I found two very interesting commentaries on this topic.
But not to bore you with their length I will just paste the first part and if you want more then follow the links.
China-India Influence: So Near, Yet So Far BRIC is overhyped. Even India is overhyped. China is the main player
http : //english. ohmynews. Com /articleview/article_view.as p?no=363684&rel_no=1
Published 2007-05-28 15:28 (KST)
China isn't hype. It's a hard reality for the rest of the world powers to readjust their respective positions unwillingly in order to let this growing power take up more and more room in the limited global arena.
And many powers, realizing the potential and reality of China shrank their respective space to accommodate China, only to rediscover within days that the space they vacated was occupied by this octopus-dragon within days, and that it asking for even more sooner than anyone expected.
Enough has been written on rising China; however the actual impact of China can't be gauged with Western-style measures of economic power (read GDP). That only understates China's power, helping China to further strengthen itself without drawing adverse attention. In terms of GDP, it still is 1/4th that of the U.S. or the EU.
Still many joined the hype when it came to focus on future growth drivers of the world economy, and influencing geopolitics through a combination of economic and military measures. And unfortunately, hype has followers everywhere.
The biggest of that hype is proven by the coinage of the "BRIC" acronym, encompassing the obvious four of the largest eight populous countries.
The four not included in that Goldman Sachs creation are the U.S. itself, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
The article continues with their similarities in all except economies.
India increasingly looks like the case of a lost democracy, in China there is no democracy. India has fallen prey to crony capitalism; China has adopted socialist market economy with tremendous state control and intervention. India liberalized its economy with literacy rate of 55% and poverty rate of 40%, if not worse, an unheard of proposition even in the west in light of the social fabric. Liberalization in India resulted in curtailing government spend/investments severely not only in manufacturing or industries, but also in social sectors (combined center and state spend on social sector dipped below 20% lately, a drop of 4% in as many years), and as a result today crony capitalists dictate Indian government what they expect, and Indian government is too-happy to deliver like midwives delivering babies to the wishes of these crony capitalists.
China allowed industries to boom by retaining absolute control over policies, investing heavily itself in infrastructure along with attracting tremendous and unforeseen levels of FDIs; true there were casualties in employee rights, in human rights or even on environmental fronts.
India championed in empty rhetoric failing thereby both in protecting human rights or delivering the growth impetus; China delivered without caring how people within or outside felt on its style of delivery. India never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity; China created and grabbed opportunities.
India and China are likely to have distinctly different roles in coming days, contrary to what’s popularly projected in global media about the common road they would traverse in short-term to medium-term future. Part I of this article dealt with their superficial (but misleading) similarities.
The differences, as such, are many. The most important ones are listed here with little bit of history and their likely local and global impacts:
The rest of this article is available at the above internet address;