的。经理（一个澳大利亚人）叫他滚蛋，像其他人一样排队。他现在做事就挺符合澳大利亚人的标准，但还是憎恨他们。
这个自视为上帝的人随后四处宣扬，说澳大利亚人歧视印度人。

* One of my subordinates (an Indian fellow) would periodically disappear from the workplace. When confronted, he admitted to me that his daughter was under constant threat of kidnap and he was under the protection of the Australian authorities. He’d get a phone call and had to pick up his daughter from the Australian authorities.
His story, which I did check, would make a great TV movie.
His wife was heir to a fortune, but developed terminal cancer while here in Australia. She went back to India to die, taking their daughter with her.
She died and the daughter became heir to the fortune.
In India some group of relatives kidnapped her and the father couldn’t gain access to to her (he wanted to take her back home to Australia). So he appealed to the Indian courts. The family simply bribed the judges & the father couldn’t compete, so all legal proceedings failed.
The rest has a level of secrecy to it, so I’ll just relate that an assisted rescue mission occurred and the child was secreted back to Australia.
At the time, several attempts had been made to kidnap his daughter here in Australia via foreign criminal gangs, so ASIO & the NSW police got involved.

*我的一个下属(一个印度人)会时不时地从工作场所消失。当他被抓住的时候，他告诉我他的女儿一直受到绑架的威胁，他得到了澳大利亚当局的保护。他接到了一通电话，不得不从澳大利亚当局接走他的女儿。
他的故事——我确实去核查过了——可以拍成一部很棒的电视电影。
他的妻子是一大笔财富的继承人，但却在澳大利亚却患上了晚期癌症。她返回印度去等死，并且带走了他们的女儿。
后来她去世了，而女儿则成为了这笔财富的继承人。
然后在印度，一些亲戚绑架了她，而父亲却无法见到她（他想带她回去澳大利亚的家中）。所以他向印度法院起诉。这家人贿赂了法官，而那位父亲则无法与他们竞争，所以他所打的关系都失败了。
剩下的故事都是需要保密的，总而言之，之后展开了一次协助救援的任务，这个孩子被秘密地送回了澳大利亚。
当时，那些人曾多次试图通过外国犯罪团伙在澳大利亚绑架他的女儿，因此，澳大利亚安全情报组织和新南威尔士州的警方介入了其中。

I have tens of these type of stories each of which occurred here in Australia within the Indian community, I’m told the situation is worse in India.

我有几十个这样的故事，每一个都发生在澳大利亚的印度社区里，我被告知印度的情况更糟糕。

Having a corrupt Judiciary, corrupt Police, corrupt Politicians & corrupt Government is a disincentive to foreign investment, and every country needs foreign investment. China has made a concerted effort to stamp out corruption.

腐败的司法、腐败的警察、腐败的政客和腐败的政府对外国投资来说是一种阻碍，每个国家都需要外国投资。中国已经在齐心协力地打击腐败了。

Religious fanaticism & social unrest are not conducive to international trade or investment. Also cause disruption to production. China contains civil unrest, and if justified makes an effort to fix the problem/s that caused the unrest.

宗教狂热和社会动荡不利于国际贸易和投资。它们也会造成生产的中断。中国控制着国内的动荡，如果有正当理由的话，它就会去努力解决引起动荡的问题。

The never ending threat of war with Pakistan which is disruptive to business.

印度与巴基斯坦的战争永远不会结束，这对商业环境造成了破坏。

Lack of infrastructure. China attends to this as a priority to fix.

缺乏基础设施。中国把这当作了需要解决的首要问题。

Lack of amenity (water, sewage, air quality, transport etc). China attends to this as a priority to fix.

缺乏适宜的环境（水、污染、空气质量、交通等）。中国也把这当作了需要解决的首要问题。

The list of hurdles India has to jump so it can progress is extremely long but not without resolution, so I’ll stop at this point..

