D D Kosambi (1907–1966) did his BA at Harvard University. His "An Introduction to the Study of Indian History" (1957) was the first Marxist history of India. Sham Lal, then assistant editor of The Times of India, reviewed the book. Some excerpts from the review(1):
Vishnu and Shiva
"New god developed, better suited to the rustic mentality, and more paying to the Brahmins" he writes. "The most successful was Vishnu-Narayana-Krishna, who dominates the final rendition of the Mahabharata, which is closely related to the Manu Smriti." But as it happens, the Krishna of the Mahabharata is as far from being a rustic god as one can imagine. He is a warrior and thinker of the first order. Or does Kosambi think it is too homespun for those who live in big cities, or for the semi-literate Khrushchevs and Eisenhowers who run advanced industrial societies today?
"The ancestry of the new gods – Shiva and Vishnu – is no longer relevant" he says. The trouble starts when the two new worships come into violent conflict. "The reason was" snaps the professor's explanation "that Shiva had by then become the god the great barons, whereas the cowherd-boy Krishna remained associated with small producers." Was the South full of barons and the North of small producers? And did the later worship of Hari-Hara or Vishnu and Shiva as one god mean that the barons and small producers had become one class?
Bhagavad Gita
In regard to the syncretism achieved by the Bhagavad Gita over 2000 years ago, Kosambi says "it is still powerful in forming the consciousness of upper class Hindus by furnishing the ideological spheres where they fight out their conflicts." How does he hope to get away with so daft a generalisation? What about its part in forming the consciousness the lower classes? How has the superstructure(2) managed to remain intact over the centuries while the base(2) has changed out of recognition? Or does Kosambi mean to say that the base hasn't changed? Or that even if it has, the ideological needs of the upper classes have remained the same under pre-feudal as well as capitalist systems? In any case, how does the philosophical reconciliation of Yoga and Sankhya or Jnana and Bhakti help to provide weapons in the fight against new taxation and new bureaucratic controls?
Gupta Empire: Golden Age of India
Who spoke of the Golden Age of the Guptas? Not Kosambi. It is true, he tells us, that we have more gold coins from the Gupta period than from any other, but gold coins don't make an age golden. What about Kalidasa? We mumble. And Aryabhata and Varahamihira? And those who painted the murals in caves 1 and 2 and 16 and 17 at Ajanta, and carved the face of the Sarnath Buddha? Kosambi dismisses these questions with a shrug of the shoulder. "I know all that and much more" he says in effect. "But bejewelled Avalokiteshvaras and faintly smiling Buddhas don't make an age golden either. Look at the languishing cities, a more hidebound caste system, and the idiocy of life in the stagnating villages." We are not convinced. There must be something more to it than the idiocy of village life. How could so much idiocy sustain so much sophistication in both art and thought?
Buddhism
Kosambi dismisses the earlier split in Buddhism without much ado. It is true, as he says, that the Mahayana school "changed its language to Sanskrit" and the Mahayanists "drifted away further from the common people in their refinement of doctrine, researches into science, and higher abstract philosophy." But to concede this is not to say that the Hinayana school was more popular. Indeed the very raison d'etre of the Mahayana school was its greater appeal to the mass of the people. Its elaborate mythology was a concession to popular taste, and the thousands for whom the austere Hinayana doctrine had no attraction fell for the new creed.
Mythology
While referring to the priestly myths, he says that "these fables and a certain rigid discipline were helpful to impose upon savages, to initiate a class society." These fables were a part either of the superstructure of a pre-class society or of a class society. If they were the product of a pre-class society, they could hardly be expected to serve the needs of a class society. If they were them selves the product of a class society, how could they help to initiate it?
Religion
He says that the Indus Valley cities rested upon trade, not fighting. This naturally raises the question: If the army or police was not very strong, what helped the trader to maintain his unequal sharing of profit? Kosambi thinks the answer is religion. But this is really no answer, for it evades the real question as to why religion became such a force here and not elsewhere. Kosambi says "dominance of religion would explain the changelessness of the culture over at least 500 and more, probably 1500 years." But the real question is: What explains the dominance of religion in the first place?
Culture and Philosophy
Kosambi ties himself in an impossible knot when he asserts that "the subtle mystic philosophies, tortuous religions, ornate literature, monuments teeming with intricate sculpture and delicate music of India all derive from the same historical process that produced the famished apathy of the villager, the senseless opportunism and termite greed of the cultured strata, sullen uncoordinated discontent among the workers, the general demoralisation, misery, squalor and degrading superstition. The one is the result of the other; the one is the expression of the other."
Yet, this is precisely what he fails to prove. How do we explain the sheer beauty and depth of the music? Is it the result of the "termite greed of the cultured strata"? Or is it the expression of the "sullen discontent" of the subalterns? Are the mystic philosophies the result of "greed", or do they try to do away with this evil – at least in those who really believe in them? It does not help to explain a part of the superstructure as a result of economic causes, and the rest as a reflection of economic conditions. It only makes the confusion worse confounded.
Notes:
1. Indian Realities in Bits and Pieces (2003)
2. See Karl Marx's base-superstructure theory
07 December 2011
Shibumi: Age of the Warrior Vs Age of the Merchant
The contrast between the Age of the Warrior and the Age of the Merchant is one of the themes in Trevanian's 1979 thriller "Shibumi". Some quotes:
General Kishikawa: "All wars are lost ultimately. By both sides, Nikko. The day of battles between professional warriors is gone. Now we have wars between opposing industrial capacities, opposing populations. The Russians, with their sea of faceless people, will defeat the Germans. The Americans, with their anonymous factories, will defeat us (Japanese). Ultimately."
General Kishikawa: "They (Americans) are very skilfull merchants, and they have a great respect for fiscal achievement. These may seem thin and tawdry virtues to you, but they are consonant with the patterns of the industrial world. At best, they are a mannered technology. In place of ethics, they have rules. Size functions for them as quality functions for us. What for us is honour and dishonour, for them is winning and losing. In the world of the future, a world of merchants and mechanics, the base impulses of the mongrel are those that will dominate. The Westerner is the future, Nikko. A grim and impersonal future of technology and automation, it is true – but the future nevertheless."
He (Nicholai) came to recognise that all Americans were merchants, that the core of the American Genius, of the Yankee Spirit, was buying and selling. They vended their democratic ideology like hucksters, supported by the great protection racket of armaments deals and economic pressures. Their wars were monumental exercises in production and supply. Their government was a series of social contracts. Their education was sold as so much per unit hour. Their marriages were emotional deals, the contracts easily broken if one party failed in his debt servicing. Honour for them consisted in fair trading. And they were not, as they thought, a classless society; they were a one-class society – the mercantile. Their elite were the rich; their workers and farmers were best viewed as flawed and failed scramblers up the middle-class monetary ladder. The peasants and proletariat of America had values identical to those of the insurance salesmen and business executives, the only difference being that these values were expressed in more modest fiscal terms: the motor boat rather than the yacht; the bowling league rather than the country club; Atlantic City rather than Monaco.
But it was not their irritating assumption of equality that annoyed Nicholai so much as their cultural confusions. The Americans seemed to confuse standard of living with quality of life, institutionalised mediocrity with equal opportunity, bravery with courage, machismo with manhood, liberty with freedom, wordiness with articulation, fun with pleasure – in short, they had all the misconceptions common to those who assume that justice implies equality for all, rather than equality for equals.
Major: "You deny that he (Kishikawa) was a part of the Japanese military-industrial machine?"
Nicholai: "He was a soldier." The more accurate response would have been that he was a warrior, but that distinction would have meant nothing to these Americans with their mercantile mentalities.
Nicholai recognised the haggling tone of the market place. Like all Americans, this Major was a merchant at heart; everything had a price; and the good man was he who bargained well.
Nicholai: "It's not Americans I find annoying; it's Americanism: a social disease of the post-industrial world that must inevitably infect each of the mercantile nations in turn, and is called 'American' only because your nation is the most advanced case of the malady, much as one speaks of Spanish flu or Japanese encephalitis. Its symptoms are a loss of work ethic, a shrinking of inner resources, and a constant need for external simulation, followed by spiritual decay and moral narcosis. You can recognise the victim by his constant efforts to get in touch with himself, to believe his spiritual feebleness in an interesting psychological warp, to construe his fleeing from responsibility as evidence that he and his life are uniquely open to new experience. In the latter stages, the sufferer is reduced to seeking that most trivial of human activities: fun."
No prizes for guessing which side Trevanian is on!
General Kishikawa: "All wars are lost ultimately. By both sides, Nikko. The day of battles between professional warriors is gone. Now we have wars between opposing industrial capacities, opposing populations. The Russians, with their sea of faceless people, will defeat the Germans. The Americans, with their anonymous factories, will defeat us (Japanese). Ultimately."
General Kishikawa: "They (Americans) are very skilfull merchants, and they have a great respect for fiscal achievement. These may seem thin and tawdry virtues to you, but they are consonant with the patterns of the industrial world. At best, they are a mannered technology. In place of ethics, they have rules. Size functions for them as quality functions for us. What for us is honour and dishonour, for them is winning and losing. In the world of the future, a world of merchants and mechanics, the base impulses of the mongrel are those that will dominate. The Westerner is the future, Nikko. A grim and impersonal future of technology and automation, it is true – but the future nevertheless."
He (Nicholai) came to recognise that all Americans were merchants, that the core of the American Genius, of the Yankee Spirit, was buying and selling. They vended their democratic ideology like hucksters, supported by the great protection racket of armaments deals and economic pressures. Their wars were monumental exercises in production and supply. Their government was a series of social contracts. Their education was sold as so much per unit hour. Their marriages were emotional deals, the contracts easily broken if one party failed in his debt servicing. Honour for them consisted in fair trading. And they were not, as they thought, a classless society; they were a one-class society – the mercantile. Their elite were the rich; their workers and farmers were best viewed as flawed and failed scramblers up the middle-class monetary ladder. The peasants and proletariat of America had values identical to those of the insurance salesmen and business executives, the only difference being that these values were expressed in more modest fiscal terms: the motor boat rather than the yacht; the bowling league rather than the country club; Atlantic City rather than Monaco.
But it was not their irritating assumption of equality that annoyed Nicholai so much as their cultural confusions. The Americans seemed to confuse standard of living with quality of life, institutionalised mediocrity with equal opportunity, bravery with courage, machismo with manhood, liberty with freedom, wordiness with articulation, fun with pleasure – in short, they had all the misconceptions common to those who assume that justice implies equality for all, rather than equality for equals.
Major: "You deny that he (Kishikawa) was a part of the Japanese military-industrial machine?"
Nicholai: "He was a soldier." The more accurate response would have been that he was a warrior, but that distinction would have meant nothing to these Americans with their mercantile mentalities.
Nicholai recognised the haggling tone of the market place. Like all Americans, this Major was a merchant at heart; everything had a price; and the good man was he who bargained well.
Nicholai: "It's not Americans I find annoying; it's Americanism: a social disease of the post-industrial world that must inevitably infect each of the mercantile nations in turn, and is called 'American' only because your nation is the most advanced case of the malady, much as one speaks of Spanish flu or Japanese encephalitis. Its symptoms are a loss of work ethic, a shrinking of inner resources, and a constant need for external simulation, followed by spiritual decay and moral narcosis. You can recognise the victim by his constant efforts to get in touch with himself, to believe his spiritual feebleness in an interesting psychological warp, to construe his fleeing from responsibility as evidence that he and his life are uniquely open to new experience. In the latter stages, the sufferer is reduced to seeking that most trivial of human activities: fun."
No prizes for guessing which side Trevanian is on!
06 December 2011
Agricultural Vs Industrial Society: Martial Vs Commercial Society
In the Agricultural Age, the primary production system was agriculture. The main input for agriculture is land. So whoever controlled land had power. The king controlled land, and hence had power.
Now the king belonged to the warrior class (Kshatriyas). Each class has its own values. The values of the warriors were strength, courage, duty and loyalty. These constituted the warrior ethic.
Since warriors were the dominant class in agricultural society, their ethic – the warrior ethic – was the dominant ethic in society.
Thus, agricultural society was a martial society*. And the Agricultural Age was the Age of the Warrior.
*The French social thinker Auguste Comte (1798–1857) used the term "military society" to describe agricultural society.
After the Industrial Revolution everything changed.
