Talk:Chindia

Untitled

Wow, this didn't get deleted. I'm going to make a Peopleonia article about a neologism that refers to people on Earth.

China's services industry is a competitor to India, but China overtaking India in the services segment is a far cry. Also you seem to think that China's competitveness in manufacturing will persist indefinitely which is unlikely given CHina's heavy reliance on an artificially pegged low Yuan. Countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh and India would emerge as attractive alternatives.

India has a total of 58,000 km of highways, of which 4,885 km are expressways. China has a total of 1.55 million km of highways, of which 42,000 km are expressways. China's competiveness is not merely in manufacturing, but in its overall infrastructure, including education. The economies of India and China are as different as night and day.

How good roads will help BPO workers more than a knowledge of english is beyond me. -XK

This article really ought to be deleted. Just based on the severe POV of the above comments. 67.194.57.168 (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should be removed from wiki. Nobody outside the Indian ruling elites really take the China-india thing seriously. As these two countries are vastly different. And from my personal polling on the Chinese netizens, nobody takes india as an equal partner/competitor. Propaganda should die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.22.24 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is patently clear to anyone who takes an interest that China is not a dictatorship. See the PRC discussion page if you want to see the reasoning. One of the better analyses I've seen on the government is from Burt Keidal of the Carnegie Institute / US Treasury here http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=20279

It's a briefing paper along with a video of a press briefing

As for Chindia being an unknown concept within China, the inference is that there is a lack of ANY chinese language material available to support or disprove this thesis. I added this fact into the article because this it is critical background to the thesis of Chindia. How can there be a Chindia when only one party knows about it? It sounds just like the Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai episode. sigh.

Ouyuecheng (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence such as what you just provided doesn't quite meet the standard for Wikipedia. As such, unless you can find a RELIABLE source that states this concept is unknown within China, then you can't really make that claim. The same point goes for saying China isn't a dictatorship as a myriad of sources claim that the PRC is a single party dictatorship (even its constitution claims it).Vedant (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As stated previously, there ARE NO authoritative articles published on Chindia within China, precisely because it is not commonly known. I invite you to find out for yourself how common the term "中印大同" is.

Whilst I agree that China was previously a "single party dictatorship", this has not been the case for about 10years now, since the devolution of powers.

I invite you to provide current sources for your the term "single party dictatorship", as the constitution DOES not say that. What it does say is that the state is controlled by the "people's democratic dictatorship", of which the Communist Party will provide the lead. Also, "people's democratic dictatorship" is not an accurate English translation of the Chinese term because the English language doesn't have an equivalent term, so it is commonly mistranslated and miscontrued. Ouyuecheng (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From the editor of a reputable Canadian newspaper [1]. Or this [2]... or this [3] or this [4]. As for the term not being known in China, what about this? (based on the symbol you suggested I should look up) [5] or this [6] or this? [7] Vedant (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference 1 is a blog and is therefore a misinformed "personal opinion"

Reference 2 is a column and is therefore a misinformed "personal opinion"

Reference 3 is a blog and is therefore a misinformed "personal opinion"

Reference 4 is a blog and is therefore a misinformed "personal opinion"

A lot of people just do not know what China is and how it works, because of they are not familiar with the Language or how things are actually organised and run.

The consensus reached previously in the main PRC was "single party state ruled by the CCP"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:People's_Republic_of_China#Communist_state

Therefore, I'm going with this.

Reference 5 is a article from a Xinhua correspondant based in Washington, who is discussing a Singaporean news article on Chindia that has made it's way from Singapore to the USA.

Reference 6 is an article that discusses India-China relations, rather than placing them together an an entity

Reference 7 is the Singaporean news article referred to in Reference 5

I think Reference 7 may even be the original source of the close (but incorrect) translation of Chindia as 中印大同. Currently, there is still no translation for concept of India and Chindia as a single entity, as the concept still does not exist in mainland chinese thinking.

The Chinese translation of 中印大同 actually means China-India "common ground" or "relations", and mainland Chinese discussions are generally framed in that context.

The following article from Xinhua last month comes closest to stating that the concept of China is still not widespread. It states that

"the Western media sometimes refers to China and India as a single entity called 'WORD IN ENGLISH: CHINDIA' "  ::http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2010-01/27/content_12883886.htm

Ouyuecheng (talk)

So basically unless they agree with your viewpoint, they are misinformed? Vedant (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They are simply misinformed because they do not understand the meaning of "专政" as stated in the constitution. It is very different from "独裁" which is much closer to the word dictatorship in the western sense.

Roughly speaking, 专政 is a "good" dictatorship where the government knows what is best for you and your wellbeing, and makes decisions for the good of the people. It's a concept that goes back to the days of Confucius and his treatises on governance, and it's been a constant theme for the last 2000 years. On the other hand, 独裁 translates as your "bad" dictatorship with all the negative connotations.

So when there are articles that use "dictatorship" AND do not expand on the situation in China, it exposes their bias as they are: a) ignorant of how things work in China b) looking at it from a condescending/superior Western perspective (with no understanding that Chinese societal norms are different)

I guess "people's democratic dictatorship" is probably the best translation around, with going into paragraphs on exactly what it means

Ouyuecheng (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are referring to the constitution when talking about dictatorships but infact things like this. As such, I'm changing it to single party authoritarian state.Vedant (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chindia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105092223/http://www.chindialounge.com/ to http://www.chindialounge.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421211802/http://www.indiafund.net/india_fund_chindia.html to http://www.indiafund.net/india_fund_chindia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)