印度要发展所必须要克服的障碍是非常多的，在这一过程中是不能没有决心的，所以我在说完这一点之后停下来。

————————————

回答七：
Abirbhav Chakrawarty, Student
Answered Feb 2
There is no direct evidence to show that democracy in any way hinders economic growth, and there's no reason democratic countries cannot grow. Democracy involves laying institutions and policies which lay the foundations, through which principles of liberty and equality are designed and followed, thus directly or indirectly affecting firms or individuals who benefit from the directives and increase their growth, which in turn has a positive impact on economy in the long run. Authoritarian regimes tend to have a 'burst’ of economic growth in the beginning which slow down later.

没有直接的证据表明民主制度阻碍了经济增长，也没有民主国家不能发展的理由。民主制度包括了设置作为基础的制度与政策，通过它们，自由与平等的原则才能被设计出来并得到遵循，从而直接或间接地影响那些指令中收益的企业或个人，推动他们的发展，这又反过来对经济产生了积极的影响。独裁政权往往会在一开始就会出现经济的“爆发性”增长，之后增速则会放缓。

India had little economic growth till the 1990s due to flawed economic ideas of our past national leaders, not because India was a democracy. Post Independence, India's economic policy was heavily influenced by extensive regulation, protectionism, public ownership of large monopolies, pervasive corruption which lead to a sluggish growth rate.

在上世纪90年代之前，由于印度过去的国家领导人的有缺陷的经济观念，印度的经济几乎没有增长，这一结果不是因为印度是一个民主国家。独立后，印度的经济政策受到广泛的监管、保护主义、大型垄断企业的公有制、导致经济增长缓慢的无处不在的腐败的严重影响。

India realized the necessity of economic liberalisation quite late in the 1990s, when the country was at the verge of bankruptcy. When India was growing at 2–3% in the 1970s, China began opening up it's economy, achieving a lead of almost two decades. However, ever since liberalisation, India has registered a massive growth rate in both GDP and quality of life.

印度在上世纪90年代末意识到经济自由化的必要性，当时这个国家正濒临破产。当印度的经济在20世纪70年代以2-3%的速度增长时，中国则对外开放了它的经济，取得了领先20年的优势地位。然而，自自由化以来，印度在国内生产总值和生活质量方面都取得了巨大的进步。

More than 70% people were poor in India in 1947, which fell to 30% in 2009, further falling to 20% in 2011. India's quality of life, HDI score, GDP per capita, poverty rate, life expectancy all show a strong positive trends.

1947年，印度有超过70%的人处于贫困境地，到了2009年，这一比例跌至了30%，2011年进一步跌至20%。印度的生活质量、人类发展指数、人均国内生产总值、贫困率、预期寿命都显示出强劲的向好趋势。

India has been growing at average 8%

印度的平均增长率为8%

Look at per capita income taking off ever since 1990s

看看上世纪90年代以来印度的人均收入

India's steady improvement in HDI score

印度的人类发展指数稳步提高

India's declining poverty ratio

印度的贫困人口比率下降

Life expectancy getting better

印度的预期寿命越来越高

Malnutrition getting under control

印度人的营养不良状况得到了控制

Literacy rate improving, although sluggishly

印度的识字率在提高，尽管增长缓慢

Unemployment rate going down

印度的失业率在下降

India of 2018 is in every way better, stronger and smarter than it was back in 1970s. Above data show India has been steadily improving on almost every socio-economic indicator despite being a democracy. Authoritarian regimes may be little better in implementing reforms and resolving conflicts by coercion. But a democratically established institution tend to give more power to people, and all the seemingly useless debate and discussion helps the government to take care of everyone's concerns and formulate policies that are best suited to the population, especially in diverse countries like India. Had the reforms of the 1990s been carried out earlier in the 60s or 70s, India would surely have been a much better place.

2018年的印度相比于上世纪70年代更好、更强大、更聪明。以上数据显示，尽管印度是一个民主国家，但几乎所有的社会经济指标都在稳步改善。独裁政权在实施改革和通过高压手段解决冲突方面可能有一点点的优势。但是，一个通过民主方式建立的制度往往会赋予人民更多的权力，所有看似无用的辩论和讨论都有助于政府照顾每个人的关切，制定最适合人民的政策，尤其是对印度这样的多样化国家来说。如果上世纪90年代的改革是在60年代或70年代进行的，印度肯定已经变得更好了。

Data presented above challenges the popular narrative that democracy cannot lead to economic growth, or democracy is bad for ‘poor’ countries like India. Democracy has on the other hand benefitted India in many direct or indirect ways.

