interesting topic.
i think krs sir has given a lucid presentation of what / where india needs to do more to be ranked among the top 5.
personally speaking, i think of india as an enigma. it succeeds where you dont expect it to and fails where you least expect it to.
we are among the few nations to have a moon mission but we are also probably the only nation that allowed plague to make a return ;
we can be sanctimonious about our culture almost to the point of not being able to defend it ;
we pride on being the largest democracy but alas we are also the only nation whose territorial borders are in a dispute ;
we would circulate chain mails about how life carried on during the mumbai flooding and equally we would be callous about farmer's committing suicides.
we would get outraged by a mandira bedi wearing a saree with the indian flag near her toe, but we would never bother to get dawood ibrahim brought to justice ;
murderers can get away, pickpockets will be publicly thrashed.
our scams can be hi-tech and sophisticated ranging from stock markets, stamp papers, guns to something like coffins and cattle fodder.
we would have a brave, impetuous lady run our nation, declare emergency and we would also have a lady in the kitchen turn a cm next day.
we'll have our own version of imelda marcos and we'll also have a kamaraj.
we continue to have saamiyaars of all hues arrack drinking to womanising and we'll claim that we are the land of ramana maharishi and vivekananda.
we'll have a mani shankar iyer, jairam ramesh and kapil sibal share power with a lalu yadav and ram vilas paswan.
we'll have a right wing hindu party elect a muslim president and a supposedly secular christian lady refuse power.
india is an enigma.
i dont think by any stretch of imagination could we try to rank india among comity of nations. i think the world is incapable of ranking india.
the only solution i can think of is to institute an india award for indianess and award it to india.
however ridiculous the suggestion may seem to be, i see no other way. i dont think any indian could effectively understand india and so for an outsider it's almost impossible.
the question whether development should be determined on materialistic development or spiritual is very intriguing. certainly i dont have any answers.
this is the question which was examined in some detail by edward luce in his book, 'inspite of gods', a book which i have part read.
another book which examines this issue, ofcourse from a personal point of view is 'shantaram' again, part read.
in my mind, there's no definitive answer to this question.
should we be lulled into inaction by the spiritual leadership of our nation and do nothing about 800 million living on less than rs. 20 per day ?
on the other end of the spectrum do fast cars, sprawling malls, easy credit, fast food, fine wines, kitsch music, easy relationships represent development ?
the more i think, the less i seem to understand.
one thing is for sure though : i dont think india can be evaluated on any conventional basis, for there's nothing that will ever be conventional about india.
