Interesting little extract from Tyler Cowen's recent interview with Ben Thompson
We tend to think of both China and India as "ancient" civilizations. But that's only in part true
(Contd..)
We tend to think of both China and India as "ancient" civilizations. But that's only in part true
(Contd..)
While India, notwithstanding Muslim and later British rule, is most definitely a civilization with unbroken cultural continuity at least since 1500 BCE if not earlier, China had some major disruptions in the 20th century - and has made a fresh start in one sense
First the Communist revolution in 1949 and then the disastrous "Cultural Revolution" in the 1960s.
Thomson's point is that this represented a break from the past, and a rebuilding from ground zero.
Thomson's point is that this represented a break from the past, and a rebuilding from ground zero.
In the Hindu view of things at least, I don't see such a clear break from the past in Indian history.
Perhaps the great bhArata war represented that cultural break and the birth of Kali yuga. At least since then, we tend to think of Indian history as a "gradualist" narrative
Perhaps the great bhArata war represented that cultural break and the birth of Kali yuga. At least since then, we tend to think of Indian history as a "gradualist" narrative
As Thomson rightly says, that's by no means a bad thing
It makes India more resistant to downside risks than China
The likelihood of there being an Indian Hitler or an Indian Mao is very very low. Because the culture acts as the bulwark against concentration of power.
It makes India more resistant to downside risks than China
The likelihood of there being an Indian Hitler or an Indian Mao is very very low. Because the culture acts as the bulwark against concentration of power.
It is a society where the state is weak, power is distributed, and human design usually finds it very hard to impose its "vision" top-down - thus limiting both downside and upside risks.
