In today's video, you'll hear the late Singaporean founding father Lee Kuan Yu explain exactly why India can't match China's success. His insights are sharp, honest, and to the point. Don't miss this. >> 5 years ago at the founding dinner, you had predicted great things for China and India. I'm cited to India's secular democracy as key to its future success. 5 years on. I just wanted to ask your opinion on how well you think India's government is doing in separating religion and politics and perhaps what advice could you give to India's new breed of leaders. >> I think all the governments want your advice. >> Nearly it's nearly as sensitive and difficult a question as the last one. But I'll give you a my experience of India. I think despite all the failings uh highly bureaucratic red tape uh inefficient uh linkages between central and state governments unwieldy coalitions in the center and unwieldy coalitions in the states the progress it's made is quite remarkable I mean 6 7 8% growth once man Singh and uh chidamaram opened up in the '90s after the IMF said you've got to open up. Uh I think India is under some constraints and not the result of the politicians but the result of the nature of the constitution and nature of the society. China is homogeneous 90% Han. So when the president stands up and the TV is on more than 90% understanding because the minorities are also learning Chinese. So given the those constraints is done well any Indian leader speaking in any language at one time doesn't reach more than say 40%. You speak in Hindi you might get the Hindi north. You speak in English, you get the upper classes throughout the country, maybe 30%. You speak in Tamil, you get 70 million in Tamil Nadu and Tagal. Uh you speak in Mallayalam, I don't know how many that 40 million. So that is an enormous uh diversity which makes it difficult to get the same policy through. And you can see that after each election you get a tussle of how to form co governing coalitions. But on the other hand because it's kept this uh constitution fluid. So a country with about 30 40 different ethnic groups and 320 dialects and languages has held together. That's quite a an achievement. uh then you have the problem the constitution I was in Bombay two years ago and now this is a fact and I don't think deputy chief minister will take offense at my recounting what actually took place and his position so he asked me if I would spend three hours discussing how to make Bombay a world financial Santa. So I thought well why not? So he brought all his main ministers, state ministers and his officials. Halfway through the dialogue I asked him who governs Bombay. He said there's a committee that runs Bombay. I said but who provides it with the revenue? Said we do. to the state government. What happens to Bombay's revenue? It goes to state government. I said, then how do you dispense with that revenue? Says, well, we spread it throughout the Russia state because there are so many farmers and so on. Everybody has got to be looked after. I then said to him, if you want Bombay to become like uh Shanghai Pong, then you make it a self-governing unit, which the Chinese have done in Shanghai, in Tianin, in Chuning and a few other cities in recently. Then they deal direct with the central government. The central government gives them the funds for the infrastructure and the revenue is shared with the central government, not with the Shanghai doesn't share revenue with either Changu or Church or any of the neighboring states. it, shares it with the central government and the central government has invested enormous sums of money to make it the dragon head that goes up the Yangi River right up to the Tibetan mountains and uh you there was a period when you had empty building blocks but doesn't matter I mean central government has decided this is going to be a great international center and they set out to make it one and now it is one. So I said do that. He looked at me says what will happen to my farmers? I said you just got to deal with the central government says the central government won't give me anything more. So the discussion ended there. So I said well then how do you solve this airport which is not world class the road from the airport to the city which is not what you expect of a first world financial center and the city itself the planning is not as good as it would be if it were governed separately says can't be done. So 2 days later I was in Delhi and I met the prime minister. I said this problem can be solved. You see China make it an independent unit. The prime minister looked at me and said you don't understand. I will never get this pass through parliament. I said why you have to go to parliament? Yes. said all this requires an amendment in the legislation in the constitution and that requires a two-thirds majority of some in the central government and in the states we'll never get it passed. So Bombay will always be at the mercy of the Maharashtra government and Maharashra government quite wisely takes its revenue and gives it to the farmers because they are the people who voted them in. So I until you break that chain, how do you break the chain? Lie Kuwan Yu had a knack for getting straight to the point and his take on why India struggles compared to China is a perfect example. He highlighted two key reasons both rooted in how these countries are structured and governed. The first reason is about population and culture. China is largely homogeneous. Over 90% of its population are HanChinese. That might sound like a small detail, but it actually matters a lot. When the central government or the president speaks, most people across the country understand the message. There's a shared language, shared values, and a sense of national identity that makes it easier to roll out policies quickly. India, by contrast, is incredibly diverse. It has over 1.4 billion people speaking hundreds of languages, following different religions, and living under vastly different local cultures. While this diversity is a strength in many ways, it complicates governance. Policies that work well in one state may not fit another. For instance, agricultural reforms that help Punjab could be irrelevant or even counterproductive in Tamil Nadu. The central government often has to negotiate with multiple states to get buyin, slowing down decision-making and development. China with its more unified population can push nationwide initiatives like infrastructure projects or poverty alleviation programs much faster. The second reason Lee highlighted is how China balances central authority with local autonomy. Take Shanghai for example. The central government gives the city enough freedom to experiment and innovate while still aligning with national goals. This creates a powerful synergy. Broad objectives from the top but tailored solutions on the ground. The results are clear. Shanghai has become a global financial hub driving economic growth for itself and the country. India faces a very different scenario. Bureaucracy and red tape often prevent states from acting quickly or trying new approaches. Policies must pass through multiple layers of approval, and political conflicts or corruption can create further delays. States don't have the same freedom to innovate, which slows down growth and makes large-scale reforms much harder to implement. In short, Lie Kuan Yu argued that China's relative homogeneity combined with its system of central guidance plus local autonomy gives it a clear advantage over India. India's diversity and slower bureaucracy make rapid coordinated development far more challenging. China can move fast, adapt locally, and create synergy between the center and its regions, a combination India struggles to match. And these are some of core reasons why India cannot match China's success. What do you think? Do you agree with Lie Kuan Yu? Well, share your thoughts and leave your comments below. If you like what you watched, hit the like button and don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more interesting content.