';India is a cultural super power because of the wealth of its ancient knowledge system';Is it true?

';India is a cultural super power because of the wealth of its ancient knowledge system'; Can anyone give me some points supporting and rejecting this view..';India is a cultural super power because of the wealth of its ancient knowledge system';Is it true?
Namaste


Eys, India is a cultural super power because of the wealth of its ancient knowledge system. Nowhere in the world there is such a knowledge. But those people that answered that ques dont have any idea what it is meant by cultural power. It has nothing to do with economic, military or what else, it's purely human and to understand this you have to think like a human being, not like diplomat, economist or somth.


Namaste';India is a cultural super power because of the wealth of its ancient knowledge system';Is it true?
India is a power because it has a billion people who are money-hungry and willing to work for nothing. Outside India proper, nobody cares much about its culture. Whether that's right or wrong, I don't know, but it appears to be true. Certainly it hasn't had remotely the impact of China, which has a population of roughly equal size. Chinese culture has had an impact worldwide for dozens of centuries; India is many things, but a ';super-power,'; culturally speaking, isn't one of them.
No. India is a power because of its size and because of its recent history and because of its developing sense of democracy and capitalism. While it retains its pluralistic sense of passive self dependence and developing sense of place in the power structure of the world it is a product of concentrated developed governing from outside itself. it is a part of the world community.
There is no such thing as 'cultural super power'. It is an euphemism to make us feel good. There are many other old civilisations which have contributed to the wealth of 'knowledge system'. True, Indian contributions in the field of mathematics, architecture, astronomy etc. in olden times were significant but who is to decide its superiority over other civilisations/cultures. If we have Taj Mahal, Khajuraho temples etc. then others have pyramids, collosiums, great walls and so on. Your topic of debate smack of arrogance and is tricky one. If you support it then it may be a biased view and if you oppose it you may be termed as unpatriotic. Take your pick!
India will probably become an economic superpower after some decades of development, depending on the degree of competition from China. Now, the world economic engine centers on the USA and Northeast Asia -- Japan in particular but South Korea and, increasingly, China add much to that axis, and Europe also adds a healthy kick to the economic equation. Other areas of the world at this time are relatively minor players. Of course, things will change.





I think cultural influence (or ';power'; if you can reconcile culture and power) is vigorously connected with economic; in the past, military influence had much more impact than it does now, and in the future I expect military and political influence to decline while economic and cultural influence (or power) will increase.





In ancient times India and China already had significant civilizations while the West, stemming from the Middle East through Rome and Europe and finally England and America, progressed to the stage at which the USA is now the ';sole superpower.'; I expect the American role to pass on to Northeast Asia, as the nucleus of civilization and cultural influence keeps shifting around the globe. In the future I expect it to return to China and/or India where it may have originated. Note that superpower status embodies cultural power (think rock music, Hollywood, Microsoft, Google), supported by economic prowess and political influence. Will China and India come into their own soon enough? I think so.





Between China and India, I recognize the significant advances made by China in the last few decades, but actually I look more towards India than I do China as a future economic and cultural powerhouse. Why?





One reason is that India is already a stable democracy, while China has long to go before it even gets started on the path to democracy. While it is true that the Chinese government can mandate rapid change by virtue of its dictatorship, such changes can be quickly denigrated or even reversed. In India, while change comes much more slowly due to the need for democratic consensus, once the people have decided to move they do it even if not as quickly. Democracy was never as efficient in social terms as authoritarian dictatorship, but it is more stable and in the end it will enable the institutions needed for effective economic and political growth that dictatorship cannot achieve. That is one reason I see more hope in India than in China.





Another reason is that Indians speak English -- a major factor in the ability to export cultural influence. Bollywood churns out a great amount of entertainment software, does it not? Think about software in general, and the future of high-tech development as it mandates a well-integrated connection with the world by means of mass media, the internet, and travel.





Finally, the ancient culture and knowledge that has filtered down throughout ';the trial of time'; in India -- and it's true China has such a culture too -- is a treasure in itself that can be expected to contribute enormously to India's future. In China, however, that cultural tradition took a severe blow from Communism and it may take a long time to recover. On the other hand, that tradition did pass down through Korea, Taiwan and Japan without the Communist problem -- so my conclusion is:





Before India comes into its own, we will see Northeast Asia, including China, come to the fore. Southeast Asia will trail but will add value. Hopefully the baton can pass as smoothly between America and Asia as it did between Europe and Great Britain to North America. Each civilization, each cultural nexus, has beneficial elements to contribute. This is true of Islam, too, although there is a cancer within in the form of radical terrorist elements that Islam will need to deal with before the world can be willing to accept much of value from that corner. It is true of Africa as well, though I see that as even further into the future, after South Asia has blossomed.





Ever since the early 1970s I have longed for an opportunity to visit India and catch a first-hand glimpse of the ';ancient knowledge system'; you mention. While India may be a cultural super power within its own circle, it has not yet emerged to the global stage. That will happen, I estimate, within the next 40 or 50 years -- again, depending on how fast China wakes up and sheds its ponderous and oppressive one-party political system.
I guess I reject the premise that there is such thing as a cultural super power. Any culture can simply be ignored by any individual or any other culture that doesn't have direct contact.
Sorry,no nation can ever be a cultural or whatever SUPER


power. Whatever knowledge,wherever it is,has to be shared


by global humanity.That was ';Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam'; the


words for global living in Bharatiya ( Indian ) language.