Connections to India

Just some thoughts and questions that popped into my head as I read...

On page 31 the author says: "It has been argued by some that economic development as we know it may actually be harmful for a nation, since it may lead to the elimination of its traditions and cultural heritage."

This reminded me of how some people find it offensive to call countries like Africa "third-world countries." Economically developing countries is the preferred terminology. The argument is that the term third world country implies a country is not rich at all, which is not true; it is rich in culture.

This makes me think of India. I was just in India for three weeks and when I describe my trip, I don't mention the poverty there. Strangely enough, I speak of the so-called impoverished lifestyle with some pride in my voice. To me it's culture. The lifestyle there is what makes up India and who she is. With an entire family growing up with low economic status, priorities are altered and allow for some of the differences we see in culture and tradition between the U.S. and India. For example, community is greatly emphasized. There is little individuality and the concept of privacy is foreign (or so I find amongst my relatives).

I'm not sure to what extent a nation would lose its cultural heritage if it became economically developmed. I believe that culture and tradition is very ingrained and that India will always inherently possess certain unique characteristics. Yes, it is getting more and more Westernized and India's appearance is changing, but the thing is, heritage isn't forgotten. It can be diluted (I live in the U.S. but I throw on traditional Indian clothes when the occasion calls for it) but I don't think it can be completely erased. Otherwise there wouldn't be Asian culture to this day. Even Asians who are very Americanized and don't live by their heritage are aware of what background they came from, whether they practice it or not.