以上所述的数据挑战了一种流行的说法，即民主无法推动经济增长，或者说民主对像印度这样的“贫穷”国家是不利的。与此相反，民主正以许多直接或间接的方式让印度收益。

——————————————

回答八：
Jitesh Bahri, Junior Engg (2013-present)
upxed Feb 2
Democracy, a sophisticated system to successfully run any country. Democracy is evidently more powerful than autocracy or totalitarianism. I seldom don’t understand that why we Indians compare our democracy( precise gift) to an autocracy like china. China, the holocaust tales of destitute, agitators and protestors in their history can never be an inspiration to India. India, where people's interests is proritised.

民主是一个成功管理任何国家的复杂系统。民主显然比独裁或极权主义更强大。我几乎无法理解为什么我们印度人把我们的民主制度(一种针对的礼物)与像中国这样的专制政权进行比较。中国，还有关于他们历史上的贫困、煽动者和抗议者的大屠杀故事，永远都无法成为印度的灵感来源。在印度，人们的利益被受到关注的。

Here is another story of India, where we indians should blame ourself. The downsides of the way democracy is being practised today.

以下是另一个关于印度的故事，在其中，印度人应该进行自省。现在实行民主制度的方式有其弊端。

Political parties are business entities in India. An abberation of democracy is screened during election by private news channels, where decoying voters with money, two-wheeler, laptops can actually gain more votes.

政党在印度是商业实体。在选举期间，私人新闻频道会播放一场民主的选举，在这场选举中，用金钱、两轮挂车、手提电脑来吸引选民的人实际上可以获得更多的选票。

Elections are predominantly an investment by political parties, after they sweep the election then they have 5 years tenure to stultify voters.

选举主要是政党的投资，在横扫选举之后，他们有5年的时间来愚弄选民。

Democracy - you may all have seen our prominent elected leaders hail India for being the biggest democratic and most diverse country in the world. I have surprise for you all;

民主——你们可能都看到过，我们杰出的民选领导人欢呼称印度是世界上最大的民主国家和最多元化的国家。我对你们所有人都感到惊奇。

Real face of our democracy. An unprecedented 37% of adult population is illiterate and they really have no mean with democracy.

我们民主的真面目。占前所未有的37%比例的成年人是文盲，他们对民主没有任何意义。

The travesty of democracy is lethal for our economic growth. People of India do not like any face for more than 10years to be at throne of PM. India has reached to 42 position in democracy index and has been frxd as flawed democracy.

对民主制度的歪曲对我们的经济增长而言是致命的。印度人民在10多年的时间里都不喜欢坐在总理宝座上的任何一副面孔。印度在民主指数方面已经名列第42位，并且被认为是有缺陷的民主国家。

There are numerous countries to compare with on the premises of democracy, their economic development. An amelioration in the way of exercising democracy and franchise can definitely yeild some positive results in near future, or economic development will consistently struggle forthcoming years as well. China has emerged, apparently. Their dictators have surrpessed impecunious people in the greed of economic development.

在民主和经济发展的前提下，有许多国家是可以进行比较的。实行民主和赋予公民权的方式的改善肯定会在不远的将来取得一些积极的结果，否则经济发展将会在未来的岁月里不断地挣扎。显然，这种状况在中国已经出现了。他们的**者在经济发展的贪婪欲望中对那些没有钱的人进行了压制。

We have a lot to learn from China, like manufacturing skills, indigenous arms technology and likewise many other factors. I do not hail their choice of policy for economic development, have a look at it.

我们有很多东西要向中国学习，比如制造业技术、本土武器技术以及其他许多东西。但我不会为他们所选择的经济发展政策而欢呼，看一看吧。

We can compare ourself to China in manufacturing and other aspects as well, but we shall not forget that in autocracy you don't seek permission from anyone to bulldoze anyone's house to fullfil your dream project. Whereas, India has to think over his people first and their interest to be prioritised.