In the Industrial Age, the primary production system is industry. The main input for industry is capital. So whoever controls capital has power. The capitalists control capital, and hence have power.
Now capitalists belong to the merchant class (Vaishyas). Merchants have only one value: wealth/money. This constitutes the merchant ethic.
Since industrialists/businessmen are the dominant class in industrial society, their ethic – the merchant ethic – is the dominant ethic in society.
Thus, industrial society is a commercial society. And the Industrial Age is the Age of the Merchant.
Today there is no victory and defeat; only success and failure. Today there is no honour and dishonour; only profit and loss.
1. Gurcharan Das approves of this change.
2. Watch The Last Samurai (2003) for a beautiful argument in favour of the Age of the Warrior and the warrior ethic.
Now the king belonged to the warrior class (Kshatriyas). Each class has its own values. The values of the warriors were strength, courage, duty and loyalty. These constituted the warrior ethic.
Since warriors were the dominant class in agricultural society, their ethic – the warrior ethic – was the dominant ethic in society.
Thus, agricultural society was a martial society*. And the Agricultural Age was the Age of the Warrior.
*The French social thinker Auguste Comte (1798–1857) used the term "military society" to describe agricultural society.
After the Industrial Revolution everything changed.
In the Industrial Age, the primary production system is industry. The main input for industry is capital. So whoever controls capital has power. The capitalists control capital, and hence have power.
Now capitalists belong to the merchant class (Vaishyas). Merchants have only one value: wealth/money. This constitutes the merchant ethic.
Since industrialists/businessmen are the dominant class in industrial society, their ethic – the merchant ethic – is the dominant ethic in society.
Thus, industrial society is a commercial society. And the Industrial Age is the Age of the Merchant.
Today there is no victory and defeat; only success and failure. Today there is no honour and dishonour; only profit and loss.
1. Gurcharan Das approves of this change.
2. Watch The Last Samurai (2003) for a beautiful argument in favour of the Age of the Warrior and the warrior ethic.
03 November 2011
The West/Europe Vs India, China and the World
Q: How did Britain conquer India? Britain is as big as Karnataka (6 crore people). How did such a small country conquer such a large country as ours?
A: Technology. Britain had superior military technology. It had cannons and muskets, with which it defeated Indian armies – who fought with swords and bows-arrows.
Q: How did Britain get ahead of India in technology? After all, in the ancient age, India was the most advanced civilisation in science.
Britain conquered India in 1757, leading to the Industrial Revolution (1775–1850). The point is: Europe was technologically ahead of other civilisations (like India and China) even before the Industrial Revolution. This helped it to conquer other countries (most importantly, Britain conquered India) which in turn led to the Industrial Revolution. So the real question is –
Q: How did Europe (the West) get ahead of other civilisations – mainly India and China – in technology?
A: Division and competition.
Look at the map of Europe. There is an island: Britain. There are two peninsulas cut off from the mainland by mountain ranges: Spain (by the Pyrenees) and Italy (by the Alps). And the mainland is cut by a river (the Rhine) into two halves: France and Germany. So Europe is geographically divided into several units by rigid barriers.
Now look at the map of India. The land itself is cut off from the rest of the world by major barriers: the Indus, the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean. But look at the internal geography. There are some hill ranges (the Vindhyas, the Ghats). But these are not very tall. There are many rivers (Narmada, Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, Kaveri). But these are monsoon-fed, so they are shallow during the summer. Thus India does not have any rigid internal barriers, like Europe does.
Finally, look at the map of China. The real China is only east China. It is just one vast river plain (of the Hwang Ho and the Yangtze). There are no internal barriers at all.
Geography decided history – and therefore everything else (economy, society, politics and culture).
In the ancient age, Europe was ruled by the Roman Empire. This was a temporary aberration. After the Roman Empire collapsed (c500 AD), Europe was divided into its several geographical units. These units then developed as separate – and permanent – kingdoms.
India was also divided into many kingdoms. But there were no rigid barriers that would act as permanent boundaries between these kingdoms – as in Europe. Therefore these kingdoms were not permanent. It was not merely dynasties that rose and fell after one another. The kingdoms themselves (ie, geographical units) appeared and disappeared continuously.
China was the opposite of Europe. Its lack of internal barriers meant it could be unified and ruled as one unit (ie, an empire) for most of its history.
Thus Europe was divided into several permanent kingdoms (which finally became countries). These kingdoms constantly fought wars against one another. To gain military advantage over its enemies, each kingdom encouraged developments in military technology. A technology developed by one kingdom would give it an advantage over the others. But only for some time. The other kingdoms would quickly adopt that technology. And the search would begin for the next technology.
Thus Europe (unintentionally) entered an upward spiral of technological development after 1000 AD. By competing with one another – for the "wrong" reasons, one could say – Europe's kingdoms as a group started pulling ahead of other more advanced civilisations (ie, India and China).
The Europeans mainly advanced in two key areas: weapons and transport. Around 1200 they learned how to make gunpowder (which was invented by the Chinese). Around 1350, the English and the French invented the cannon. Around 1500, the Italians invented the musket. And in ship making, around 1300 the Europeans invented the rudder. Around 1450 they developed the full-rigged ship, with which they could sail long distances.
We see another geographical factor at work here. Europe has a "rough" shape, and hence has a long coastline. India and China have "smooth" shapes, and hence have short coastlines. So Europe relied more on sea transport, while India and China relied more on land transport. Thus Europe focussed on sea transport technology. And the fastest sea vehicle of the Europeans – the sailing ship – turned out to be faster and more efficient that the fastest land vehicle of the Indians and Chinese – the horse.
On the other hand, India (with its temporary kingdoms) and China (with its single empire) did not have this sustained competition and technological development.
Thus by 1500, the West (Europe) had the sailing ship, the cannon and musket. With the sailing ship they could reach other civilisations, and with the cannon and musket they could defeat and conquer them. Thus Britain conquered India. This led to the Industrial Revolution – which took the West still further ahead of India, China and the rest of the world.
"The rise of the West" was the greatest puzzle of history. Eric Jones (The European Miracle, 1981) was the first historian to answer this question. I have not read this book. If you have it, please contact me :-)
A: Technology. Britain had superior military technology. It had cannons and muskets, with which it defeated Indian armies – who fought with swords and bows-arrows.
Q: How did Britain get ahead of India in technology? After all, in the ancient age, India was the most advanced civilisation in science.
Britain conquered India in 1757, leading to the Industrial Revolution (1775–1850). The point is: Europe was technologically ahead of other civilisations (like India and China) even before the Industrial Revolution. This helped it to conquer other countries (most importantly, Britain conquered India) which in turn led to the Industrial Revolution. So the real question is –
Q: How did Europe (the West) get ahead of other civilisations – mainly India and China – in technology?
A: Division and competition.
Look at the map of Europe. There is an island: Britain. There are two peninsulas cut off from the mainland by mountain ranges: Spain (by the Pyrenees) and Italy (by the Alps). And the mainland is cut by a river (the Rhine) into two halves: France and Germany. So Europe is geographically divided into several units by rigid barriers.
Now look at the map of India. The land itself is cut off from the rest of the world by major barriers: the Indus, the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean. But look at the internal geography. There are some hill ranges (the Vindhyas, the Ghats). But these are not very tall. There are many rivers (Narmada, Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, Kaveri). But these are monsoon-fed, so they are shallow during the summer. Thus India does not have any rigid internal barriers, like Europe does.
Finally, look at the map of China. The real China is only east China. It is just one vast river plain (of the Hwang Ho and the Yangtze). There are no internal barriers at all.
Geography decided history – and therefore everything else (economy, society, politics and culture).
In the ancient age, Europe was ruled by the Roman Empire. This was a temporary aberration. After the Roman Empire collapsed (c500 AD), Europe was divided into its several geographical units. These units then developed as separate – and permanent – kingdoms.
India was also divided into many kingdoms. But there were no rigid barriers that would act as permanent boundaries between these kingdoms – as in Europe. Therefore these kingdoms were not permanent. It was not merely dynasties that rose and fell after one another. The kingdoms themselves (ie, geographical units) appeared and disappeared continuously.
China was the opposite of Europe. Its lack of internal barriers meant it could be unified and ruled as one unit (ie, an empire) for most of its history.
Thus Europe was divided into several permanent kingdoms (which finally became countries). These kingdoms constantly fought wars against one another. To gain military advantage over its enemies, each kingdom encouraged developments in military technology. A technology developed by one kingdom would give it an advantage over the others. But only for some time. The other kingdoms would quickly adopt that technology. And the search would begin for the next technology.
Thus Europe (unintentionally) entered an upward spiral of technological development after 1000 AD. By competing with one another – for the "wrong" reasons, one could say – Europe's kingdoms as a group started pulling ahead of other more advanced civilisations (ie, India and China).
The Europeans mainly advanced in two key areas: weapons and transport. Around 1200 they learned how to make gunpowder (which was invented by the Chinese). Around 1350, the English and the French invented the cannon. Around 1500, the Italians invented the musket. And in ship making, around 1300 the Europeans invented the rudder. Around 1450 they developed the full-rigged ship, with which they could sail long distances.
We see another geographical factor at work here. Europe has a "rough" shape, and hence has a long coastline. India and China have "smooth" shapes, and hence have short coastlines. So Europe relied more on sea transport, while India and China relied more on land transport. Thus Europe focussed on sea transport technology. And the fastest sea vehicle of the Europeans – the sailing ship – turned out to be faster and more efficient that the fastest land vehicle of the Indians and Chinese – the horse.
On the other hand, India (with its temporary kingdoms) and China (with its single empire) did not have this sustained competition and technological development.
Thus by 1500, the West (Europe) had the sailing ship, the cannon and musket. With the sailing ship they could reach other civilisations, and with the cannon and musket they could defeat and conquer them. Thus Britain conquered India. This led to the Industrial Revolution – which took the West still further ahead of India, China and the rest of the world.
"The rise of the West" was the greatest puzzle of history. Eric Jones (The European Miracle, 1981) was the first historian to answer this question. I have not read this book. If you have it, please contact me :-)
16 April 2011
Democracy in India: Corrupt, Violent, Casteist
1. India is an agricultural country.
2. Democracy is an industrial political system.
3. In 1947, our leaders made the disastrous mistake of imposing an industrial political system on an agricultural society.
4. Whatever problems we see in Indian democracy today – corruption, violence, casteism – are the result of this anomaly.
5. Our leaders opted for universal adult franchise in 1947. Instead they should have put two restrictions:
a) You can vote if you have completed primary education.
b) You can contest elections if you have completed a degree.
6. With these two modifications, Indian democracy would have been a success.
7. India is the world's largest democracy, yes. It is also the world's most corrupt, violent and casteist democracy.
2. Democracy is an industrial political system.
3. In 1947, our leaders made the disastrous mistake of imposing an industrial political system on an agricultural society.
4. Whatever problems we see in Indian democracy today – corruption, violence, casteism – are the result of this anomaly.
5. Our leaders opted for universal adult franchise in 1947. Instead they should have put two restrictions:
a) You can vote if you have completed primary education.
b) You can contest elections if you have completed a degree.
6. With these two modifications, Indian democracy would have been a success.
7. India is the world's largest democracy, yes. It is also the world's most corrupt, violent and casteist democracy.
15 April 2011
Democracy: A Modern/Industrial Political System
Q: What is democracy?
A: Democracy is a political system in which the people choose their rulers.
A person can choose who his/her ruler should be only if he/she has a certain minimum level of knowledge/awareness. That is, if he/she has a certain minimum level of education.
In the Agricultural Age, education was only for the elite. The masses were uneducated (because they were farm labourers).
The Industrial Revolution changed all that. Factories needed literate workers. So the Industrial Age saw the birth of mass education (or universal education).
With an educated population, the condition for democracy was satisfied. Thus democracy was born.
Thus, a literate/educated population is a pre-requisite for democracy. In fact, it is an educated population that is the fundamental feature of democracy – not elections.
Universal education and democracy go together. They are two sides of the same coin.
A: Democracy is a political system in which the people choose their rulers.
A person can choose who his/her ruler should be only if he/she has a certain minimum level of knowledge/awareness. That is, if he/she has a certain minimum level of education.
In the Agricultural Age, education was only for the elite. The masses were uneducated (because they were farm labourers).
The Industrial Revolution changed all that. Factories needed literate workers. So the Industrial Age saw the birth of mass education (or universal education).
