India boosts bid to rival China in Africa

CSMonitor ^ | May 25, 2011 | Scott Baldauf

[ravager]

“You could also say that the Chinese built the Tazara railway and supported many anti-colonial liberation struggles.”

Chinese support for anti-colonialism was nowhere even close to Indian support for anti-colonialism.

“Indian contribution has rarely been decisive, both on the battlefield and politically.”

The fact that you deliberately choose to ignore the main point, displays your own bias against Indians. It wasn't about being decisive. It was a contribution nevertheless towards peace and stability. Something that didn't come from China. Indian presence prevented a lot more genocide in many parts of Africa. It wasnt India's fault the UN was riddled with indecision, poor leadership and corruption. Besides most of Africa is a chronic problem, there is no question of anything in Africa being decisive.

Most importantly, Nigeria was the biggest culprit in all of the Sierra Leon genocide. Sani Abacha was himself a thug and a war criminal.

Neither India nor China can transform Africa if Africans wont do anything for themselves. Forget corruption and despotic dictatorship, most of Africa is still a living hell hole of the world. If Africans dont do anything about that they will only end up being colonized yet again, only this time by Asians.

[ravager]

Fact is Indians are disliked in many places by many people for many reasons. If you have noticed, here on FR people there is a general dislike for Indian guest workers, programmer, engineers, doctors, scientists and students. But even the US cannot close the doors to Indians simply because if the expertise Indians have to offer. Most countries need Indians inspite of the racial/cultural baggage Indians carry. Yes Indians are insular and they have their imperfections, but its not a crime to be insular.

[AfricanChristian]

You are making claims without proof.

[AfricanChristian]

I forgot to add that many parts of India are no better than Africa.

[ravager]

SA and Zimbabwe are the two countries with significant White and Indian population. The rest of Africa dont have as many White or Indian population as do these two countries.

Forget Botha, apartheid does not exist anymore. African people are in power in both these countries. The current plight of Whites in Zimbabwe and the racial hatred between races in SA is also a window to African racial hatred for other races. Wait until a significant racial minority attains economic and political clout in any of the West African nations over and above the general African population..... and you will see the story of Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe repeat itself. Nigeria has no shortage of despotic dictators herself.

[ravager]

As bad as certain parts of India may be, India is still nowhere near as close to being the hell hole that Africa is.
1. There are no UN boots in India.
2. There are no genocide of mindless and unimaginable proportions going on in India.
3. There is no violation of human rights on a biblical scale going on in India.
4. Certain parts of Africa are considered RAPE capital of the world. India has nothing on Africa.

[ravager]

It has been my observation that those who need India the most also hate Indians the most. Namely Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Sri Lankans, Brits, Africans and to a lesser extent even Americans. And America would probably have similar experiences of their own.

[AfricanChristian]

1. Most African countries do not have UN boots on the ground
2. Most African nations do not commit genocide
3. Most African nations do not commit mass infanticide of female babies / foetuses.
4. Just like in some parts of Africa, there is a significant insurgency taking place in North Eastern India.
5. There has been religious violence in India (1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Ayodhya crisis, 2002 Gujarat crisis and violence against Christians by Hindu nationalists).
6. The literacy rate in India is 74.04% while the literacy rate in Kenya is 78.1% and in Zimbabwe 92%.
7. There is nothing comparable in scope or size to the slums of Mumbai in Africa. (I am not saying that there are no slums in Africa, but slums of Mumbai are on another level).
8. More poor people live in India than the entire Sub-Saharan Africa (Oxford University Study).
9. Indian politicians are just as corrupt as African politicians (e.g. the India GSM scandal).
10. South African organised and hosted the World Cup. India could barely organise and host the Commonwealth games.

Are there pockets of “Shining India”? Yes. Are Indian businesses leagues ahead of African businesses? Yes. Does India have infinitely more scientific and technical manpower than Africa? Yes.

The point is that India like Africa is very much a work in progress. Proclaiming the superiority of one over the other is besides the point.

(I hope we can still be friends).

[La Enchiladita]

There is no point in continuing dialogue with “AfricanChristian,” who has a very obvious axe to grind that is pro-China and anti-India.

I just had a look at AC’s posting history, in addition to the outright lies posted here, and it appears he has a position with the China Propaganda Dept.

