Globalization erases or rejuvinates?

In recent times I've seen an increasingly louder tirade against globalization and "cultural erasure" from well esteemed folks around me.

There is no doubt that there are a lot of problems with the current-day globalization. One particularly fundamental problem -- that I've argued about in several forums -- is the disparity between market-place exchange rates of currencies and their relative purchasing power. Ideally both should be the same, but they are not.

This ends up making "global trade" to be more about arbitrage (what is cheaper to get done where) than demand and supply (what we can provide and what we need) -- the latter is what ought to be the cornerstone of a strong economy.

There are also a number of other problems like, the need for forming a global legal framework, deciding on jurisdictions (especially for content on the Internet), political processes in an interconnected world, etc.

Given that there are a number of these real issues to worry about, it is quite unfortunate to see several educated folks invest a lot of time, mental peace and even money to fret about "erasure of culture."

In this, the underlying mental model is that of an "invasion" from some enemy forces (usually called the "West") who are out to dominate our culture.

But ground realities are quite different. Globalization is not an "invasion" by any one state or culture. Europeans are complaining about globalization, Japanese are, Africans are, and even the US is passing protectionist policies in response to globalization. While almost all countries are complaining against globalization, most, if not all of them realize that they cannot afford to isolate themselves either. No one can stop the proliferation of the Internet or mobile phones. They all know that, while these technologies and the media possess hitherto unknown dangers, their routine benefits far outweigh their dangers.

Far from an invasion, what we see today is a change in paradigms or underlying mental models. The sands are shifting from under our feet, and instead of realizing this, we're just beating up the poor kid playing in the sand, saying he is responsible for this.

In times of uncertainty, and especially one of changing mental models, the best strategy that I've learnt is to accentuate the positive. I remember once the head of the company where I used to work, remark that, "Only fools put their best men to solve the most challenging problems. The best men have to be put to pursue the most lucrative opportunities." Of course, this is not to say that problems should not be tackled at all, but to note that (Hellen Keller, I think), "When one door closes, usually another opens. Too often, we are so obsessed with the closed door that we fail to see the new one that has opened."

When it comes to cultural norms, globalization in my opinion, far from erasing, has actually rejuvinated our culture, because some of us are looking at the new doors that have opened. Let me explain.

In school, one of the subjects that I found most boring and dry was history (and civics and languages, etc. Except for science and maths everything was boring actually.) But the other day, I was reading about the Political Integration of India, on Wikipedia and by gosh, it was such an absorbing read!! The article explains it in such a way that my school would never have done it.

Similarly, a little search on Google or YouTube for "Mahabharata" will show how our ancient epic is actually capturing the imagination of millions of people not just in India, but worldwide. In the "good old days" our English-medium school teachers used to call the Ramayana and Mahabharata as the "Iliad and Odyssey of India." (I never understood what it meant until much later, of course). But this is no longer true. On the Internet, the Ramayana is Ramayana and the Mahabharata is Mahabharata.

I've also learnt about the fundamental notions that have defined Indian culture -- the notion of Brahman (that which is), and the debates about reality and existence. Somethings which I would probably have never learnt had I practiced the orthodox ways of learning our culture (feet falling, humility, discipline -- getting up at 4'o clock, etc.)

Also, during one of the intense debates that I'd had, did I learn about the objective nature of Truth and was shocked to learn that this very piece of wisdom was indeed the motto of India.

Let me explain the "intense debate" very briefly. I was faced with a question like the following: "You say that your religion practices tolerance, and allows other religions to flourish. And our religion says that we have to either kill or convert non-believers. So why are your people not letting us practice our religion?" (I'm sure no religion at its core would preach anything like that, but let us not get into religious debates here.)

The implication in the above statement is that "Truth is subjective" and faith (or devotion or bhakti) is supreme. Truth is basically what we believe in as true. We believe in tolerance while others may believe in dominance.

The realization that truth is objective cannot be more necessary than in cases like these. Tolerance commits suicide if it tolerates intolerance. Tolerating intolerance is clearly inconsistent and therefore untrue. Similarly, "truth is subjective (i.e. what we believe in)" is an inconsistent statement. If truth is subjective, then if one believes that truth is objective, then should he accept that truth is subjective?

Our constitution allows itself to be amended because of a foresight that it is not possible to capture and codify everything that is necessary to run the country. So, does it mean that some leader can manipulate things and amend the constitution one last time to remove its provision for amendments? These are exactly the kind of questions that we have to contend with, if we are to build a tolerant society.

It turns out that there is a 1967 Supreme Court ruling that any constitutional amendment cannot alter the "basic structure" (among other things, the provision for amendment) of the constitution, by any means.

There is a profound lesson in there for system builders.

Thanks to the Internet and the media, I've learnt that our culture has contributed so many things to the global wisdom.

When I moved to Europe for studies about 12 years ago, I was bombarded with a number of these maharaja, snake charmer, third-world stereotypes. I would have probably acquiesed and accepted that as the truth (and would have returned back with a lot of contempt for the "natives") had it not been for the Internet.

And lastly, one of the most common refrain I hear is that, globalization is bulldozing English onto us and making us lose our language (Kannada in my case). No doubt, a vast treasure of knowledge will be lost if a language is lost. But to all those who make this refrain, I ask them whether they have contributed to http://kn.wikipedia.org/. The answer to which is usually, no. (Well I have contributed; a little.)

The sands are shifting worldwide. The Germans, Swedish, Danish, Japanese, all face the same problem as we do. And they are working hard to preserve their languages as relics if not as a contemporary medium of communication. If we don't do something with the new doors that have opened and instead, just keep thrashing and morally admonishing that poor kid in his jeans and sneakers, nothing is going to change.