With an educated population, the condition for democracy was satisfied. Thus democracy was born.
Thus, a literate/educated population is a pre-requisite for democracy. In fact, it is an educated population that is the fundamental feature of democracy – not elections.
Universal education and democracy go together. They are two sides of the same coin.
12 March 2011
Modernisation, Westernisation and India
Ref: Modernity – The Modern/Industrial Age
Q: What is Westernisation?
A: Westernisation is the adoption of Western culture by a society. (1)
There are different civilisations* in the world. Each civilisation has its own culture. Westernisation happens when a society adopts the culture of the Western civilisation (=Europe+America).
Q: What is modernisation?
Early man was a hunter-gatherer. He lived a primitive/tribal way of life. 12,000 years ago (10,000 BC) he invented agriculture. This invention led to the birth of villages, cities, writing and trade. This is what we call civilisation. The earliest civilisations were Sumeria, Egypt, India and China. Later other civilisations developed.
About 200 years ago, another revolution happened. Man invented engines, machines, factories, railway and telegraph. This was the Industrial Revolution. It took place first in the Western civilisation (1775–1850). Later it started spreading to other civilisations.
So, what is modernisation?
A: Modernisation refers to the changes in technology, economy, society, politics and culture that take place due to industrialisation.
That is, modernisation refers to the technological, economic, social, political and cultural changes that occur as a consequence of industrialisation. (2)
Look at definitions (1) and (2). They are different. Modernisation and Westernisation are two different things.
*The major civilisations of the world are:
1. India
2. China
3. The West
4. Islam
5. Africa
Q: What is Westernisation?
A: Westernisation is the adoption of Western culture by a society. (1)
There are different civilisations* in the world. Each civilisation has its own culture. Westernisation happens when a society adopts the culture of the Western civilisation (=Europe+America).
Q: What is modernisation?
Early man was a hunter-gatherer. He lived a primitive/tribal way of life. 12,000 years ago (10,000 BC) he invented agriculture. This invention led to the birth of villages, cities, writing and trade. This is what we call civilisation. The earliest civilisations were Sumeria, Egypt, India and China. Later other civilisations developed.
About 200 years ago, another revolution happened. Man invented engines, machines, factories, railway and telegraph. This was the Industrial Revolution. It took place first in the Western civilisation (1775–1850). Later it started spreading to other civilisations.
So, what is modernisation?
A: Modernisation refers to the changes in technology, economy, society, politics and culture that take place due to industrialisation.
That is, modernisation refers to the technological, economic, social, political and cultural changes that occur as a consequence of industrialisation. (2)
Look at definitions (1) and (2). They are different. Modernisation and Westernisation are two different things.
*The major civilisations of the world are:
1. India
2. China
3. The West
4. Islam
5. Africa
07 March 2011
Modern India: Society and Social Change
I had once written a post about the "India vs Bharat" divide. In it I had talked about the "Agricultural Age mindset/worldview" and the "Industrial Age mindset/worldview". But what are these exactly?
In the series of posts on the 19th century Western social thinkers, I have tried to answer this question. After the Industrial Revolution (1775–1800) the West industrialised/modernised in the 19th century. India was then under British rule; so we could not industrialise. In 1947 we became free, but we adopted the wrong industrial system – socialism – and hence industrialised very slowly. In 1991 we switched to a a more efficient industrial system – capitalism – and started industrialising faster. Thus India started industrialising properly only from 1991.
As India industrialises/modernises now, in the 21st century, our society is going through vast and rapid changes. Are these changes unique? Are they unprecedented? No, they are not. If we read about the works of 19th century European social thinkers, we realise that they describe the same changes that we see in India today. That is, 21st century India is going through the same changes that 19th century Europe went through. Thus, by reading the ideas/theories of 19th century Europe's social thinkers, we can understand the social change taking place in modern India. (That was the point of the posts on Marx, Tönnies, Durkheim and Weber.)
Among these thinkers, the most interesting is Tönnies. His concept of "community" (Gemeinschaft) and "association" (Gesellschaft) accurately describes the changes taking place in India today: from "Bharat" to "India". "Bharat" is "community", and "India" is "association".
As India industrialises/modernises, "Bharat" will decrease in size and "India" will increase Some say this change is good; others say it is bad. What do you think? Please let me know your views :-)
In the series of posts on the 19th century Western social thinkers, I have tried to answer this question. After the Industrial Revolution (1775–1800) the West industrialised/modernised in the 19th century. India was then under British rule; so we could not industrialise. In 1947 we became free, but we adopted the wrong industrial system – socialism – and hence industrialised very slowly. In 1991 we switched to a a more efficient industrial system – capitalism – and started industrialising faster. Thus India started industrialising properly only from 1991.
As India industrialises/modernises now, in the 21st century, our society is going through vast and rapid changes. Are these changes unique? Are they unprecedented? No, they are not. If we read about the works of 19th century European social thinkers, we realise that they describe the same changes that we see in India today. That is, 21st century India is going through the same changes that 19th century Europe went through. Thus, by reading the ideas/theories of 19th century Europe's social thinkers, we can understand the social change taking place in modern India. (That was the point of the posts on Marx, Tönnies, Durkheim and Weber.)
Among these thinkers, the most interesting is Tönnies. His concept of "community" (Gemeinschaft) and "association" (Gesellschaft) accurately describes the changes taking place in India today: from "Bharat" to "India". "Bharat" is "community", and "India" is "association".
As India industrialises/modernises, "Bharat" will decrease in size and "India" will increase Some say this change is good; others say it is bad. What do you think? Please let me know your views :-)
27 February 2011
Max Weber: Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism
Ref: Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Max Weber (1864–1920) was German social thinker.
In "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905) Weber tried to answer the question: Why did the Industrial Revolution take place in Europe? Why did it not take place in other civilisations like India and China – which were scientifically more advanced? According to Weber, the answer was religion. India's religion was Hinduism, China's was Confucianism, and Europe's was Christianity. Weber said the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe due to Christianity.
Weber asked a further question: Why did the Industrial Revolution spread rapidly in north Europe (Britain, Germany), but not in south Europe (Spain, Italy)? Again, his answer was religion. North Europe was Protestant, while South Europe was Catholic. Weber tried to show how Protestantism (and not merely Christianity) was responsible for the Industrial Revolution.
See Max Weber: The Iron Cage of Capitalism
Max Weber (1864–1920) was German social thinker.
In "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905) Weber tried to answer the question: Why did the Industrial Revolution take place in Europe? Why did it not take place in other civilisations like India and China – which were scientifically more advanced? According to Weber, the answer was religion. India's religion was Hinduism, China's was Confucianism, and Europe's was Christianity. Weber said the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe due to Christianity.
Weber asked a further question: Why did the Industrial Revolution spread rapidly in north Europe (Britain, Germany), but not in south Europe (Spain, Italy)? Again, his answer was religion. North Europe was Protestant, while South Europe was Catholic. Weber tried to show how Protestantism (and not merely Christianity) was responsible for the Industrial Revolution.
See Max Weber: The Iron Cage of Capitalism
20 February 2011
Emile Durkheim: Organic Solidarity and Mechanical Solidarity
Ref: Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) was a French social thinker.
In "Division of Labour in Society" (1892), Durkheim – like Tönnies – tried to analyse the differences between agricultural/rural/traditional society and industrial/urban/modern society. Durkheim said that agricultural society is characterised by "organic solidarity", and industrial society is characterised by "mechanical solidarity"*.
Turgot had given the theory of economic stages of history. Each (economic) stage is more complex than the previous stage. That is, the number of tasks/roles in a society increases as it moves from one stage to the next. Efficiency requires division of labour and specialisation. Thus, greater complexity results in greater division of labour and specialisation. Therefore industrial society is more complex than agricultural society, and has a higher degree of division of labour and specialisation.
Durkheim went further. Industrial society is not only more complex than agricultural society, its nature – how its different parts fit together and their relationship with one another – is also different. These "parts" may be:
a) Parts of the social "super-system" (technology, economy, society, politics, culture)
b) Sub-systems of society (family, education, etc)
c) Units of the social system (castes, classes, etc)
d) Or simply, individuals
Agricultural society is like an organism. It is simpler, but its different parts fit together and interact with one another naturally, or "organically". Example: a family. Industrial society is like a machine. It is more complex, but its different parts fit together and interact with one another artificially, or "mechanically". Example: a corporation.
Thus Durkheim's "organic solidarity" and "mechanical solidarity" correspond to Tönnies' "community" and "society". His work can be seen as a continuation of Tönnies' analysis.
*Durkheim used the terms the other way around. I am using them here in their correct sense.
Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) was a French social thinker.
In "Division of Labour in Society" (1892), Durkheim – like Tönnies – tried to analyse the differences between agricultural/rural/traditional society and industrial/urban/modern society. Durkheim said that agricultural society is characterised by "organic solidarity", and industrial society is characterised by "mechanical solidarity"*.
Turgot had given the theory of economic stages of history. Each (economic) stage is more complex than the previous stage. That is, the number of tasks/roles in a society increases as it moves from one stage to the next. Efficiency requires division of labour and specialisation. Thus, greater complexity results in greater division of labour and specialisation. Therefore industrial society is more complex than agricultural society, and has a higher degree of division of labour and specialisation.
Durkheim went further. Industrial society is not only more complex than agricultural society, its nature – how its different parts fit together and their relationship with one another – is also different. These "parts" may be:
a) Parts of the social "super-system" (technology, economy, society, politics, culture)
b) Sub-systems of society (family, education, etc)
c) Units of the social system (castes, classes, etc)
d) Or simply, individuals
Agricultural society is like an organism. It is simpler, but its different parts fit together and interact with one another naturally, or "organically". Example: a family. Industrial society is like a machine. It is more complex, but its different parts fit together and interact with one another artificially, or "mechanically". Example: a corporation.
Thus Durkheim's "organic solidarity" and "mechanical solidarity" correspond to Tönnies' "community" and "society". His work can be seen as a continuation of Tönnies' analysis.
*Durkheim used the terms the other way around. I am using them here in their correct sense.
13 February 2011
Ferdinand Tönnies: Community and Association (Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft)
Ref: Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Ferdinand Tönnies* (1855–1936) was German social thinker.
In "Community and Association" (1887) Tönnies tried to analyse the differences between agricultural/rural/traditional society and industrial/urban/modern society. The first he called "community" (Gemeinschaft), and the second he called "association" (Gesellschaft).
In agricultural society ("community"), an individual interacts with a small number of people – the people in his village. He has close relationships with them. The relationships are personal and informal, based on familiarity and friendship. But in an industrial society ("association"), an individual interacts with a large number of people. However these interactions are functional in nature. Thus the relationships are impersonal and formal; they are commercial and business-like.
Thus "community" is characterised by a small number of primary (private) relationships. "Association" is characterised by a large number of secondary (public) relationships.
*The English spelling is not "Tonnies", but "Toennies".
Ferdinand Tönnies* (1855–1936) was German social thinker.
In "Community and Association" (1887) Tönnies tried to analyse the differences between agricultural/rural/traditional society and industrial/urban/modern society. The first he called "community" (Gemeinschaft), and the second he called "association" (Gesellschaft).
In agricultural society ("community"), an individual interacts with a small number of people – the people in his village. He has close relationships with them. The relationships are personal and informal, based on familiarity and friendship. But in an industrial society ("association"), an individual interacts with a large number of people. However these interactions are functional in nature. Thus the relationships are impersonal and formal; they are commercial and business-like.
Thus "community" is characterised by a small number of primary (private) relationships. "Association" is characterised by a large number of secondary (public) relationships.
*The English spelling is not "Tonnies", but "Toennies".
06 February 2011
Karl Marx: The Industrial Revolution and "The Capital"
Ref: Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Karl Marx (1818–1885) was a German social thinker.
A R J Turgot, an 18th century French economist, had seen history as a series of economic stages (hunting-gathering, pastoral and agricultural). Marx extended this theory – he added one more stage to it: the industrial (ie, modern) stage.He realised that mankind had entered a new Age in its history: the Industrial Age (Modern Age).He also said that when technology (production system) changes, everything also changes: the economy, politics, culture, and indeed society itself. Thus the Industrial Revolution, which was a change in production system from agriculture to industry, was leading to fundamental economic, political, cultural and social changes as well. He tried to analyse the new industrial/modern economy and society in "The Capital" (1867).
