If they want to judge which society is smarter overall, I think we would be "smarter" in the sense that we had the ability to become a world superpower. But, I believe (and I could be wrong) India is an emerging country in the post-industrial world. They have a lot of potential and superb work ethic overall. What seperates India as it is now from our country is that the United States relies on the post-industrial sector to help the industrial sector. India is much moe industrial-oriented. But I think they see the post-industrial mode of production to be beneficial, and I think they will capitalize on that more and more as time goes on. Their "third world" status gives them a huge leg up and makes the country attactive to foriegn investment.
But when it comes down to it, I think the guy is overestimating his usefulness. There's no denying outsourcing is either beneficial or neutral to the productivity and economy of our country. How beneficial is it to India in return? I found this statement quite on target.
The author, who works for Deutsche Bank, says that the country needs to create better infrastructure which can also generate productive employment, rather than providing stop-gap arrangements like outsourcing which can only bring in temporary economic growth.
I see outsourcing as one step towards a growing economy in India, but there needs to be more expansion and diversity in their industry if they are to really compete with us. I can tell you this, though. West Bengal is an example of how not to be competitive with any world market. They'll compete once their government is either voted out or naturally shift towards the center. I think if more states in India learned lessons from West Bengal and decide against that type of government, they would be more open and prone to growth.