Are we defining "pure" as ethnically or culturally unique and homogenous? I think all this thread has done is show that there is no such thing as a "pure" society. No culture is beyond foreign influences and exchanges, no matter how hard they try. Arguing about which culture borrowed what practice from whom is starting to look like mental masturbation; pointless and frustrating. Are we trying to weigh the value of a culture by how much they have been influenced by their neighbors over the ages? If not, I might be missing the point of this discussion.

India is still considered to be a developing country. Even if it preserves its ancient customs and traditions, I wouldn't take the fact that you couldn't find a McDonald's to be a sign that it is some sort of romantic stronghold against the encroachment of western influence. Not that I wouldn't mind living in a country without McDonald's; I just don't consider that a gauge of a nation's "purity."