See:
1. Marx: The Modern/Industrial Age and Modernity
2. Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture - 2
Karl Marx (1818–1885) was a German social thinker.
A R J Turgot, an 18th century French economist, had seen history as a series of economic stages (hunting-gathering, pastoral and agricultural). Marx extended this theory – he added one more stage to it: the industrial (ie, modern) stage.He realised that mankind had entered a new Age in its history: the Industrial Age (Modern Age).He also said that when technology (production system) changes, everything also changes: the economy, politics, culture, and indeed society itself. Thus the Industrial Revolution, which was a change in production system from agriculture to industry, was leading to fundamental economic, political, cultural and social changes as well. He tried to analyse the new industrial/modern economy and society in "The Capital" (1867).
See:
1. Marx: The Modern/Industrial Age and Modernity
2. Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture - 2
01 February 2011
Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Sociology is the study of society. It is a modern (ie, industrial) subject. It was born in the West after the Industrial Revolution (1775–1850). As Europe industrialised (ie, modernised) in the 19th century, its society started changing. Social thinkers started observing these changes and tried to analyse them. Their attempts to understand these changes – and the new society that was emerging – gave birth to sociology.
The most important social thinkers of 19th century Europe were:
1. Karl Marx
2. Ferdinand Tönnies
3. Emile Durkheim
4. Max Weber
In the next few days, I will be putting up a post on each of these thinkers.
The most important social thinkers of 19th century Europe were:
1. Karl Marx
2. Ferdinand Tönnies
3. Emile Durkheim
4. Max Weber
In the next few days, I will be putting up a post on each of these thinkers.
26 January 2011
Waves of Modernisation/Industrialisation
Different parts of the world have modernised/industrialised at different times. These are the three major "waves" of industrialisation/modernisation:
*Japan had to industrialise a second time as it was bombed back to the stone age in World War 2.
| Years | Region | ||
| 1. 19th century | 1800–1900 | the West | Europe, America, Japan |
| 2. Post-World War 2 | 1950–1990 | East Asia | Japan*, Korea, Taiwan |
| 3. 21st century | c1980– | Asia | China (1979–), India (1991–) |
*Japan had to industrialise a second time as it was bombed back to the stone age in World War 2.
25 January 2011
Society in India and Indian Social System
Here are a couple of good books on Indian society:
A. Society in India – Prof Ram Ahuja (1999)
Contents:
1. History of Indian society
2. Caste system
3. Family and women
4. Economic system
5. Political system
6. Education
7. Religion
8. Tribal society
9. Rural society
10. Urban society
11. Population growth
12. Social change
B. Indian Social System – Prof Ram Ahuja (1993)
Contents:
1. Caste system
2. History of caste system
3. Caste relations and conflicts
4. Caste politics
5. Sanskritisation
6. Scheduled castes
A. Society in India – Prof Ram Ahuja (1999)
Contents:
1. History of Indian society
2. Caste system
3. Family and women
4. Economic system
5. Political system
6. Education
7. Religion
8. Tribal society
9. Rural society
10. Urban society
11. Population growth
12. Social change
B. Indian Social System – Prof Ram Ahuja (1993)
Contents:
1. Caste system
2. History of caste system
3. Caste relations and conflicts
4. Caste politics
5. Sanskritisation
6. Scheduled castes
17 January 2011
The Most Important Battles in India's History
Which were the most important battles in India's history?
| Year | |||
| . | |||
| 712 | Raor | ||
| . | |||
| 1001 | Peshawar | ||
| . | |||
| 1192 | Tarain | ||
| . | |||
| 1527 | Khanua | ||
| . | |||
| 1556 | Panipat | ||
| . | |||
| 1565 | Talikote | ||
| . | |||
| 1746 | Madras | ||
| . | |||
| 1757 | Plassey | ||
| . | |||
| 1761 | Panipat | ||
| . | |||
| 1764 | Buxar | ||
16 January 2011
The Best Books on India's History
Which are the best books on India's history?
1. India: A History – John Keay
2. Ancient India – Ram Sharan Sharma
3. Medieval India – Satish Chandra
4. Modern India – Bipan Chandra
5. Advanced History of India – Raychaudhuri, Datta & Majumdar
Please let me know about other good books on Indian history.
1. India: A History – John Keay
2. Ancient India – Ram Sharan Sharma
3. Medieval India – Satish Chandra
4. Modern India – Bipan Chandra
5. Advanced History of India – Raychaudhuri, Datta & Majumdar
Please let me know about other good books on Indian history.
04 January 2011
The Greatest Men/Leaders of the 20th Century
Who were the greatest men/leaders of the 20th century? For better or worse, these were the men who shaped the world of the 20th century:
1. Vladimir Lenin
2. Adolf Hitler
3. Winston Churchill
4. Franklin Roosevelt
5. Joseph Stalin
6. Mohandas Gandhi
7. Vallabhbhai Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru
8. Mao Zedong
9. Deng Xiaoping
10. Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan
1. Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924)
- For creating a new political and economic system, and imposing it over a sixth of the world's area.
- For creating a system that eventually covered a third of mankind, and lasted for seventy years.
2. Adolf Hitler (1889–1945)
- For starting the most destructive war in human history.
- For taking hatred, cruelty and barbarism to depths never seen before.
3. Winston Churchill (1874–1965)
- For standing alone in the war against Fascism.
- For his inspiring leadership of his country in the fight against Fascism.
4. Franklin Roosevelt (1882–1945)
- For his courageous leadership of the fight against Fascism.
- For saving capitalism and economic freedom from the Great Depression.
5. Joseph Stalin (1878–1953)
- For defeating Fascism with his brave and patriotic people.
- For turning his country into an industrial giant and the world's second superpower.
6. Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948)
- For defeating the world's largest empire, and freeing the world's second largest country.
- For his saintly leadership of history's only non-violent freedom struggle.
7. Vallabhbhai Patel (1875–1950) and Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964)
- For uniting the world's second largest country from 565 pieces.
- For helping it survive as a united, stable and peaceful democracy.
8. Mao Zedong (1893–1976)
- For bringing the world's largest country under Communism.
- For being the supreme leader of a fifth of mankind for thirty years.
9. Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997)
- For bringing a fifth of humanity into the Modern Age.
- For building the second most powerful nation in the world.
10. Mikhail Gorbachev (1931– ) and Ronald Reagan (1911–2004)
- For ending the Cold War with their vision and statesmanship.
- For bringing an end to Communism with his glasnost and perestroika.
Here is TIME magazine's list of the 20th century's "greatest leaders and revolutionaries".
1. Vladimir Lenin
2. Adolf Hitler
3. Winston Churchill
4. Franklin Roosevelt
5. Joseph Stalin
6. Mohandas Gandhi
7. Vallabhbhai Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru
8. Mao Zedong
9. Deng Xiaoping
10. Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan
1. Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924)
- For creating a new political and economic system, and imposing it over a sixth of the world's area.
- For creating a system that eventually covered a third of mankind, and lasted for seventy years.
2. Adolf Hitler (1889–1945)
- For starting the most destructive war in human history.
- For taking hatred, cruelty and barbarism to depths never seen before.
3. Winston Churchill (1874–1965)
- For standing alone in the war against Fascism.
- For his inspiring leadership of his country in the fight against Fascism.
4. Franklin Roosevelt (1882–1945)
- For his courageous leadership of the fight against Fascism.
- For saving capitalism and economic freedom from the Great Depression.
5. Joseph Stalin (1878–1953)
- For defeating Fascism with his brave and patriotic people.
- For turning his country into an industrial giant and the world's second superpower.
6. Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948)
- For defeating the world's largest empire, and freeing the world's second largest country.
- For his saintly leadership of history's only non-violent freedom struggle.
7. Vallabhbhai Patel (1875–1950) and Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964)
- For uniting the world's second largest country from 565 pieces.
- For helping it survive as a united, stable and peaceful democracy.
8. Mao Zedong (1893–1976)
- For bringing the world's largest country under Communism.
- For being the supreme leader of a fifth of mankind for thirty years.
9. Deng Xiaoping (1904–1997)
- For bringing a fifth of humanity into the Modern Age.
- For building the second most powerful nation in the world.
10. Mikhail Gorbachev (1931– ) and Ronald Reagan (1911–2004)
- For ending the Cold War with their vision and statesmanship.
- For bringing an end to Communism with his glasnost and perestroika.
Here is TIME magazine's list of the 20th century's "greatest leaders and revolutionaries".
03 January 2011
Eric Hobsbawm: History of the Modern World
British historian Eric Hobsbawm has written a two-part (four-volume) history of the modern world:
A. 19th century
1. Age of Revolution: 1789–1848
2. Age of Capital: 1848–1875
3. Age of Empire: 1875–1914
B. 20th century
4. Age of Extremes: 1914–1991
Special thanks to Pub (Deepak B) for lending me these books.
A. 19th century
1. Age of Revolution: 1789–1848
2. Age of Capital: 1848–1875
3. Age of Empire: 1875–1914
B. 20th century
4. Age of Extremes: 1914–1991
Special thanks to Pub (Deepak B) for lending me these books.
20 December 2010
Modern Technology, Economic, Political and Social Systems
Reference: Modernity - The Modern or Industrial Age
*By technology I mean the production system.
| System | ||
| Technology* | ||
| Economic system | ||
| Political system | ||
| Social system |
*By technology I mean the production system.
13 December 2010
The Techno-Economic Foundation of Society
Reference: "Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture"
1. Human society has, broadly speaking, five main aspects:
a) Society itself (the social system)
b) Technology
c) Economy
d) Politics
e) Culture
2. The nature of the society is determined by the technology and the economy.
3. Politics and culture are determined by the society, the economy and the technology.
This can be illustrated as:
Where:
4. Politics and culture form the top layer.
5. Society forms the middle layer (or the core).
6. Technology and economy form the bottom layer.
In other words,
7. Technology and economy determine the nature of the society.
8. Technology, economy and society determine politics and culture.
That is,
9. Technology and economy form the foundation of society.
10. Or, we can say that society has a techno-economic foundation.
See Karl Marx's base-superstructure theory.
1. Human society has, broadly speaking, five main aspects:
a) Society itself (the social system)
b) Technology
c) Economy
d) Politics
e) Culture
2. The nature of the society is determined by the technology and the economy.
3. Politics and culture are determined by the society, the economy and the technology.
This can be illustrated as:
Where:4. Politics and culture form the top layer.
5. Society forms the middle layer (or the core).
6. Technology and economy form the bottom layer.
In other words,
7. Technology and economy determine the nature of the society.
8. Technology, economy and society determine politics and culture.
That is,
9. Technology and economy form the foundation of society.
10. Or, we can say that society has a techno-economic foundation.
See Karl Marx's base-superstructure theory.
07 December 2010
India, the Caste System, and the Urban Middle Class
1. The caste system is bad/evil.
2. The caste system is backward (medieval/feudal).
These two statements sum up the views of (urban) middle class Indians about the caste system. Other adjectives like 'shocking', 'disgraceful' and 'shameful' can also be used.
The central truth about India's urban middle class (especially its upper caste Hindus) vis-a-vis the caste system is the deep sense of shame and guilt it has about the latter. And the most profound effect of this shame and guilt is the state of denial it has produced among them. (Urban) middle class Indians believe:
3. "The caste system does not exist."
4. "Even if the caste system exists, it is not important."
1 and 2 are correct. 3 and 4 are wrong. But 1 and 2 do not imply 3 and 4. The caste system does exist. And it is important.
But in a limited sense, the (urban) middle class is right. Caste does not exist in their world. Firstly, they go to school/college, play, study, make friends, work, eat and drink freely with people of other castes – regardless of "higher" or "lower" caste. Sometimes they even marry outside their caste. Secondly, they also see all people as equals ("equal in the eyes of God and the law"). They don't judge people by their birth, but instead by their qualities (character, honesty, hard work, manners, etc). On both these counts they are correct.
But it is one thing to say that caste doesn't matter to you, and another thing to say that caste doesn't matter to the country. The urban middle class makes up only 5% of India. But the majority of the country is rural and agricultural (70%). And here, caste doesn't merely exist; it is everything.
If you are born in a village, your caste decides what work you do, who you play, study, make friends, eat and drink with. It also decided which candidate or party you vote for. Therefore, the caste system does exist. And it is important.
