• China, on the other hand, has had an FDI-driven, export-led model, which has effectively served as a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship. The most important difference between the two is that while China is a political economy where state intervention is still very high, India is the world’s fastest growing free market democracy.
• Driving on the back of a manufacturing boom, China has grown at an annual average of 9.7 percent since economic reforms were initiated in 1978. India has followed a consensual democratic market model; GDP has expanded at 5.8 percent a year since the economy was opened up in 1991.
• It is common to see products ranging from toys to electronic gadgets with a ‘Made in China’ label. The label, however, has a story behind it. Very few of these products are made by indigenous Chinese companies. On the other hand, India has its very own homegrown entrepreneurs, who will give it a long-term advantage over a China hamstrung by inefficient banks and capital markets.
• The stability associated with India's growth model banks on its cultural experience and relaxed attitude towards the outside world, its cheap labour force, and its solid educational system. India's model is termed as more sustainable than the East Asian one as it helps develop more efficient corporates, healthier banks, more robust service industries and a bigger consumption base. As Dan Fineman concluded in the Far Eastern Economic Review in April 2004, “While China has won the sprint, India is training for the marathon.”

If India is in such a happy situation on the ground, one may well ask, why isn’t it showing in the comparative figures? The gap in GDP, savings rates and other benchmarks are still quite wide. The only answer to this lies in the dates when their respective markets opened up. India's economic reforms began only in 1991 more than a decade after China began liberalising. In addition, India has had to make do with a national savings rate half that of China's and 90 percent less FDI.

• It is conventional knowledge that the foreign investment coming into China was directed by its wealthy diaspora. During the 1990s, more than half of China's FDI came from overseas Chinese sources. The Indian diaspora, in comparison, has been responsible for only 10 percent of foreign fund inflow into the country. Although, the Indians abroad may not be able to match their Chinese counterparts, they have a substantially more intellectual capital to contribute. In fact, recent news clippings are rife with reports of Indians coming back home. If China won the race to be the world’s factory with the help of its diaspora, India could use NRIs to become the world’s technology lab.