The fourth question for the Kaospilot Oresund outpost comes from Laurie Meadoff.

“How do the cultural clashes between the traditional Indian culture and the emergence of technology such as text messaging and internet dating effect romantic relationships in India?”

My answer:

Although new technology is quickly reaching many Indians, I feel that the effects of this on the romantic life of the citizens are not evident yet. In ten years it will be interesting to see what has happened. The people I have met that have ready access to mobile phones and Internet use this technology much the same way as I do at home. Flirting through text messages and visiting dating sites are things that well to-do Indians I’ve spoken to enjoy.

One group in India for which internet dating has been useful is homosexuals. Much same-sex dating starts through different online communities.

From what I can gather from the web, internet dating has in some ways replaced a matchmakers traditional role within some religious communities. Dating sites let’s one check the compatibility of a potential spouse before meeting the person, which is the same service a matchmaker provides. However, the extensive use of internet dating as matchmaking seems to be by people who live in the western countries but keep their traditional religious ways. NRIs, Non-resident Indians, are the most prolific internet daters.

One thing that I find even more tantalizing than the effects the new technology has on romantic relationshops, is the effect I think it might have on communication between the sexes in general. To my western eyes, it seems like the divide between men and women in India is quite wide, among the not so educated population. (Educated Indians I’ve met are not different from westerners in this respect and communication between the sexes isn’t a problem) It seems to me that men and women never have the chance to get to know each other. I believe this could be one of the reasons that many Indian men act so strangely towards the women on our team. (They shout obscenities, leer and grab their crotches, etc.)

My theory is that this isn’t due to sexual frustration per se. but rather due to an alienation that comes from never getting into a deeper conversation with a woman. Keeping men and women separate in a culture like this is most likely meant to make sure that sexuality is kept in check, but I think it might be a counter-productive plan. By telling people to not think about sex, you really make them think of nothing else. If you never get the opportunity to meet the other sex in a non-erotic way, you can always just think of them as sexual objects, rather than human beings. Dialouge between the sexes will, I believe, promote gender equality and respect for each other.

I think new technology will help that dialouge to come about.

1. Will India be able to learn from the missteps of the West regarding ecology, energy and education?

2. Will they recognize earlier in their economic and social development that material resources are finite yet human resources (such as creativity, innovation and expression) are infinite?

3. Will India achieve a true global consciousness that recognizes the unique contribution of all cultures?

This is a question in three parts and I’ll will adress each part in turn. I’d like to start with a disclaimer: India is a sub-continent as much as a country, and any general truths about what India is doing are bound to be faulty somewhere in this country. My information concerns mainly Mumbai, so when I speak for India in general, some things may not apply in a different place in the country.

1.

Concerning ecology and energy, I feel that most mistakes are not mistakes of the past as such, but mistakes of the present. People all over the world still build fuel consuming cars and power plants that run on fossil fuels. Ecology and energy are global issues, and efforts to work with them are going on across the globe. India is no exception. Some examples: wind power is being developed on a grand scale, and the taxis of Mumbai run on natural gas rather than petrol. I feel that people all over the world are slowly learning the consequences of pollution, and my opinion is that the west isn’t much faster on the uptake than India. One concrete example where I feel India has not learned from the west has to do with the cleaning of the Thames. The Thames was cleaned up during the last century, and turned from a dump to a river again. In India, similar projects are going to clean the rivers of Delhi. Millions of rupees have been spent, and years have gone by, but not much has happened. The people in charge should look at England to learn how to clean rivers.

As for missteps in the west regarding education, I’d like to say I feel that our system of education works fairly well. We have literacy rates unheard of a hundred years ago, and more and more people are studying at colleges and universities. India is showing the same development, but with change coming slowly. 

The missteps in education in the west have largely been (in my opinion) excluding people from education for arbitrary reasons such as sex or ethnicity. Having discussed this issue with a senior professor at Mumbai University, I believe work is done here to make sure fewer persons are excluded from schooling. Women and people from ‘lower castes’ are not systematically excluded, and scholarships are available for the less priviliged. Segregation is still prevalent, children of educated parents are more likely to receive support and help from home with their studies. This is true for countries in the west as well.

2.