Then what is the solution? The solution is not to pretend that caste doesn't exist, or that it is not important. The solution is to confront it, understand it and come to terms with it. Trying to understand something doesn't mean one is trying to justify or defend it. And understanding the caste system is a must if we want to understand India completely. Especially if we are interested in the problems of rural India – where caste is the dominant reality.
The caste system is deeply unequal and unjust. Some of its worst excesses – like untouchability – are cruel and inhuman. Nobody can justify or defend this system. But just as nothing is completely good, nothing is completely evil either. The caste system was a social system that evolved under certain conditions to meet certain needs. With all its failings and drawbacks, we must remember a few things:
1. The caste system helped the Indian civilisation to survive for 5000 years. (Where are Sumeria and ancient Egypt today?)
2. It helped India to survive 2500 years of foreign invasions – including 1000 years of foreign rule. (Where are Persia and Babylonia today?)
3. It maintained social order, stability and peace. India is perhaps the only major country never to have had a social revolution (France/Europe 1789, Russia 1917, China 1949) or a civil war (America 1861).
4. It preserved our culture and our way of life. (Where are ancient Greece and the Roman Empire today?)
5. Most importantly, the worst excesses of the caste system began during – and due to – the period of foreign rule: Turkish, Mughal and British.
In conclusion, caste was the social system of an agricultural society (as against an industrial society). The caste system has served its purpose. It has now reached its expiry date. As India industrialises and urbanises, the caste system will fade and eventually disappear.
The paradox is: How did such a liberal and tolerant way of life as Hinduism produce such an unjust and unequal social system?
2. The caste system is backward (medieval/feudal).
These two statements sum up the views of (urban) middle class Indians about the caste system. Other adjectives like 'shocking', 'disgraceful' and 'shameful' can also be used.
The central truth about India's urban middle class (especially its upper caste Hindus) vis-a-vis the caste system is the deep sense of shame and guilt it has about the latter. And the most profound effect of this shame and guilt is the state of denial it has produced among them. (Urban) middle class Indians believe:
3. "The caste system does not exist."
4. "Even if the caste system exists, it is not important."
1 and 2 are correct. 3 and 4 are wrong. But 1 and 2 do not imply 3 and 4. The caste system does exist. And it is important.
But in a limited sense, the (urban) middle class is right. Caste does not exist in their world. Firstly, they go to school/college, play, study, make friends, work, eat and drink freely with people of other castes – regardless of "higher" or "lower" caste. Sometimes they even marry outside their caste. Secondly, they also see all people as equals ("equal in the eyes of God and the law"). They don't judge people by their birth, but instead by their qualities (character, honesty, hard work, manners, etc). On both these counts they are correct.
But it is one thing to say that caste doesn't matter to you, and another thing to say that caste doesn't matter to the country. The urban middle class makes up only 5% of India. But the majority of the country is rural and agricultural (70%). And here, caste doesn't merely exist; it is everything.
If you are born in a village, your caste decides what work you do, who you play, study, make friends, eat and drink with. It also decided which candidate or party you vote for. Therefore, the caste system does exist. And it is important.
Then what is the solution? The solution is not to pretend that caste doesn't exist, or that it is not important. The solution is to confront it, understand it and come to terms with it. Trying to understand something doesn't mean one is trying to justify or defend it. And understanding the caste system is a must if we want to understand India completely. Especially if we are interested in the problems of rural India – where caste is the dominant reality.
The caste system is deeply unequal and unjust. Some of its worst excesses – like untouchability – are cruel and inhuman. Nobody can justify or defend this system. But just as nothing is completely good, nothing is completely evil either. The caste system was a social system that evolved under certain conditions to meet certain needs. With all its failings and drawbacks, we must remember a few things:
1. The caste system helped the Indian civilisation to survive for 5000 years. (Where are Sumeria and ancient Egypt today?)
2. It helped India to survive 2500 years of foreign invasions – including 1000 years of foreign rule. (Where are Persia and Babylonia today?)
3. It maintained social order, stability and peace. India is perhaps the only major country never to have had a social revolution (France/Europe 1789, Russia 1917, China 1949) or a civil war (America 1861).
4. It preserved our culture and our way of life. (Where are ancient Greece and the Roman Empire today?)
5. Most importantly, the worst excesses of the caste system began during – and due to – the period of foreign rule: Turkish, Mughal and British.
In conclusion, caste was the social system of an agricultural society (as against an industrial society). The caste system has served its purpose. It has now reached its expiry date. As India industrialises and urbanises, the caste system will fade and eventually disappear.
The paradox is: How did such a liberal and tolerant way of life as Hinduism produce such an unjust and unequal social system?
05 December 2010
Society, Social System and Social Groups
Q: What is society?
A: Society is a group of people living together.
(This is the simplest/crudest possible definition)
How did society begin? What was society like in the beginning?
Initially man was a hunter-gatherer. He lived in small groups and always kept moving around, looking for food. So initially there was only one task or role: hunting and gathering (or at most two: men hunters and women gatherers). This situation continued for most of man's 2,00,000 years of existence.
Then, 12000 years ago (in 10,000 BC) man invented agriculture. He could now produce food. This brought about three revolutionary changes. One, he could now produce food in one place, instead of moving around all the time. So he started living in one place. Thus villages were born. Two, he could now produce food in a large quantity. So the group no longer needed to be small; it could now be big. Thus the size of the group (that is, village) increased. Three, the new system of food production was efficient. That is, if n people needed to be fed (the size of the group), all the n people did not need to work in food production. Only m (<n) people needed to produce food. The remaining n–m people could do other work. Thus other work (non-food-production) became possible. It also became necessary.
Because, as the size of the group increased, other tasks/roles became necessary. The group had to be defended from the attacks of other groups. The people also had to settle disputes that arose within the group. Meanwhile, man was at the mercy of the forces of nature, and he tried to placate these forces. He started seeing these forces as living beings (that is, gods) and worshipping them. Thus religion was born. These religious activities had to be carried out. Also, as man gained knowledge about the world, this knowledge had to be given to the next generation. Thus two new tasks – defence-law&order and religion-education – were born. The people who handled these tasks were the warriors and priests respectively.
So society now consisted of three groups: priests, warriors and the common people (engaged in food production). Even food production became split into two tasks: owning the land and running the activity, and actually doing the work. So the common people were now split into two groups: farmers and labourers. Thus society now consisted of four groups: priests, warriors, farmers and labourers.
Other things than food also needed to be produced: clothing, houses, tools, etc. The people who made these – the artisans – were manual workers, like the farm labourers. Thus non-food-production activities increased, and the people engaged in these activities also increased. For the sake of efficiency, these non-food-producers started concentrating in a few villages, which became larger. Thus were cities born. And also civilisation (from Latin 'civitas' = "city"). A region now consisted of many villages and a few cities. The different cities and villages started producing different goods, and exchanging them with the goods produced by other cities and villages. Thus was trade born. The people who carried out this activity – the merchants – were wealth creators, like the farmers.
Thus society was now divided into four groups: priests-scholars, warriors-rulers, farmers-merchants and labourers-artisans. (In ancient India they were called Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras respectively.)
CONCLUSION:
1. As society became more complex, the number of tasks/roles increased.
2. Efficiency can be achieved by division of labour and specialisation.
3. So each task/role was assigned to a different group, and each group performed its own task/role.
4. Thus society was divided into different functional groups, and these functional groups made up society.
Therefore society can be seen as a system that consists of different (functional) groups. And these groups form the units of the social system.
Thus 'society' is not a single homogeneous entity. Society (and civilisation) is all about complexity, division of labour and specialisation. Society is made up of social groups. Wishing that these different groups did not exist is as good as wishing that society itself (that is, civilisation) did not exist.
My earlier post on the Varna system had talked about this in brief.
A: Society is a group of people living together.
(This is the simplest/crudest possible definition)
How did society begin? What was society like in the beginning?
Initially man was a hunter-gatherer. He lived in small groups and always kept moving around, looking for food. So initially there was only one task or role: hunting and gathering (or at most two: men hunters and women gatherers). This situation continued for most of man's 2,00,000 years of existence.
Then, 12000 years ago (in 10,000 BC) man invented agriculture. He could now produce food. This brought about three revolutionary changes. One, he could now produce food in one place, instead of moving around all the time. So he started living in one place. Thus villages were born. Two, he could now produce food in a large quantity. So the group no longer needed to be small; it could now be big. Thus the size of the group (that is, village) increased. Three, the new system of food production was efficient. That is, if n people needed to be fed (the size of the group), all the n people did not need to work in food production. Only m (<n) people needed to produce food. The remaining n–m people could do other work. Thus other work (non-food-production) became possible. It also became necessary.
Because, as the size of the group increased, other tasks/roles became necessary. The group had to be defended from the attacks of other groups. The people also had to settle disputes that arose within the group. Meanwhile, man was at the mercy of the forces of nature, and he tried to placate these forces. He started seeing these forces as living beings (that is, gods) and worshipping them. Thus religion was born. These religious activities had to be carried out. Also, as man gained knowledge about the world, this knowledge had to be given to the next generation. Thus two new tasks – defence-law&order and religion-education – were born. The people who handled these tasks were the warriors and priests respectively.
So society now consisted of three groups: priests, warriors and the common people (engaged in food production). Even food production became split into two tasks: owning the land and running the activity, and actually doing the work. So the common people were now split into two groups: farmers and labourers. Thus society now consisted of four groups: priests, warriors, farmers and labourers.
Other things than food also needed to be produced: clothing, houses, tools, etc. The people who made these – the artisans – were manual workers, like the farm labourers. Thus non-food-production activities increased, and the people engaged in these activities also increased. For the sake of efficiency, these non-food-producers started concentrating in a few villages, which became larger. Thus were cities born. And also civilisation (from Latin 'civitas' = "city"). A region now consisted of many villages and a few cities. The different cities and villages started producing different goods, and exchanging them with the goods produced by other cities and villages. Thus was trade born. The people who carried out this activity – the merchants – were wealth creators, like the farmers.
Thus society was now divided into four groups: priests-scholars, warriors-rulers, farmers-merchants and labourers-artisans. (In ancient India they were called Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras respectively.)
CONCLUSION:
1. As society became more complex, the number of tasks/roles increased.
2. Efficiency can be achieved by division of labour and specialisation.
3. So each task/role was assigned to a different group, and each group performed its own task/role.
4. Thus society was divided into different functional groups, and these functional groups made up society.
Therefore society can be seen as a system that consists of different (functional) groups. And these groups form the units of the social system.
Thus 'society' is not a single homogeneous entity. Society (and civilisation) is all about complexity, division of labour and specialisation. Society is made up of social groups. Wishing that these different groups did not exist is as good as wishing that society itself (that is, civilisation) did not exist.
My earlier post on the Varna system had talked about this in brief.
28 November 2010
Agriculture and Rural Development (ARD) in India
We have seen how agriculture and rural development are both essential for the industrialisation of India. In fact they are closely linked to each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Instead of talking about "agriculture" and "rural development" as two separate entities, it makes sense to talk about them as one entity: "agriculture and rural development" (ARD).
27 November 2010
The Importance of Rural Development in India
Development/industrialisation is accompanied by urbanisation. So we should focus on urban development, not rural development. Right? Wrong!
1. Improving agriculture is a must for industrialisation. Agriculture is carried on in villages, so rural development is needed to improve agriculture.
2. Industry needs a literate labour force. But most of the people live in villages (70% in India). So rural development is needed to increase the education level of the majority of the population.
3. Finally, rural development is needed to reduce the migration of people from villages to cities. The current rate of rural-to-urban migration in India is unsustainable. It is much more than the rate at which industrial jobs and urban infrastructure are growing. So rural development is a must to slow down the rural-to-urban migration.
Here is another argument for rural development (based on the factors of production).
1. Improving agriculture is a must for industrialisation. Agriculture is carried on in villages, so rural development is needed to improve agriculture.
2. Industry needs a literate labour force. But most of the people live in villages (70% in India). So rural development is needed to increase the education level of the majority of the population.
3. Finally, rural development is needed to reduce the migration of people from villages to cities. The current rate of rural-to-urban migration in India is unsustainable. It is much more than the rate at which industrial jobs and urban infrastructure are growing. So rural development is a must to slow down the rural-to-urban migration.
Here is another argument for rural development (based on the factors of production).
26 November 2010
Agriculture and Industrialisation in India
Earlier I had said that development of agriculture is a pre-requisite for industrialisation. Let us look at this claim in more detail.
