Keith Bradsher wrote a front page story in Nov 29, NYT (print edition) called 'India slips far behind China: Once its close economic rival'.

I found the title misleading, the story underresearched and sensationalistic. The story deals mostly with the huge gap in shoe exports between China and India. If you simply read the headline, you would go away with a very different impression about what it is about. I tend to agree that China is very far ahead of India in its economic and military power. However. Bradsher's story in no way demonstrates that.

Also, the story's underlying assumption that it is the state of the art infrastructure in Chinese factories that is defeating Indian export is misleading.

China today is an exporting juggernaut and its cheap exports are way way ahead of the rest of the world. e.g. 16% of all imports in Japan come from China (see "How long can prices go? China's cheap exports worry the west' in Dec. 2nd issue of BusinessWeek). However, its strength in exports are built on incredibly cheap labour (in some instances slave labour) and not on automation as Bradsher will have us believe. Also, extrapolating that stregth in export and the health of Guangdong economy into the overall health of China's economy without first demonstrating how that extrapolation is valid is disappointing, to put it mildly.

I also found the way the article ended ( i.e. the Guptas would rather build hospitals than expand their manufacturing operation) forced and simplistic. I wouldn't have been so agitated if it were not the front page of NYT!

keith Bradsher made his name as the Detroit bureau chief of NYT taking broadsides against SUVs. He seems to write well and interestingly (from the little that I have read on the web), but tends to be sensationalistic and partisan. He acquired a reputation in Detroit for presenting only those facts that support his theories and choosing not to present the whole story. I have not read his book. But he seems to be doing a fair amount of reporting on India. So I guess we'll get to read more of him.