India can follow neither the US model nor the German model
In the last three parts (III, IV), we have argued that the US and other developed countries (such as most European states, Taiwan, Israel, Japan, etc - here referred to as the "German model" for brevity) are diametrically opposite when it comes to the way they treat natives and immigrants. While US systems of governance and education are mainly built for the benefit of immigrants, the very same systems in other developed countries are built for the benefit of natives. While the US is a country of immigrants, most other countries in the world are countries of natives.
India cannot fall under the "US model" simply because civilizations have successfully inhabited this part of the world from pre-historic times to this date. The natives are alive and kicking here - and it is nonsensical for our systems to be built for immigrants - like in the US (and like Dr. Yashpal's "potential southern hemispherical clientele" approach seeks to build).
It does not make sense to think of India as falling under the "German model" either. India is a country of natives beyond doubt - but not like Germany - simply because India is a linguistically diverse country. The whole of Germany speaks the same language - not the whole of India. Thus, India is a country of many different types of natives - Kannadiga natives who are native to Karnataka, Punjabi natives who are native to Punjab, Assamese natives who are native to Assam, Tamil natives who are native to Tamil Nadu...and so on and so forth. These natives have successfully opposed aggressions and transgressions between each other from the very first pages of known history, and India as a political unit is indubitably the fruit of British colonization (as we have argued in other posts on this blog).
Thus we see that India cannot be modeled after either the US or Germany when it comes to building systems of governance or education or what have you. India is far too complicated to yield to such simplifications.
Next in series>>>