我们可以在制造业和其他方面拿自己和中国进行一番比较，但我们不会忘记，在专制制度下，你可以不需要任何人的许可就把任何人的房子给推平了，从而实现你的梦想。然而，印度必须首先考虑它的人民，并优先考虑他们的利益。

——————————————

回答九：
Lei Liu, A Chinese main-lander who isn't live in China right now.
Answered Jan 31
Democracy is a good thing. But if you talking about development then democracy is less effeciant than autocracy.

民主是一件好事。但是，如果你谈论的是发展，那么民主就没有独裁那么有效了。

Why? In order for any entity to develop there are decisions to be made. The style for decision making for democracy will be each of us argue all day all day long and not coming to one consensus. While it is definitely less efficiant but it might be more correct. And it cater to the needs of different social levels.

为什么？要想让任何一个经济实体发展起来，就必须做出决策。民主决策的风格就是我们所有人一整天都在争论不休，却不会达成共识。虽然它的效率肯定比较低，但它可能更正确。它迎合了不同社会阶层的需求。

Autocracy is super efficiant, what I saying for one time the decision is made. No need to argue just execute. The problem is outcome will depend on the governing body, it can be less stable.

独裁则是非常有效的，它可以一次性地做出决策。不需要争论，只要执行。问题是，结果将取决于管理机构，它可能不那么稳定。

But if you only talk about efficiancy then yes, autocracy is more efficiant. But it depends on your leaders vision.

但是，如果你只讨论效率，那么是的，专制制度是更有效的。但这取决于你的领导人的愿景。

——————————————

回答十：
Lant Chapman, Teacher at Contract Employment
upxed Feb 5
India is great she has a lot of resources. Her culture has remained in practice since the beginning of the Indus, Aryan, and Dravidic peoples settled the area.

印度很棒，她有很多资源。从印度人、雅利安人和德拉威人来到这片地区定居起，它的文化就一直延续至今。

The area is one of high sustainability. The land is populated with over a billion inhabitants. India is able to feed its own people, inside its own borders.

该地区是一个具备高可持续性的地区。这片土地上有超过10亿的居民。印度能够在自己的土地上养活自己的人民。

There Himalayas shield India from major invaders, encircling, and protecting major portions of the Indian Plain.

喜马拉雅山脉保护了印度免受主要入侵者的侵袭，并庇护了印度平原的主要部分。

India lacks these.

但是印度缺乏这些：（分别是中国、美国和欧洲的河网图，因政策问题略）

Take note of where the lines on the map are.

注意地图上的线位于那些位置。

The map shows The inland waterway network of three major areas of activity in the world.

这张地图显示了世界上三个主要活动区域的内陆水路网络。

The network allows a reduction in trade costs.

这个网络可以降低贸易成本。

Trade using water transport is approximately half as transport on land.

使用水运的贸易成本大约是陆地运输的一半。

Inland waterways allow groups along the waterway to form partnerships, furthering safe trade practices.

内河航道允许沿线的团体结成伙伴关系，进一步促进了安全贸易的进行。

All major areas of the world with high economic activity has an extensive inland waterways.

世界上所有主要的经济活动都有着丰富的内陆水道。

The North American network, fond in the eastern half of The United States, is the largest inland waterway network in the world.

北美的内陆水道网络支持了美国东部的半壁江山，它是世界上最大的内陆水道网络。

India continues to rise economically, greater infrastructure planning will help India to become a world area of economic trade.

印度的经济持续增长、更大规模的基础设施建设将帮助印度成为世界经济贸易的一部分。

——————————————

回答十一：
Min Yan
Answered Feb 1
It is the popular elections that are not related to the economic advantage. India is the best examples of such a statement. In fact, most countries in the world have popular elections, and vast majority of these countries do not have economic advantage over China.

普选是与经济优势无关的。印度是这类结论的最佳范例。事实上，世界上大多数国家都有普选，而且这些国家中的绝大多数都没有获得经济上的优势。

Next, popular election is not related to democracy. Democracy means government of the people, by the people, for the people. However, popular election rarely produces such kind of government, especially “for the people” part. For example, the government of the United States is effectively for the few rich people who can afford to donate money. Chinese government officials are sexted not by popular vote, but by the KPI that measures how much they work FOR THE PEOPLE. Therefore Chinese government is closer to true democracy than most of the popularly elected governments. Indian government is popularly elected, but not democratic.

