I partly agree with Mong. I have some websites with quality content, but they are getting backlinks really slowly. So, it is difficult to have natural grow of backlinks. I'm sure that in the end whitehat websites with quality content wins, but the process is quite slow... My websites gets 1 backlink with 5000 uniques, or something like that.
Content is best for the long run, but I see sites with almost zero content in the top 20 all the time. They don't have good content, but they have enough relevant links to outweigh that fault.
In the end, it depends on your purpose. If you intend for your site to be any kind of authority site in the future, focus on content. If you really don't care, and are just in it for a quick buck (and willing to keep launching new small sites when niches die in popularity) then go for links.
Both - you like it or not, but without content your site will be worthless, whitout links it will be invisible
Thank you for the information and i am really happy that you people advised the things into such easy language. I will follow the things.
Natural growth of backlinks is not the same as just waiting for backlinks. Look at threads on this forum on social bookmarking to see how you can promote your site. But these methods take unique interesting content to work.
I would rather spend the money buying links on hiring quality writers to come up with excellent content. Content leads to impressions and clicks, IMO
Links and content together plus an aged site. The longer your site has been around, the better it will be considered an authority site, increasing its overall value too.