What are the requirements of industry?
1. Capital
2. Labour
3. Market
1. Capital: Improvement of agriculture increases output and thus creates the capital needed for industries. This is particularly important in the initial stages of industrialisation, when the industrial sector is small and the economy is pre-dominantly agricultural.
2. Labour: Industry needs literate workers unlike agriculture, which can manage with illiterate labourers. In an agricultural country, a vast majority of people are illiterate (40 crore in India). Education depends on income. So to turn the illiterate agricultural labourers into literate workers for industry, we must first increase their incomes. That is, we must increase the productivity of agriculture (Wage = marginal productivity of labour).
3. Market: The purchasing power of people must be increased so that they can buy the products made by industry. Most of the people are employed in agriculture (50% in India today). Hence we must increase agricultural incomes by improving agricultural productivity.
One can argue that requirements 1 and 3 are not absolute. Capital can be got from other countries (foreign investment). Goods can also be sold in other countries (exports).
But requirement 2 still remains. If nothing else, agriculture must be improved to raise the income, education and health of the majority of the people – who work in the agricultural sector. By the way, this is not just to make people eligible workers for industry. This is also why we are industrialising in the first place. In other words: health, education and income are both the ends and the means of development/industrialisation.
That is why development of agriculture is a must for India to industrialise.
What are the requirements of industry?
1. Capital
2. Labour
3. Market
1. Capital: Improvement of agriculture increases output and thus creates the capital needed for industries. This is particularly important in the initial stages of industrialisation, when the industrial sector is small and the economy is pre-dominantly agricultural.
2. Labour: Industry needs literate workers unlike agriculture, which can manage with illiterate labourers. In an agricultural country, a vast majority of people are illiterate (40 crore in India). Education depends on income. So to turn the illiterate agricultural labourers into literate workers for industry, we must first increase their incomes. That is, we must increase the productivity of agriculture (Wage = marginal productivity of labour).
3. Market: The purchasing power of people must be increased so that they can buy the products made by industry. Most of the people are employed in agriculture (50% in India today). Hence we must increase agricultural incomes by improving agricultural productivity.
One can argue that requirements 1 and 3 are not absolute. Capital can be got from other countries (foreign investment). Goods can also be sold in other countries (exports).
But requirement 2 still remains. If nothing else, agriculture must be improved to raise the income, education and health of the majority of the people – who work in the agricultural sector. By the way, this is not just to make people eligible workers for industry. This is also why we are industrialising in the first place. In other words: health, education and income are both the ends and the means of development/industrialisation.
That is why development of agriculture is a must for India to industrialise.
21 November 2010
India's Role in the Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution happened in Britain during 1775–1850. It gave birth to modern industry – a new system of production based on machines and factories. For the Industrial Revolution to happen, three things were needed:
1. Capital – to build the machines and factories
2. Raw materials – to produce the goods in the factories
3. Market – to sell the manufactured goods
All three were needed in large amounts for the Industrial Revolution to kick off:
1. Capital: After the Industrial Revolution started, the huge profits it generated could provide the capital for further industrialisation. That is, the process could become self-sustaining. But how was the process to begin in the first place? Where could such a large amount of money be got from?
2. Raw materials: The Industrial Revolution needed vast amounts of raw materials at cheap prices. Where were they to be got from?
3. Market: Finally, a vast captive market was needed to sell the manufactured goods at a handsome profit. Where was it to be found?
The first country to answer these three questions would be the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. In the second half of the 18th century, one country did find the answer to these three questions: Britain. And its answer was India.
On 23 June 1757, the English East India Company defeated Siraj-ud-Daula, the Nawab of Bengal, in the Battle of Plassey. The British thus became masters of east India (Bengal, Bihar, Orissa) – a prosperous region with a flourishing agriculture, industry and trade.
The East India Company started collecting revenue from this region and sending it to Britain. This provided the capital. It also started seizing raw cotton from the cotton farmers and sending it to Britain. This provided the raw material. Finally, it brought the manufactured textiles from Britain into India – without any duties or tariffs – and sold them here. This was their free market.
Thus India provided all the three ingredients of Britain's Industrial Revolution: capital, raw materials and market.
It is not a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution began less than 20 years after the British conquest of east India. Nor is it a coincidence that the engine of Britain's Industrial Revolution was its textile industry. Before the Industrial Revolution, India was the world's number one textile manufacturer and exporter. When you have conquered a country, what better industry to enter and dominate, than the industry dominated by the country you now rule – and whose economy you now control?
Subsequently, of course, Britain conquered the whole of India, thus giving it more capital, more raw materials and a larger market – which helped to accelerate its Industrial Revolution. Needless to say, India's economy was devastated in this process.
Thus the Industrial Revolution was built on the grave of the Indian economy. The Industrial Revolution was made in Britain, but it was funded by India (against her will).
The Industrial Revolution gave birth to the Industrial Age, or the Modern Age. Thus, though the Modern Age was inaugurated in Britain, the real driving force behind it was India.
That was the role of India in the Industrial Revolution (and consequently, the birth of the Modern Age).
Thus Britain did not "make India modern". The truth is the other way around. It was India that helped Britain to become modern.
1. Capital – to build the machines and factories
2. Raw materials – to produce the goods in the factories
3. Market – to sell the manufactured goods
All three were needed in large amounts for the Industrial Revolution to kick off:
1. Capital: After the Industrial Revolution started, the huge profits it generated could provide the capital for further industrialisation. That is, the process could become self-sustaining. But how was the process to begin in the first place? Where could such a large amount of money be got from?
2. Raw materials: The Industrial Revolution needed vast amounts of raw materials at cheap prices. Where were they to be got from?
3. Market: Finally, a vast captive market was needed to sell the manufactured goods at a handsome profit. Where was it to be found?
The first country to answer these three questions would be the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. In the second half of the 18th century, one country did find the answer to these three questions: Britain. And its answer was India.
On 23 June 1757, the English East India Company defeated Siraj-ud-Daula, the Nawab of Bengal, in the Battle of Plassey. The British thus became masters of east India (Bengal, Bihar, Orissa) – a prosperous region with a flourishing agriculture, industry and trade.
The East India Company started collecting revenue from this region and sending it to Britain. This provided the capital. It also started seizing raw cotton from the cotton farmers and sending it to Britain. This provided the raw material. Finally, it brought the manufactured textiles from Britain into India – without any duties or tariffs – and sold them here. This was their free market.
Thus India provided all the three ingredients of Britain's Industrial Revolution: capital, raw materials and market.
It is not a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution began less than 20 years after the British conquest of east India. Nor is it a coincidence that the engine of Britain's Industrial Revolution was its textile industry. Before the Industrial Revolution, India was the world's number one textile manufacturer and exporter. When you have conquered a country, what better industry to enter and dominate, than the industry dominated by the country you now rule – and whose economy you now control?
Subsequently, of course, Britain conquered the whole of India, thus giving it more capital, more raw materials and a larger market – which helped to accelerate its Industrial Revolution. Needless to say, India's economy was devastated in this process.
Thus the Industrial Revolution was built on the grave of the Indian economy. The Industrial Revolution was made in Britain, but it was funded by India (against her will).
The Industrial Revolution gave birth to the Industrial Age, or the Modern Age. Thus, though the Modern Age was inaugurated in Britain, the real driving force behind it was India.
That was the role of India in the Industrial Revolution (and consequently, the birth of the Modern Age).
Thus Britain did not "make India modern". The truth is the other way around. It was India that helped Britain to become modern.
15 November 2010
Mr Rahul Gandhi's Education (and Report Card)
Q: What is Rahul Gandhi's education?
A: He did his M.Phil in Development Studies at Trinity College (Cambridge University) in 2005.
Here is his report card:
A: He did his M.Phil in Development Studies at Trinity College (Cambridge University) in 2005.
Here is his report card:
| Subject | Marks |
| Development Economics | 65% |
| Institutions and Development | 62% |
| International Economic Integration | 66% |
| National Economic Planning and Policy | 58% |
14 November 2010
The Importance of Studying History
Q: What is history?
A: History is the study of man's past.
Right? Wrong!
History is NOT the study of the past.
History is the study of the present.
It is the study of how the present has evolved from the past.
The past is not the end of history. It is only the means.
The end of history is the present.
By knowing the past, we can understand the present.
History is also the study of the future. If we know how the present has evolved from the past, we can also know how the future will evolve from the present.
That is why we must study history.
Not to know the past.
But to understand the present.
And to anticipate the future.
That is the importance of studying history.
A: History is the study of man's past.
Right? Wrong!
History is NOT the study of the past.
History is the study of the present.
It is the study of how the present has evolved from the past.
The past is not the end of history. It is only the means.
The end of history is the present.
By knowing the past, we can understand the present.
History is also the study of the future. If we know how the present has evolved from the past, we can also know how the future will evolve from the present.
That is why we must study history.
Not to know the past.
But to understand the present.
And to anticipate the future.
That is the importance of studying history.
12 November 2010
The Three Periods/Stages of India's History
India's history can be divided into three periods or stages:
| Period | |||
| . | |||
| 1. 3000 BC – 712 AD | |||
| . | |||
| 2. 712 AD – 1947 AD | |||
| . | |||
| 3. 1947 AD – today |
18 October 2010
The Modernisation of India
Modernisation is industrialisation (accompanied by urbanisation). So after Independence, Nehru embarked on an ambitious program of industrialisation, to make India a developed country. He (and we) failed miserably. 63 years after Independence we are still a developing country. What went wrong with the modernisation of India?
To find the answer, we looked at India's economic history in more detail. We studied the science of industrialisation – development economics. And we looked at the success of the East Asian countries.
We found that all these different sources give us the same answer. To modernise/industrialise successfully, a country must focus on three key areas:
1. Agriculture
2. Rural Development
3. Primary Education
Modernisation may be industrialisation, but a country can't industrialise straightaway. There are some essential pre-conditions to be met. Industrialisation can begin (and be sustained) only if people have a certain minimum level of education, health and income. For this we must first increase the productivity of agriculture, as a majority of the population works in the agricultural sector. This can happen only if we provide basic infrastructure (schools, clinics, roads, water, electricity) in villages. Finally, basic literacy and numeracy are a must for industry; so every person must have these skills.
Thus, agriculture, rural development and primary education are the pre-requisites for modernisation/industrialisation.
This is a counter-intuitive answer: to industrialise and urbanise, we must work on agriculture and rural development.
To find the answer, we looked at India's economic history in more detail. We studied the science of industrialisation – development economics. And we looked at the success of the East Asian countries.
We found that all these different sources give us the same answer. To modernise/industrialise successfully, a country must focus on three key areas:
1. Agriculture
2. Rural Development
3. Primary Education
Modernisation may be industrialisation, but a country can't industrialise straightaway. There are some essential pre-conditions to be met. Industrialisation can begin (and be sustained) only if people have a certain minimum level of education, health and income. For this we must first increase the productivity of agriculture, as a majority of the population works in the agricultural sector. This can happen only if we provide basic infrastructure (schools, clinics, roads, water, electricity) in villages. Finally, basic literacy and numeracy are a must for industry; so every person must have these skills.
Thus, agriculture, rural development and primary education are the pre-requisites for modernisation/industrialisation.
This is a counter-intuitive answer: to industrialise and urbanise, we must work on agriculture and rural development.
16 September 2010
Development Economics
Q: What is economics?
A: Economics is the science of how man satisfies his wants. More formally, it is the science of how man produces goods and services, and distributes them.
This is the standard definition of economics. But is it correct?
Economics was born when Adam Smith wrote "The Wealth of Nations" in 1776. This coincided almost exactly with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1775–1850). The Industrial Revolution was the second great Revolution in human history, after the invention of agriculture in 10,000 BC. It marked the end of the Agricultural Age and the beginning of the Industrial Age (Modern Age).
The science of economics developed as the Industrial Revolution progressed. The development of economics paralleled (kept pace with) the industrialisation of the West. This is an important point, so obvious that it is overlooked. Economics is a modern/industrial science; it is a science of the Modern/Industrial Age.
Thus economics is not merely the science of the production and distribution of goods and services. It is the science of how goods and services are produced and distributed in a modern/industrial economy.
What difference does it make?, you might ask. There are two differences:
1. Economics is built on certain assumptions that are true in an industrial economy – like perfect markets, perfect information, perfect competition. But these assumptions are not true in an agricultural economy.