其次，普选与民主也没有关系。民主意味着存在一个民有、民治、民享的政府。然而，普选很少产生这样的政府，尤其是一个“民享”的政府。比如，美国政府对于少数提供捐款的有钱人而言是高效的。中国政府官员不是通过普选选出的，而是通过衡量他们为人民工作的成绩来衡量的。因此，中国政府比大多数民选政府都更接近真正的民主。印度政府是民选的，但不是民主的。

——————————————

回答十二：
Swagato Barman Roy
Answered Jan 31
Why should it? Greece is a democracy too. So is Venezuela. Look at how these countries performed in recent history as opposed to evil non-democracies like Singapore or even the US (where many people assert that democracy is dead).

为什么它就应该拥有这种优势？希腊也是一个民主国家。委内瑞拉也是。看看这些国家在近期历史上的表现，还有那些邪恶的非民主国家，比如新加坡，甚至美国（许多人断言美国的民主已死）。

Here is the preamble to the constitution of India, word by word.

这是印度宪法的序言，一字不漏：

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this 26th day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

我们，印度人民，庄严地决定将印度建设成一个独立的社会主义世俗民主共和国，并确保所有公民：
在社会、经济和政治领域都享有公正的对待；
在思想、言论、信仰和崇拜活动中都享有自由；
享有平等的地位和机会；并在所有人当中推广这种平等；
博爱，确保个人的尊严和国家的团结和正直；
1949年11月26日，在我们的立宪会议上，特此采纳、制定并赋予我们本宪法。

There is absolutely nothing to suggest in this preamble that economic growth is even a priority for the country. Apparently, it places much more emphasise on EQUALITY and JUSTICE, totally in line with calling itself SOCIALIST.

在这一序言中，根本没有任何迹象表明经济增长是国家的首要任务。显然，它更强调平等和正义，完全符合社会主义的要求。

——————————————

回答十三：
Robin Daverman, World traveler
Answered Feb 2
Why did democracy not give Indian advantages in its economic development compared with China?

为什么民主没有给印度经济发展带来相对于中国的优势？

India has a strange form of democracy where 90% of the people vote to be poor, and 10% of the people vote to be rich. Here is the total income growth from 1980 - 2014.

印度有一种奇怪的民主形式，在其中，90%的人在投票后变得贫穷，10%的人在投票后变得富有。这是1980-2014年期间的总收入增长。

In other countries, the Middle 40% experienced income growth similar to the overall population. In India, the Middle 40% had about the same low growth as the Bottom 50%, while the top 10% experienced hyper growth. This is unlike anywhere else.

在其他国家，40%的中产阶级的收入增长与总人口相当。在印度，中间40%的人与底层50%的人都经历了同样的低增长，而顶层10%的人则经历了非常大幅度的增长。这和其他地方是不同的。

So it appears that the 90% lower class and middle class people in democratic India diligently vote every year to be poor, and the poor and middle-class people in non-democratic China just sat at home doing nothing, and got paid more fairly. Who’d have thought!

因此，在民主印度，90%的底层阶级和中产阶级的人每年都在努力地投票，让自己变得贫穷，而非民主的中国的穷人和中产阶级的人则没有做任何事，却能更公平地得到报酬。谁会想到结果是这样！

Having a lot of dirt-poor people is not good economic policy. You have to see that for every transaction, there’s a buyer, and there’s a seller. In a sense, the buyer is even more important, because if you make something that the buyer doesn’t like, he can save the money in a bank, while the producer goes out of business. So if you have 90% of the population too poor to buy stuff, this is not good for economy…

拥有很多赤贫者并不是好的经济政策。你得看到，每笔交易都有买家和卖家。从某种意义上说，买家更重要，因为如果你做了买家不喜欢的东西，他可以把钱存到银行里，而生产者则会破产。如果有90%的人口因为太穷买不起东西，这对经济不是一件好事。