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