2. Economics deals with industrial economies. It doesn't tell agricultural economies how to industrialise. In other words, economics analyses a steady state. It doesn't tell us how to attain that steady state.
This is classical or traditional economics – the stuff we study in any economics book.
Till World War 2 economists looked only at the industrialised parts of the world: Europe, USA, Japan. It was only after World War 2 that they started looking at the majority of the world that was still agricultural/industrialising. Thus was born a new branch of economics – development economics (or growth economics) – to:
1. Deal with agricultural economies, with their imperfect markets, imperfect information, imperfect competition (deviations from the assumptions of classical economics).
2. Tell us how agricultural economies can/should industrialise*.
Development economics is a vast and diverse field. It deals with topics as widespread as poverty, inequality, population growth, education, health, agriculture, industry, urbanisation, environment, etc. Thousands of papers are published every year in technical journals. But because the subject is so new, vast and diverse, there are very few books that give a comprehensive introduction to it.
The few good books are:
1. Economic Growth (2009) – David Weil
2. Economic Development (2003) – Todaro & Smith
3. Development Economics (1998) – Debraj Ray
(I recommend reading them in this order)
Robert Lucas, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1995, said about development economics:
"The consequences for human welfare involved in questions like these are staggering. Once you start thinking about them, it is very hard to think about anything else."
Amen.
*This is why growth/development economics is the nearest thing we have to a "science of industrialisation/modernisation".
15 September 2010
Education, Health and Infrastructure in India
In the previous post we identified the key ingredients of economic growth and development. The first/top three are:
1. Education
2. Health
3. Infrastructure
Education-health-infrastructure (E-H-I) – this is the "mantra" for development according to the current discourse in books, newspapers and magazines. Sounds like common sense, doesn't it? Well, not exactly.
It turns out this "common sense" (E-H-I) is a specific school of thought in development economics – the "market-friendly" school. And the market-friendly school/approach in turn is a branch of a broader school of thought – the "neo-classical revolution" of the 1990s.
Anyway, if we accept the E-H-I formula, the questions arises: E-H-I for whom? and where? The discussion/debate on economic policies in India takes place mainly in the English-language media (ELM). This ELM is by and for the middle class of the metros – the metro middle class (MMC). Now the "India" of the ELM and MMC consists of just the 8 metros. So when the ELM says "E-H-I", what it really means is E-H-I for the metros.
So "education" means more IITs and IIMs. "Health" means more super-speciality hospitals. And "infrastructure" means more international airports. This is what education, health and infrastructure mean to the MMC and its mouthpiece, the ELM.
But the metros account for only 7% of India's population. The vast majority of India – 70% – lives in villages. So that is where we must focus. Thus "education" means not more IITs and IIMs, but more primary schools in villages. "Health" means not more super-speciality hospitals, but more clinics in villages. And "infrastructure" means not more international airports – but drinking water, sanitation, roads and electricity for India's 6,00,000 villages.
All this is nothing but rural development.
1. Education
2. Health
3. Infrastructure
Education-health-infrastructure (E-H-I) – this is the "mantra" for development according to the current discourse in books, newspapers and magazines. Sounds like common sense, doesn't it? Well, not exactly.
It turns out this "common sense" (E-H-I) is a specific school of thought in development economics – the "market-friendly" school. And the market-friendly school/approach in turn is a branch of a broader school of thought – the "neo-classical revolution" of the 1990s.
Anyway, if we accept the E-H-I formula, the questions arises: E-H-I for whom? and where? The discussion/debate on economic policies in India takes place mainly in the English-language media (ELM). This ELM is by and for the middle class of the metros – the metro middle class (MMC). Now the "India" of the ELM and MMC consists of just the 8 metros. So when the ELM says "E-H-I", what it really means is E-H-I for the metros.
So "education" means more IITs and IIMs. "Health" means more super-speciality hospitals. And "infrastructure" means more international airports. This is what education, health and infrastructure mean to the MMC and its mouthpiece, the ELM.
But the metros account for only 7% of India's population. The vast majority of India – 70% – lives in villages. So that is where we must focus. Thus "education" means not more IITs and IIMs, but more primary schools in villages. "Health" means not more super-speciality hospitals, but more clinics in villages. And "infrastructure" means not more international airports – but drinking water, sanitation, roads and electricity for India's 6,00,000 villages.
All this is nothing but rural development.
14 September 2010
The Secret of Economic Growth and Development
What is the secret of economic growth and development?*
Wealth is created when certain inputs are combined to produce some useful/valuable output. These inputs, or factors of production, are:
1. Land – Natural resources (soil, water, sunlight, coal, iron ore, etc)
2. Labour – The human input of production
3. Capital – Physical inputs of production (ploughs, tractors, computers, etc)
To increase the wealth created, we must increase the amounts of the inputs. A country grows or develops economically when its factors of production increase. Let us look at each factor.
Land is more or less fixed, so we will ignore it.
Labour has two aspects – quantity and quality. Quantity has no effect on wealth – the increase in production due to more labour is cancelled out out by the increase in consumption. Quality of labour is determined mainly by two things: education and health. The more educated and healthier a worker, the more he/she produces.
Some capital is privately owned, like machines and factories. Some capital is publicly owned, like roads and electricity. Publicly owned capital is nothing but infrastructure, which is provided by the government. Privately owned capital is due to investment, which is funded by savings.
However factors of production by themselves are not everything. How effectively the factors of production are combined to produce output is also important. This effectiveness is called productivity.
Now productivity consists of two parts:
a) The knowledge of how to combine the factors of production.
b) The effectiveness with which this knowledge and the factors of production are combined.
(Yes, there is a little hair splitting here)
The first we call technology. The second we call efficiency.
Knowledge/technology is a result of research and development (R&D). Efficiency is an outcome of a country's economic policies and institutions.
We can thus summarise the determinants of economic growth:
A. Factors of Production
a) Labour
1. Education
2. Health
b) Capital
1. Infrastructure
2. Savings
B. Productivity
1. Knowledge
2. Efficiency
Or we can simply list the key requirements for economic development:
1. Education
2. Healthcare
3. Infrastructure
4. Savings
5. Knowledge
6. Efficiency
*This framework is from "Economic Growth" (2009) by David Weil.
Wealth is created when certain inputs are combined to produce some useful/valuable output. These inputs, or factors of production, are:
1. Land – Natural resources (soil, water, sunlight, coal, iron ore, etc)
2. Labour – The human input of production
3. Capital – Physical inputs of production (ploughs, tractors, computers, etc)
To increase the wealth created, we must increase the amounts of the inputs. A country grows or develops economically when its factors of production increase. Let us look at each factor.
Land is more or less fixed, so we will ignore it.
Labour has two aspects – quantity and quality. Quantity has no effect on wealth – the increase in production due to more labour is cancelled out out by the increase in consumption. Quality of labour is determined mainly by two things: education and health. The more educated and healthier a worker, the more he/she produces.
Some capital is privately owned, like machines and factories. Some capital is publicly owned, like roads and electricity. Publicly owned capital is nothing but infrastructure, which is provided by the government. Privately owned capital is due to investment, which is funded by savings.
However factors of production by themselves are not everything. How effectively the factors of production are combined to produce output is also important. This effectiveness is called productivity.
Now productivity consists of two parts:
a) The knowledge of how to combine the factors of production.
b) The effectiveness with which this knowledge and the factors of production are combined.
(Yes, there is a little hair splitting here)
The first we call technology. The second we call efficiency.
Knowledge/technology is a result of research and development (R&D). Efficiency is an outcome of a country's economic policies and institutions.
We can thus summarise the determinants of economic growth:
A. Factors of Production
a) Labour
1. Education
2. Health
b) Capital
1. Infrastructure
2. Savings
B. Productivity
1. Knowledge
2. Efficiency
Or we can simply list the key requirements for economic development:
1. Education
2. Healthcare
3. Infrastructure
4. Savings
5. Knowledge
6. Efficiency
*This framework is from "Economic Growth" (2009) by David Weil.
29 August 2010
Primary Education in the East Asian Miracle
From "The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy" (World Bank Report, 1993):
Creating Human Capital
In nearly all the rapidly growing East Asian economies, the growth and transformation of systems of education and training during the past three decades has been dramatic The quantity of education children received increased at the same time that the quality of schooling, and of training in the home, markedly improved. Today, the cognitive skill levels of secondary school graduates in some East Asian economies are comparable to, or higher than, those of graduates in high-income economies.
Enrollment rates are higher at higher levels of per capita income. But the HPAEs' enrollment rates have tended to be higher than predicted for their level of income. At the primary level, this was most obvious in 1965 when South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore had already achieved Universal Primary Education – well ahead of other developing economies. Even Indonesia with its vast population had a primary enrollment rate above 70%. By 1987, East Asia's superior education systems were evident at the secondary level. Indonesia had a secondary enrollment rate of 46%, well above other economies with roughly the same level of income, and Korea had moved from 35% to 88%, maintaining its large lead in relative performance. In part as a function of their success in increasing enrollment, the East Asian economies have also been faster to close the gap between male and female enrollments.
A common, though imperfect, measure of educational quality is expenditure per pupil. Between 1970 and 1989, real expenditure per pupil at the primary level rose by 355% in Korea. In Mexico and Kenya, expenditure rose by 64% and 38%, respectively, during the same period, and in Pakistan expenditure rose by only 13% between 1970 and 1985. These dramatic differences reflect mostly differential changes during the period in income growth and in the number of children entering schools, both of which favoured the East Asian economies. A somewhat better measure of school quality is the performance of children on tests of cognitive skills, standardised across economies. In the relatively few international comparisons available from such tests, East Asian children tend to perform better than children from other developing regions – and even, recently, better than children from high-income economies.
Creating Human Capital
In nearly all the rapidly growing East Asian economies, the growth and transformation of systems of education and training during the past three decades has been dramatic The quantity of education children received increased at the same time that the quality of schooling, and of training in the home, markedly improved. Today, the cognitive skill levels of secondary school graduates in some East Asian economies are comparable to, or higher than, those of graduates in high-income economies.
Enrollment rates are higher at higher levels of per capita income. But the HPAEs' enrollment rates have tended to be higher than predicted for their level of income. At the primary level, this was most obvious in 1965 when South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore had already achieved Universal Primary Education – well ahead of other developing economies. Even Indonesia with its vast population had a primary enrollment rate above 70%. By 1987, East Asia's superior education systems were evident at the secondary level. Indonesia had a secondary enrollment rate of 46%, well above other economies with roughly the same level of income, and Korea had moved from 35% to 88%, maintaining its large lead in relative performance. In part as a function of their success in increasing enrollment, the East Asian economies have also been faster to close the gap between male and female enrollments.
A common, though imperfect, measure of educational quality is expenditure per pupil. Between 1970 and 1989, real expenditure per pupil at the primary level rose by 355% in Korea. In Mexico and Kenya, expenditure rose by 64% and 38%, respectively, during the same period, and in Pakistan expenditure rose by only 13% between 1970 and 1985. These dramatic differences reflect mostly differential changes during the period in income growth and in the number of children entering schools, both of which favoured the East Asian economies. A somewhat better measure of school quality is the performance of children on tests of cognitive skills, standardised across economies. In the relatively few international comparisons available from such tests, East Asian children tend to perform better than children from other developing regions – and even, recently, better than children from high-income economies.
28 August 2010
Agriculture in the East Asia Miracle (Asian Tigers)
From "The East Asian Miracle: Economic Growth and Public Policy" (World Bank Report, 1993):
Introduction
East Asia has a remarkable record of high and sustained economic growth. From 1965 to 1990 the twenty-three economies of East Asia grew faster than all other regions of the world. Most of this achievement is attributable to seemingly miraculous growth in just eight economies: Japan; the "Four Tigers" – South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore; and the three newly industrialising economies (NIEs) of South East Asia – Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. These eight High Performing Asian economies (HPAEs) are the subject of this study.
Dynamic Agricultural Sectors
Typically, as an economy develops, agriculture's share of the economy declines. The six HPAEs with substantial agricultural sectors – Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Taiwan – have been making this transition more rapidly than other developing economies. But the decline in the relative importance of agriculture in the HPAEs is not because agriculture has lacked dynamism. Across developing regions, agriculture's share of output and employment has declined most and fastest where agricultural output and productivity have grown the most. From 1965 to 1988, growth in both agricultural output and agricultural productivity was higher in East Asia than in other regions. Many factors contributed to the success of agriculture in these economies. Land reform (notably in Korea and Taiwan), agricultural extension services, reasonably good infrastructure (especially in the former Japanese colonies), and heavy investments in rural areas (notably in Indonesia) all helped.
