Free-Market Capitalism Vs Government-Controlled Socialism

In 2005, Tamil movie director Shankar Shanmugam made a movie called Anniyan ('Stranger'). The hero was a vigilante who goes around killing corrupt government officials. He launches his anti-corruption campaign in an auditorium by giving a slides-presentation on a big screen (!). In it, he first shows old black and white photos of Singapore and Hong Kong from 1945 – they were just small and poor fishing villages. Then he shows pictures of the two places today – big, rich and modern cities. Then he asks: "These two countries have made so much progress since 1945. We became free in 1947. Why are we still a poor country?". He answers: "It is because of our corruption. So from tomorrow, I will start killing anybody who takes a bribe."

It is a powerful scene. But it is only half-correct: it asks the right question – but gives the wrong answer. People are fundamentally the same in every country. Indians are not much different from the people of Singapore and Hong Kong – with roughly the same mix of good and bad. So it is not that we are significantly less moral than Singaporeans and Hong Kongers. But if that is the case, then what is the answer to the vigilante's question?

Human nature is the same everywhere. But different societies have different destinies because of different systems. Systems are destiny. And economic destiny is decided by the economic system. In 1945, Singapore and Hong Kong adopted free-market capitalism. But in 1947, India adopted government-controlled socialism. The results are there for everybody to see . . .