comments like these appear all the time when a country like India achieves something significant in Space. People question "why put money in space if millions are starving".
As far as I can tell, the launch technology here (the GLSV) is bog standard, the mission is unmanned, and it's using a rover that's less sophisticated than Curiosity. The ground being covered here is well-trodden.
Lest anyone think I'm pooh-poohing the achievement here, I'm not. Human spaceflight is still in its infancy, and being the 5th country to make a soft landing on the moon is a big deal, and a practical demonstration of a lot of technical prowess.
The problem is.. it appears to be mostly a demonstration at the end of the day. Is mapping the surface of the moon and detailing its composition more or less important than lifting 90 million people out of poverty? I know what my opinion is here, but I think it's something that reasonable people can disagree on.
Einsteins don't manifest in rural Indian villages the moment you feed and clothe the local populace. It takes a lot more than a full belly to contribute in a meaningful way, and India isn't getting there any time soon. Plus, it doesn't matter if you surface the next Einstein/Feynman/Tesla if there are no forward-thinking projects for them to work on.
Not unless they're doing something new, they don't. This is what I meant by "the ground here is well-trodden". Getting to the moon is within the reach of any nation with a modern space program, the US just hasn't done it for a long while since there hasn't been any pressing need (political or research) for them to do so.
Arguably India is teaching itself to fish which is even better.
Part of the issue is that 'humanity' is divided by borders, and countries do not generally share information and capabilities freely. So the fact that the US has achieved something means very little to other countries beyond 'this is possible to do'. Doing it themselves may still be a significant milestone in their own industrial development.
I wish it were otherwise, but I have a horrible feeling that the only workable alternative is a single global government, which I'm not convinced is a better option in the long run...
This question assumes a lot. It's not an either / or. In fact, they may be mutually beneficial, where each effort boosts the other.
The efforts for both endeavors are also not completely interchangeable. We can't productively redirect all resources going into the space program towards poverty reduction. Perhaps some of it may be redirected productively, but most of it cannot.
I understand you may already get this, but I think it is worth repeating.