AC claims to be “African.” That can mean many things.

One key point I see in the competition between China and India re Africa would be that China could care less about muslim domination whereas India would not tolerate it.

It seems odd for a “Christian” to be defending the China position and the China presence, very odd.

What say you, comrades?

[La Enchiladita]

Neither India nor China can transform Africa if Africans wont do anything for themselves.

That is the most important point made on the thread. The thought that Africa (made up of many countries) is passively waiting to be rescued or stimulated by outside influences should be shameful to those with any pride or initiative.

[CodeSlinger1]

Ravager, you have not made a fair comparison. You cannot compare a huge continent of many countries with varying development levels with a single unified nation.

By your logic,the same comparison can be made between India and Europe.

1. Europe has suffered significant genocide along with massive human rights abuses (Balkans) in recent history.

2. Lots of shooting wars and political instability (Serbia, Georgia) in the last 10-20 years.

3. Has UN boots on the ground(Cyprus, Georgia, several Baltic states)

So by the same logic, Europe would be a hell hole compared to India right? Clearly that is not true.

In fact, one can even argue that some African countries have advantages that India does not have.

1. For example, Africans inhabit a huge continent nearly the size of Eurasia with vast natural resources. India doesn't have a comparable resource base to develop from.

2. If you look at a Per Capita GDP map, you can actually see that south western Africa(an India-sized land mass) actually has a per capital income that's roughly 3X that of the average Indian income.

Are there countries in Africa that are worse off than India, of course. Are there nations/regions in Africa that are doing much better than India....definitely.

[CodeSlinger1]

I think there is a huge misunderstanding on this Forum about which players actually have a real stake in the African development market. It's not even close to being a zero-sum game between China or India, actually India is hardly a player in Africa at all. If anyone bothered to read up on it, Africa's resources are mostly being developed by corporations from several Western European nations(U.K, France, Germany), the U.S, several East Asian states(China, Japan, South Korea), and a smattering of other countries with much smaller stakes.

India is still in the initial stages of trying to get a slice of the African economic growth pie. Imho, it is going to have a hugely difficult time due to the following reasons:

1. India has a relatively small economy. It's nominal GDP is about the size of South Korea, and around 1/2 that of Brazil(both of which have bigger investment footprints in Africa). This directly limits the amount of money it can bring to the table. Indian companies lose in any resource bidding war against economic competitors from the U.S, EU, Japan or China. It even has a hard time winning resource development deals against much smaller nations like South Korea or the U.K.

2. Huge numbers of Indians are desperately poor. So poor that there is no real wage-arbitrage advantage to be gained from outsourcing Indian manufacturing to Africa. Simply put, unskilled Indian and African workers with similar levels of education cost about the same. Europe does not outsource that much due to the high level of automation(and education) required in their manufacturing industry. China is outsourcing their own low-end Industries to Africa because their unskilled workers now cost around 5X as much as African workers.

3. Another way to make money in Africa is through building massive infrastructural projects. Here once again, India is short on money, technology, and scale. The big rail transportation projects are dominated by Germany, France, Japan, and China in that order. The renewable energy projects are dominated by Germany, Spain, and China. The building of ports, roads, bridges, power plants are dominated by the China, USA, France,and the U.K.

4. You can also make tons of money by selling Weapons to African Nations. And here you find the major players to be Russia, USA, France, Israel, and China. India is nowhere to be seen.

Actually, if one thinks about it. This posted article is almost deliberately misleading. There is no significant competition between India and China in Africa because India has hardly entered this area. Nor is it really equipped to compete at the same scale anytime soon. The real competition is between the established European and American commercial interests in Africa versus the expanding Chinese commercial influence there.

[AfricanChristian]

Thanks CodeSlinger1.

Just for your information. The French and Germans for example, have been quite active in Africa for a very long time but the Chinese were not even considered as players 15 years ago.

This graph from "the Economist", illustrates the rate of growth, it is mind-boggling.

[baap101]

The chinese built the wall in a 11 years. Period. They have a history (and a very long one) of autocracy and they simply cannot stand the idea of people looking eye to eye. If the chinese were there for a 100 years, Im sorry to tell you, the locals would for sure had their behinds whipped. There is consistent evidence of that across history.