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

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 :-)

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

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.

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".

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

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.

Waves of Modernisation/Industrialisation

Different parts of the world have modernised/industrialised at different times. These are the three major "waves" of industrialisation/modernisation:

Period	Years	Region	Countries
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.

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

The Most Important Battles in India's History

Which were the most important battles in India's history?

Year	Place	Winner	Loser
			.
712	Raor	Muhammad bin Qasim	Dahir
Result: Arabs won Sindh
			.
1001	Peshawar	Mahmud of Ghazni	Jayapala
Result: Turks won Punjab
			.
1192	Tarain	Muhammad of Ghor	Prithviraj Chauhan
Result: Turks won north India
			.
1527	Khanua	Babur	Rana Sanga
Result: Mughals won north India
			.
1556	Panipat	Akbar	Hemu
Result: Mughals retook north India
			.
1565	Talikote	Bahmani sultanates	Vijayanagara Empire
Result: Last great Hindu kingdom was destroyed
			.
1746	Madras	French	Anwar-ud-din (Carnatic)
Result: Showed Europe's military superiority over India
			.
1757	Plassey	East India Company	Siraj-ud-daula (Bengal)
Result: British won east India
			.
1761	Panipat	Ahmed Shah Abdali	Marathas
Result: Maratha power was shattered
			.
1764	Buxar	East India Company	Mir Qasim (Bengal)
			Shuja-ud-daula (Awadh)
			Shah Alam (Delhi)
Result: British became the most powerful force in India

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.

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".

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.

Modern Technology, Economic, Political and Social Systems

Reference: Modernity - The Modern or Industrial Age

System	Agricultural Age	Industrial Age
Technology*	Agriculture	Industry
Economic system	Feudalism	Capitalism
Political system	Monarchy	Democracy
Social system	Caste	Class

*By technology I mean the production system.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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).

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.