East Asian governments have actively supported agricultural research and extension services to speed diffusion of Green Revolution technologies. Their substantial investments in irrigation and other rural infrastructure hastened adoption of high-yielding varieties, new crops, and the use of manufactured inputs, such as fertiliser and equipment, to cultivate them. In Taiwan, during the 1950s, 45% of the growth of agriculture was due to rising productivity, much of which resulted from government programs.
Information on the allocation of public investment between rural and urban regions is limited, and it is difficult to make good comparisons among economies, but available data suggest that the HPAEs have allocated a larger share of their public investment to rural areas than did other low- and middle-income economies. Of critical importance in this respect has been the build-up of infrastructure – roads, bridges, transportation, electricity, water and sanitation. There has been a more even balance between rural and urban public investment in sanitation and water facilities in Indonesia, Korea and Thailand than in other developing economies. The data on rural electrification also suggest that the HPAEs with rural sectors have, on average, more effectively provided electricity to rural areas. Since the early 1980s, electricity has been universally available in the rural areas of Korea and Taiwan. Malaysia and Thailand have made great strides in rural electrification. Indonesia has not done as well, but even there the relative disparity between the urban and rural sectors is smaller than the disparity in economies with approximately the same per capita income (Bolivia and Liberia) or the same population (Brazil).
Equally important, however, were the typically low levels of direct and indirect taxation on agriculture in East Asia. During the past three decades, dozens of governments in other regions, eager to promote industrial growth, have funneled surpluses from agriculture to industry through taxes, food price controls, and pro-industry allocations of public investment. Less overtly, governments have favoured manufacturers, and hurt agriculture, by overvaluing currencies and protecting domestic industries that manufacture agricultural inputs and the goods purchased by rural households. The exchange rate that results from restrictions on manufactured imports reduces the domestic currency proceeds of agricultural exports. Industrial protection acts as a hidden tax on agriculture, raising the price of agricultural inputs to subsidise industry. Direct interventions include export taxes and price controls, while indirect interventions also take account of industrial protection policies and real exchange rate overvaluation. Both Korea and Malaysia have substantially lower taxation of the agricultural sector than the comparators, and in Korea the agricultural sector receives positive protection. Thailand's taxation of the agricultural sector was similar to South Asian levels in the 1960s and 1970s but fell in the 1980s while taxation in South Asia was rising.
Introduction
East Asia has a remarkable record of high and sustained economic growth. From 1965 to 1990 the twenty-three economies of East Asia grew faster than all other regions of the world. Most of this achievement is attributable to seemingly miraculous growth in just eight economies: Japan; the "Four Tigers" – South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore; and the three newly industrialising economies (NIEs) of South East Asia – Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. These eight High Performing Asian economies (HPAEs) are the subject of this study.
Dynamic Agricultural Sectors
Typically, as an economy develops, agriculture's share of the economy declines. The six HPAEs with substantial agricultural sectors – Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and Taiwan – have been making this transition more rapidly than other developing economies. But the decline in the relative importance of agriculture in the HPAEs is not because agriculture has lacked dynamism. Across developing regions, agriculture's share of output and employment has declined most and fastest where agricultural output and productivity have grown the most. From 1965 to 1988, growth in both agricultural output and agricultural productivity was higher in East Asia than in other regions. Many factors contributed to the success of agriculture in these economies. Land reform (notably in Korea and Taiwan), agricultural extension services, reasonably good infrastructure (especially in the former Japanese colonies), and heavy investments in rural areas (notably in Indonesia) all helped.
East Asian governments have actively supported agricultural research and extension services to speed diffusion of Green Revolution technologies. Their substantial investments in irrigation and other rural infrastructure hastened adoption of high-yielding varieties, new crops, and the use of manufactured inputs, such as fertiliser and equipment, to cultivate them. In Taiwan, during the 1950s, 45% of the growth of agriculture was due to rising productivity, much of which resulted from government programs.
Information on the allocation of public investment between rural and urban regions is limited, and it is difficult to make good comparisons among economies, but available data suggest that the HPAEs have allocated a larger share of their public investment to rural areas than did other low- and middle-income economies. Of critical importance in this respect has been the build-up of infrastructure – roads, bridges, transportation, electricity, water and sanitation. There has been a more even balance between rural and urban public investment in sanitation and water facilities in Indonesia, Korea and Thailand than in other developing economies. The data on rural electrification also suggest that the HPAEs with rural sectors have, on average, more effectively provided electricity to rural areas. Since the early 1980s, electricity has been universally available in the rural areas of Korea and Taiwan. Malaysia and Thailand have made great strides in rural electrification. Indonesia has not done as well, but even there the relative disparity between the urban and rural sectors is smaller than the disparity in economies with approximately the same per capita income (Bolivia and Liberia) or the same population (Brazil).
Equally important, however, were the typically low levels of direct and indirect taxation on agriculture in East Asia. During the past three decades, dozens of governments in other regions, eager to promote industrial growth, have funneled surpluses from agriculture to industry through taxes, food price controls, and pro-industry allocations of public investment. Less overtly, governments have favoured manufacturers, and hurt agriculture, by overvaluing currencies and protecting domestic industries that manufacture agricultural inputs and the goods purchased by rural households. The exchange rate that results from restrictions on manufactured imports reduces the domestic currency proceeds of agricultural exports. Industrial protection acts as a hidden tax on agriculture, raising the price of agricultural inputs to subsidise industry. Direct interventions include export taxes and price controls, while indirect interventions also take account of industrial protection policies and real exchange rate overvaluation. Both Korea and Malaysia have substantially lower taxation of the agricultural sector than the comparators, and in Korea the agricultural sector receives positive protection. Thailand's taxation of the agricultural sector was similar to South Asian levels in the 1960s and 1970s but fell in the 1980s while taxation in South Asia was rising.
20 August 2010
India's Education System/Policy: Primary Vs Higher
In the previous post I talked about primary education, and not just "education". The emphasis is deliberate. India's education system/policy suffers from a serious distortion. There is too much focus on higher education, and too little focus on primary education. It should be exactly the other way around.
What is the purpose of education? To train people for employment. (Yes, there are other purposes of education: teaching children to become good citizens and good human beings; teaching them values and morals, creative thinking, etc. But these things can/should be taken care of at the primary level itself; they shouldn't wait till college)
Now the employment opportunities/requirements in a modern economy are like this:
So an education system must turn out workers in a similar pattern:
Our education system is like this:
See the mismatch between figures 1 and 3?
So the government must focus exclusively on primary education, and leave higher education to the private sector. Those who want to go to college but cannot afford the high fees must take bank loans. They should repay the loans with the salaries from their high-paying jobs.
I know this argument is the height of hypocrisy, coming from someone who is himself the beneficiary of a heavily subsidised higher education (at REC/NIT and IIT). What to do?
What is the purpose of education? To train people for employment. (Yes, there are other purposes of education: teaching children to become good citizens and good human beings; teaching them values and morals, creative thinking, etc. But these things can/should be taken care of at the primary level itself; they shouldn't wait till college)
Now the employment opportunities/requirements in a modern economy are like this:
So an education system must turn out workers in a similar pattern:
Our education system is like this:
See the mismatch between figures 1 and 3?
So the government must focus exclusively on primary education, and leave higher education to the private sector. Those who want to go to college but cannot afford the high fees must take bank loans. They should repay the loans with the salaries from their high-paying jobs.
I know this argument is the height of hypocrisy, coming from someone who is himself the beneficiary of a heavily subsidised higher education (at REC/NIT and IIT). What to do?
19 August 2010
India's Development: Best Strategy/Policy
What is the best strategy/policy for India to achieve development? The answer* is to focus on these key areas:
1. Primary Education
2. Agriculture
3. Rural Development
4. Women's Empowerment
1. Primary Education
The government must focus only on primary education. It should get out of higher education, and leave it to the private sector. All public resources for education must go to primary education. No public resources/subsidies must go to higher education.
2. Agriculture
Agriculture is the foundation of any economy. Agriculture provides the foundation for industry. Without a strong base in agriculture, an economy cannot industrialise. A strong agricultural sector is a must for industrialisation.
3. Rural Development
70% of India lives in villages. Our metros cannot provide adequate infrastructure and employment to their existing population (7% of the total). How on earth can they cope with more rural migration? Imagine the situation if this 70%, or 85 crore people, were to land up in the 8 metros. Basic infrastructure (drinking water, sanitation, roads, electricity) and employment opportunities (agro-based small industries) have to be provided in villages.
4. Women's Empowerment
Finally, everything boils down to the woman. Everything depends on the woman: education, health, nutrition, employment – everything. So if you focus on the woman, you take care of everything else. Women-centric development programs are needed.
*Economic Development (2003) by Michael Todaro and Stephen Smith
PS: The authors also talk about another important issue – healthcare.
1. Primary Education
2. Agriculture
3. Rural Development
4. Women's Empowerment
1. Primary Education
The government must focus only on primary education. It should get out of higher education, and leave it to the private sector. All public resources for education must go to primary education. No public resources/subsidies must go to higher education.
2. Agriculture
Agriculture is the foundation of any economy. Agriculture provides the foundation for industry. Without a strong base in agriculture, an economy cannot industrialise. A strong agricultural sector is a must for industrialisation.
3. Rural Development
70% of India lives in villages. Our metros cannot provide adequate infrastructure and employment to their existing population (7% of the total). How on earth can they cope with more rural migration? Imagine the situation if this 70%, or 85 crore people, were to land up in the 8 metros. Basic infrastructure (drinking water, sanitation, roads, electricity) and employment opportunities (agro-based small industries) have to be provided in villages.
4. Women's Empowerment
Finally, everything boils down to the woman. Everything depends on the woman: education, health, nutrition, employment – everything. So if you focus on the woman, you take care of everything else. Women-centric development programs are needed.
*Economic Development (2003) by Michael Todaro and Stephen Smith
PS: The authors also talk about another important issue – healthcare.
18 August 2010
"Economic Development": Todaro and Smith
Contents of "Economic Development" by Michael Todaro and Stephen Smith (2003, 8th edition):
A. Basic Concepts
1. What is Development?
2. Developing countries
3. Developed countries
4. Development models - 1 (Classical)
5. Development models - 2 (Recent)
B. Internal Issues
6. Poverty and Inequality
7. Population growth
8. Urbanisation
9. Education and Health
10. Agriculture and Rural Development
11. Environment
C. External Issues
12. Trade theory
13. Trade policy
14. Deficits and debts
15. Foreign investment and aid
D. Towards Development
16. State vs Market
17. Financial and fiscal policies
I have read half of this book. Chapters 9 and 10 are the best and the most important chapters of the book, in my view.
A. Basic Concepts
1. What is Development?
2. Developing countries
3. Developed countries
4. Development models - 1 (Classical)
5. Development models - 2 (Recent)
B. Internal Issues
6. Poverty and Inequality
7. Population growth
8. Urbanisation
9. Education and Health
10. Agriculture and Rural Development
11. Environment
C. External Issues
12. Trade theory
13. Trade policy
14. Deficits and debts
15. Foreign investment and aid
D. Towards Development
16. State vs Market
17. Financial and fiscal policies
I have read half of this book. Chapters 9 and 10 are the best and the most important chapters of the book, in my view.
17 August 2010
Economic Growth and Development: Definition
What is the definition of economic growth and economic development? What is the difference between the two?
1. Economic Growth is an increase in economic output. It is a quantitative change.
2. Economic Development is more than just an increase in economic output. It is the change of an economy from one stage to another (higher) stage. It is a qualitative change.
In particular, economic development is the change of an economy from the agricultural stage to the industrial stage. So,
Development = Industrialisation ?
We have seen that this is an incomplete view. More correctly,
Development = Agriculture + Industry + Services
in that order
1. Economic Growth is an increase in economic output. It is a quantitative change.
2. Economic Development is more than just an increase in economic output. It is the change of an economy from one stage to another (higher) stage. It is a qualitative change.
In particular, economic development is the change of an economy from the agricultural stage to the industrial stage. So,
We have seen that this is an incomplete view. More correctly,
in that order
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
