It’s Time to Retire the Tiger and the Dragon

The simultaneous rise of India and China, arguably the great story of the 21st century, hasn't so far inspired great cover art.

BY CHRISTINA LARSON, ADAM MINTER | SEPTEMBER 20, 2010

Behold the August 21-27 cover of the Economist: The illustration is of two bodybuilder torsos, elbows planted firmly on the globe, arm wrestling. One bicep sports a dragon tattoo; the other a tiger. The headline reads: "Contest of the Century: China v India." But the overall effect conjures not so much civilizational struggle as Arm & Hammer Baking Soda. More precisely, the cover art implies a zero sum game -- one winner, one loser -- which is hardly how anyone in China or India, busy as they are trying to assemble deals and profit from each others' growing economies, sees the future.

To be fair, it's hard to capture the enormously complicated and consequential story of the simultaneous rise of China and India in an icon. Visual clichés and journalistic shorthand exist for a reason, and Foreign Policy has admittedly relied on its fair share of stereotypes, from China's Yao Ming to turbaned Indians bathing in the Ganges. Yet Western headline writers and art directors really should try to do better -- it's getting pretty tiresome out there.

Let's start with zoology. America is the eagle, and Russia the bear, but China and India each have not one, but two emblematic animal icons that have nearly opposite connotations. China is alternately a cuddly panda or a threatening dragon, depending on the author's message. (Interestingly, in Chinese folklore a dragon is a wise and positive force, not a menace to be slain by St. George.) India is either an elephant or a tiger -- a wise, slow-moving giant or a surging predator. A March 19, 2007 Businessweek cover story, headlined "The Trouble with India: Crumbling roads, jammed airports, and power blackouts could hobble growth," showed an elephant shattering like a clay doll. A Feb. 3, 2007 Economist cover, "India Overheats," depicted a tiger with its tail on fire.

If the dragon and the tiger fight, the panda and the elephant seek refuge from the world -- as in yet another Economist cover, which shows those two animals taking shelter from a storm beside a limp little tree and beneath the headline, "China and India: A Tale of Two Vulnerable Economies." (Occasionally the panda does get mean, as when the Economist depicted one ascending the Empire State building, a la King Kong, on a cover captioned: "America's fear of China.") If there's any larger meaning to be gleaned from this set of magazine covers, the West, it seems, is worried that India might fall apart -- and that China might get its act together.

istock

 SUBJECTS: CHINA, EAST ASIA
 

Christina Larson is a contributing editor at Foreign Policy and a Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation.

Adam Minter is an American writer in Shanghai.

MARTY MARTEL

7:28 AM ET

September 21, 2010

The tiger will retire while the Dragon will rule the world

The tiger will retire but the dragon will rule the world.

That is because Democracy has divided India while Communism has united China.

Democratic India can not eliminate Islamic terrorism in Kashmir while Communist China can successfully assimilate Xinjiang. India can not employ mass migration of Hindus in Kashmir while China successfully employs mass migration of Hans to Xinjiang and Tibet.

Democratic India can not stop its Islamic Imams and Mullahs from spreading religious hatred while Communist China bans Muslim youth under 16 to enter mosques and forces Tibetan lamas to teach nationalist courses in monasteries.

Democratic India can not stop Muslims having four wives while Communist China enforces one child per family rule.

 

PUBLICUS

10:06 PM ET

September 22, 2010

The trash heap of history

The record shows that totalitarianism and authoritarianism - as with all forms of fascism - inevitably end up on the trash heap of history. Let's hope that in this day and age we don't have to go nuclear to put you there, which is exactly where you belong and precisely where you will end up one way or the other.

The fascist dictatorship of the Communist Party of China which rules absolutely and in its own self interest over the billion plus sheeple of the PRC - and you - are a reactionary force of history which is opposed to all freedoms and all liberties. A people who accept censorship and therefore cannot govern themselves are a people who cannot think for themselves. A government that for 5000 years has insisted on absolute rule, and a sheeple who have accepted it, to include yourself, are on your way to the junkyard of history.

Which is exactly where you belong and go, always and without exception.

Don't think for a moment that fascism as it presently exists in the PRC can ever advance to prevail. The world stops fascism every time. Fascism is inimical to human nature. It's acceptable only the the 5000 year history of the Jung Gwo. The Jung Gwo - the central country, i.e., China - are and always have been a freak of nature country and people. India too, with its one billion plus population is also a freak of nature country, but India is correcting itself in rational and populous ways, i.e., democratically.

China, the Jung Gwo, simply continue to have their censoring controlling dictatorship without any thought of anything else. You are severely behind the curve of history and you are going to fail just as every other fascist dictatorship of history has failed.

Like it or not, chew on that.

 

PHEAD128

11:35 PM ET

September 24, 2010

The difference is

The difference is simple.

China studied the failure of USSR and came to one conclusion; they instituted Communist policies prematurely; the economy and the livelihood of the people must be developed first before social and political changes be thrown upon them.

That is why India is such a failure, in the sense the vast majority of vote wielding populace is living in extreme poverty. What good is it when your people can only complain but have no ability to move up through economic means?

Bottomline:

China focuses on economic development to bring people out of poverty.
USSR collasped because her reformed did not improve the livelihood of the people first through economic development.
India is a failure because only relatively developed economies with education system to support literate and educated populace (only 50% of India's population is literate) before they have vote wielding powers.

 

PRABHU

5:44 AM ET

September 22, 2010

Meaning of Development is not just economic or business growth

Both in India and China, certain people like government officials, political bosses, business houses and bankers have been amassing wealth by every means available. As a result GNP growth is lop sided; just 20% enjoying 80% GNP while balance 20% is shared by 80% commoners. Both government count their billionares rather than taking serious steps to reduce the income gap forgetting their billion.
These days in both countries people are measured by money. Instead of people controlling money, rich are controlled by money. 70% natural resouces and energy is used up 25% of the well to do. At a personal level life philosophy, in both the countries, tradition make person consumes less as his knowledge and wisdom grows. That is the kind of imancipation wise aspire for; sharing even little one has is then a better reward than all the money can buy. Sages teach so even now but htey are out of fshion. The western model of economic development adopted by both is consumption driven - non-essentials have been made to look like essentials by cunning media manipulation.
This will not help either to reach their much hyped and media predicted global leadership. Both countries are essencially vendors of human labour to those in the West who own the products. India, recognised for its software development skills, has no product even after two decades of the government pampering these companies with tax exemptions and other incentives. TCS, Infosys and Wipro may be favorite investments on stock markets but all the three are just manhour vendors; may be higher up in the value chain as they like to claim. They are not microsoft or IBM. Nor do anyone has anything highly successful ventures on Net like Google or Yahoo. So is true of China in hardware...even now the key inputs are imported or produced under license...
China gains one point over India. In spite of equal corruption, China has given its people excellent development on ground; with highways, roads, airports, bus stations, mechanised ports, logistics etc and meticulously maintaining them with manucured gardens and greens along the way miles after miles. India too spends a lot of money but most of it is swallowed by greedy builders, touts and government officals. With exception of Delhi Metro and Kokan Railway, the rest is atrocious and shameful.
Both countries are endowed with nature's beauty and clever, warm hearted people but both the governments are failing miserably to gainfully use their human resource. Poor youngsters with no access to good education in India is not an asset but a liability...
I am sick of media of every kind....probable exception: internet and blogs ..unfortunately both are, in a sense, impotent.

 

BIANCARAO

6:13 PM ET

September 25, 2010

relationship between two countries

Relations between India and China are always difficult. The two countries are starkly different in culture, values and political systems.

Bianca Rao