I’m not sure exactly when “earlier in their economic and social development” is. I don’t know if economic and social development is deterministic and will always look the same regardless of where it happens. I feel that development has to happen within a local context. India has a booming economy, which grows much faster per year than for example the United States. There are big differences between the rich and poor, and illiteracy is still pretty high. Some people starve. It’s a paradox, and maybe it does mean that India is behind the west in it’s social and economic development, but it doesn’t mean that India will reach the same place that we are at now.

The realization that human rescources of creativity etc. is infinite would, in my opinion, show up as an increased importance of the ‘creative economy’ (as described in Richard Florida’s book, “The rise of the creative class”) and I base my answer on this opinion.

To answer the question: I think India has fairly good potential to turn into a creative economy. Many people are highly skilled, and there are many large universities. Work within creative fields such as marketing, graphic design and computer engineering seems to be plentiful, according to the people I talk to. The one major thing stopping India from this development is, in my opinion, the rise of moralist rethoric. Parties on the far right are gaining voters, and hindu extremism is a factor in politics. Also, the middle class has a very conservative attitude towards ‘family values’, marriage is the ruling norm and homosexuality is illegal(!). Tolerance for alternate lifestyles is needed to help India grow into a creative economy.

3.

Firstly, it is my opinion that nations don’t achieve consciousness about anything. Their citizens might, and an observer might be able to discern what kind of attitudes are encouraged by the country’s rulers, by looking at legislature for example. I assume that this is what is meant by the question: if the general populace of India will reach the same conclusion as the questioner regarding culture.

Secondly, I must define ‘culture’ to answer the question. I find my definition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture and I will quote two parts of the definition which I think are relevant to the question:

This defintion of culture is in no way limited to nations. Different nations could possibly be said to have different cultures, but within each nation, and across national boundries, there are a myriad of different cultures. In India especially it’s evident to me that culture varies a great deal within a nation. The individuals who create these cultures are all part of the social weave of humanity. For the purpose of answering this question, I will assume that the questioner means ‘culture’ in a similar way to how Hegel describes the ’spirit’ of a nation. In other words, ‘culture’ in the question is tied to national states.    

Thirdly, it is unclear in the question to what exactly the different cultures contribute. For the purpose of answering the question I will assume that they contribute to a general awareness that the average person on earth has of how the world works, an awareness within each individual about how geographical and social systems interact across the world. For example, a person might have a good understanding of which football teams are good, which players are from which countries, and where those countries are located. Such a person has one kind of awareness of how the world works. Our world-view helps us navigate through day to day life. Of course our world-views are made up of more things than football, and different cultures can contribute to this. 

Regarding the question of who is actually the average person who’s world-view we are measuring, I have no answer. I’ll leave the difficulties of deciding who is an ‘average’ person to people with better statistical skills than I have. For now, I’ll simply use the term, keeping in mind that it is not exact. 

Fourthly, the question doesn’t specify any point of time at which this consciousness should have appeared. As the question is posed, it asks about the future very generally, and I can’t answer in a sensible manner. For all I know, India as a country may not exist in two hundred years. For the purpose of answering the question, I will assume that it concerns the near future, let’s say fifty years from now.

Finally, I feel that it is implied in the question that a unique contribution is automatically a positive contribution. I’m not going to go into this further, but I wanted to point this implication out.

So, rephrasing the question: Will the general populace of India, within fifty years, have the opinion that different cultures (tied to national states) contribute in unique ways to the average person’s world-view?

Answer: I believe so, India has a long history of embracing different cultures, and access to cheap internet gives Indians information about cultures further away. I think a majority of Indians, fifty years from now, would agree that nation’s cultures contribute to a person’s world-view.      

I’d like to finish off by saying that I think these questions were posed in a very closed way, and presupposed truths about the world that might or might not actually be there. 

T  

Uffes question: “What are the living conditions for homosexuals in India. Socially, culturally and politically?”

Politically:

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine

This law, section 377 of the Indian penal code, is what makes homosexuality illegal in India. The law is very vague, and has been used against other things than homosexuality, for example oral sex and bestiality. Punishments range from ten years in prison to lifetime imprisonment. No one has actually been convicted under this law for the past twenty years, but it’s used as a threat to blackmail homosexuals, and as an excuse to forcefully break up same-sex couples.

