Recently, his Excellency Mr. Huang Huahua, governor of Guangdong Province, China appointed me to an advisory board that will support the provincial government on economic issues and future development. Some 25 executive participants will join the three-year forum, representing worldwide commercial and academic interests.

As a business professional, I am honored by this appointment. As one who spent the first half of my life in Asia, I am particularly intrigued by the opportunity to contribute to China’s future—and to learn from her experience.

As I contemplate this appointment, I cannot help contrasting the development paths taken by China and India over the past 20 years. I have lived and worked in both countries, and have formed many close relationships with business and government leaders. While the Tiger and the Dragon share many successes, I am afraid that their respective paths set the two nations up for very different long-term results.

When Deng Xiaoping opened China’s doors to the West in 1987, he made an unusual effort to prepare a welcome parlor. Special economic zones and other incentives set the stage for “countries within a country.” This climate, combined with a billion eager people, led to rapid infrastructure improvements, large project investments, and all the raw materials of an industrial revolution. The rest is history.

As this was unfolding, India already had a strong advantage in the finance, education, and legal systems necessary for business growth. Unfortunately, she had also mastered the art of red tape. Foreign investors poured in, only to be shuttled from office to office staffed by bureaucrats wondering “How much can we make on this permit and that approval?” The industrial revolution—and the infrastructure that would support it—stalled.

Fortunately, some clever Indian entrepreneurs recognized that the approaching boom in Information Technology didn’t require a heavy infrastructure. Their money went into education, computers and telephone lines, and the IT Revolution was born. Indians are understandably proud of their leadership in outsourced software development, call centers, and IT enabled services. But will these activities sustain the nation for the long haul? Will investment in these services have the same multiplier effect as investment in infrastructure and industrial capacity?

Although the goals were similar, the Open Door approach in the two countries works very differently. Like the spider and its web, China helped put some “sticky stuff” in place to hold the newcomers. India, on the other hand, sees too much of its open-door traffic move in the wrong direction. Even within the area of IT, a substantial part of the activity involves sending workers outside the country on H1 or similar visas.

Many Western companies first went to China with the intent of low-cost manufacturing for the export market. Although much of the output is actually swallowed up by domestic consumption, that is hardly something to complain about. The factories are in place, the workers are getting trained, and expansion is just a matter of moving steel and concrete along a well-developed highway. Exports will just be icing on the cake.

India’s electronic highway is impressive, but can the IT outsourcing game go on forever or must we eventually build something? Who will be the next to invest in some bandwidth and technical training: Silicon Azerbaijan... or Silicon Zimbabwe? While we ponder the question, India’s amazing intellectual capital is being lost as some 85% of IIT graduates flee in search of sturdy brick buildings in which to practice their trade.

While some blame the venture capitalists for India’s narrow focus, I applaud these “angels” for showing how a little silicon and a lot of talent can change the lives of millions in less than a generation. Now it is time to put down some more durable roots.

The remarkable thing about infrastructure components such as highways, railways, airports and power stations is that they are both the symptoms of growth and the catalysts for more. They are the “sticky stuff” to which new factories, offices, schools, and homes tend to cling. Concrete and steel are not glamorous, but the China experience shows they are critical for attracting and holding durable investments—IT or otherwise.

My own company offers a sort of case history in reverse on the co-dependence between IT and durable assets. We’ve sold motors and transformers for a hundred years, adding robots, instruments, and control systems along the way. While these relatively mature technologies were always successful, the real change in our business came when we began to “enable” the products through IT.

A motor or a transformer is mostly a necessary evil—providing motion or power to some totally different process. Customers love them when they work, and hate them when they don’t. The asset management tools of the IT revolution have shown operators the critical “in-between” —revealing the role of the most mundane devices as distinct, real-time variables for reducing downtime and better managing the business.

We are fortunate to have some successful venture capital funds and start-ups managed by global Indians. Silicon was the seed for many of these success stories, but will this be the stuff that Indian archaeologists unearth in the next millennium? I challenge the global VC’s to broaden their focus and help broaden the infrastructure that Indian business so desperately needs and that her people deserve. A balanced portfolio is usually the ticket to long-term success, and the future skyline in New Delhi, Bangalore and Mumbai should reflect this balance.

Silicon may be sexy, bricks and mortar may be dull, but we have entered an age when one cannot exist without the other. The next wave of activity in India must recognize this synergy. Those who invest in this wave will be the ones who contribute to a robust and durable Indian legacy.