China or India economically developed in fifty yearsIn the 1920s, would China or India have appeared more likely to become truly independent and economically developed in fifty years?

3 Answers | Add Yours

vangoghfan's profile pic

vangoghfan | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

I agree with 2. India would seem to have had the better chance -- ironically because of its associations with the British Empire. Continued connections with the Commonwealth (as the Empire became) would have given India much greater chances for trade, international influence, etc.  Unfortunately, China adopted a system (communism) that has never really worked anywhere and that catastrophic consequences for China in particular.

litteacher8's profile pic

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

You asked about independence too though. India was working to shake off British rule, but it can take years for a country to become truly independent after imperialism. China might have been mixed up, but that could have been an impetus for change.
pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

I would have to go with India.  In the 1920s, India seemed much better off.  It was being ruled by Great Britain, which was very strong economically and which was helping upper class Indians to become educated in British ways.  This would have seemed like a country that would be able to prosper when independent.  China, by contrast, was dominated by multiple foreign countries and was torn by internal strife.  It had no country to be its "mentor" and lead it toward prosperity and political stability.

We’ve answered 318,976 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question