Petitions and open letters have been sent to the Indian government urging the repeal of section 377 from differents parties, NGOs and high-profile indians, but as of right now, the law remains in effect. (For one example of a reaction against section 377, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/18/gayrights.books)

The justification of section 377 applied to consenting adults has been down-played recently, but the official word in India is that homosexuality is illegal.

Culturally

In large cities, such as Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi, there is an active gay community and a night life scene which caters to a LGBT audience. My impression is that Delhi is the gay center of India, with many clubs and a section of the magazine Time Out (Delhi) devoted to “gay events”

In the countryside, far away from the gay movement, same-sex couples are often met with harassment or even violence. Stories of double suicides of young same-sex lovers are not uncommon, I’ve seen some examples in the newspaper myself. However, other things happen in the countryside as well, some lesbian couples get married through traditional Hindu weddings, and these marriages are technically as valid as other marriages.

Within the modern art community of India, which is where I meet people for my kaospilot project, there is a large acceptance towards homosexuals. People I talk to tell me that being gay can in fact increase one’s status within the art community. One’s sexual preference and identity is a statement in itself.

Socially

What I learn from talking to people about homosexuals in India has some similarities to the answers I got to the Alan Webber question. In short: if you have the money, you can do whatever you want, even be homosexual, if you’re poor you’ll face harassment and possibly violence. Besides money as such, I believe this difference is closely related to level of education and whether you live in a “traditional” community or not.

A very common sight is two men holding hands walking down the street, or hugging and being otherwise intimate in ways which in scandinavia would be immediatly interpreted as homosexual. Although I see many examples of this every day, my Indian friends tell me that it was much more prevalent in earlier years, before homosexuality became something people talk about.

I have met a young filmmaker who is also active in the queer community, and her opinion is that the gay world of India is becoming oppressive in itself. She feels a homo-norm has taken over, which just lite the hetero-norm of general society creates structures where not everyone can or wants to fit in. This is exactly what people I know in the queer community at home feel is the problem with  the LGBT movement.

Not everyone wants to walk in the gay pride parade, not even in India.

Reflection concerning marriage and money.

That answers the question, but I would like to round off with a short reflection. I sometimes have a cynical outlook on the world, and any explanation for social phenomema which asks the question: “where’s the money in this?” is an explanation I find appealing. India has a system of arranged marriages, and family ties are very important. The artist Sunil Gupta, who is gay, says the following in an interview at artconcerns.net (http://www.artconcerns.net/2007september/html/interview_sunilGupta.htm)

“When I told my parents I was gay, they asked how it was related to my marital life. /—/ behind this marriage thing is the concern about property…feudal…to have an heir who can inherit the property. That’s what obsesses them [mr. Gupta's parents]– who is marrying whom, intricate ways in which people are attached and detached through property.

Many social structures have the purpose of making sure money is handled properly (ie. stays in the family)

I believe this is part of the explanation as to why women are treated in very controlling ways throughout the world, and have to wear certain kinds of clothing, and behave in certain ways. As a husband, I want to be sure that the children I pass on my property to are really -my- children, thus I have to lock up my wife so the only one she’s having sexual intercourse with is myself. For some reason I can’t just trust her about this, and so I have to control every aspect of her life. Twisted logic I think, but it does appreciate the money issue, and is twisted in a perfectly human way.

Inheritance can’t explain all the il-will towards the LGBT community and women, but I feel there’s some root to the problem, in money.

As part of my kaospilot outpost, I shall answer five questions. The first comes from Mr. Alan Webber, the founder of Fast Company. “How are India’s people handling the country’s transition into a growing world economic power? Do they feel any change in their status in the world? Is there more economic equity among the people as India’s economic performance grows?”The answer to this question is very dependent on who you ask,  but the people I’ve talked to agree about one thing: The people who benefit most from Indias economic growth are those who are already rich.Beyond this, it’s clear that people are aware that India is a growing world power, and many are quite proud of this. My journalist friends from one of the richer areas of the city have a very clear view of where their country is headed: In ten years time, they expect India to be a permanent member of the UN security council. One editor at Time Out magazine tells me that the most clear sign of Indias growing wealth is the wild spending that people are doing. Bank loans are easy to get and interest is low. India has, according to my editor friend, gone from being a country of savers to a country of spenders. There seems to be two different economies in place at the same time in this city. House prices and luxury item prices are rising sharply, while for example the price of a glass of sugar cane juice has remained the same for many years, untouched by inflation.