India's Caste/Varna System: An Economic System

The four inputs (factors) of production are land, labour, capital and knowledge. Efficiency can be achieved by specialisation. In ancient India, different social groups (Varnas) specialised in handling the different factors of production:

Varna	Factor of Production
Brahmana	Knowledge
Kshatriya	Land
Vaishya	Capital
Shudra	Labour

Thus the Varna/caste system was born, based on economic specialisation.

See The Origin of the Varna/Caste System.

"IF" - Rudyard Kipling: Kannada Translation

My crude Kannada translation of Rudyard Kipling's "IF" (1895):

ಧೀರ
ಜನ ತಲೆ ಕೆಟ್ಟು ನಿನಗೆ ಶಾಪ ಹಾಕಿದಾಗ,
ನೀನು ಶಾಂತವಾಗಿರು.
ಯಾರೂ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ನಂಬದಿದ್ದಾಗ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ನೀನು ನಂಬು,
ಆದರೆ ಅವರ ಸಂದೇಹವನ್ನೂ ಗೌರವಿಸು.
ಜೀವನದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಯುವುದು ಅನಿವಾರ್ಯ;
ಕಾಯುವುದರಿಂದ ಸುಸ್ತಾಗದಿರು.
ನಿನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಜನ ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ, ನೀನು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳದಿರು.
ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ಜನ ದ್ವೇಷಿಸಿದಾಗ, ನೀನು ದ್ವೇಷಿಸದಿರು.
ಆದರೂ ಸಂತನ ಹಾಗೆ ಕಾಣದಿರು, ಋಷಿಯ ಹಾಗೆ ನುಡಿಯದಿರು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.

ಕನಸು ಕಾಣು - ಆದರೆ ಕನಸುಗಳು ನಿನ್ನ ಮಾಲೀಕ ಆಗದಿರಲಿ.
ಚಿಂತನೆ ಮಾಡು - ಆದರೆ ಚಿಂತನೆಗಳು ನಿನ್ನ ಗುರಿ ಆಗದಿರಲಿ.
ಗೆಲುವು-ಸೋಲುಗಳನ್ನು ಎದುರಿಸಿ,
ಆ ಎರಡು ವಂಚಕರನ್ನು ಸಮವಾಗಿ ನೋಡು.
ನೀನು ಹೇಳಿದ ಸತ್ಯವನ್ನು ನೀಚರು ತಿರುಚಿಸಿ
ಮೂರ್ಖರಿಗೆ ಬಲೆ ಹೆಣೆದರೆ ಹೆಣೆಯಲಿ.
ನೀನು ಜೀವನ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಕಾರ್ಯ ನಾಶವಾದಾಗ,
ಬಗ್ಗಿ ಸವೆದು ಹೋದ ಯಂತ್ರಗಳಿಂದ ಅದನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿಸು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.

ಜೀವನದ ಜೂಜಾಟದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀನು ಗೆದ್ದಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಎಲ್ಲ ರಾಶಿ ಮಾಡಿ,
ಅದನ್ನು ನಾಣ್ಯದ ಒಂದು ಎಸೆತದ ಮೇಲೆ ಜೂಜಿಡು.
ಸೋತರೆ ಮತ್ತೆ ಮೊದಲಿನಿಂದ ಆಟ ಶುರು ಮಾಡು;
ಯಾರಿಗೂ ನಿನ್ನ ನಷ್ಟದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹೇಳದಿರು.
ಎದೆ-ನರ-ಸ್ನಾಯುಗಳು ಕಿತ್ತು ಹೋದರೂ ಹೋರಾಟ ಮಾಡು
ನಿನ್ನಲ್ಲಿ "ಮುನ್ನಡೆ!" ಎನ್ನುವ ಮನಸ್ಸು ಒಂದೇ ಉಳಿದಾಗ
ನೀನು ಮುನ್ನಡೆ!
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.

ಬಡವರ ಜತೆ ನುಡಿ - ಆದರೆ ಶ್ರೇಷ್ಠನಾಗಿರು.
ಒಡೆಯರ ಜತೆ ನಡೆ - ಆದರೆ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯನಾಗಿರು.
ಶತ್ರುಗಳು ಮಿತ್ರರು ಯಾರೂ ನಿನ್ನನ್ನು ದುಃಖಿಸಬಲ್ಲರು.
ಎಲ್ಲರನ್ನು ಪ್ರೀತಿಸು, ಯಾರನ್ನೂ ಮೋಹಿಸಬೇಡ.
ನಿರ್ದಯ ದಿನವನ್ನು 24 ಗಂಟೆಗಳ ಕೆಲಸದಿಂದ ತುಂಬಿಸು.
ಈ ಭೂಮಿ ನಿನ್ನದು, ಈ ಭೂಮಿಯ ಸಂಪತ್ತು ನಿನ್ನದು.
ನೀನು ಧೀರ, ಮರೆಯದಿರು.

Dipankar Gupta: "Mistaken Modernity - India Between Worlds"

Dipankar Gupta was professor of sociology at JNU. A review of his "Mistaken Modernity: India Between Worlds" (2000):

Modernity

"Modernity has to do with attitudes, especially those that come into play in social relations. A modern society is one in which at least the following characteristics must be present:
- Dignity of the individual
- Adherence to universalistic norms
- Elevation of individual achievement over privileges of birth
- Accountability in public life."

This is a very narrow and selective definition of modernity. Modernity refers to the totality of the technology, economy, society, politics and culture that came into being after the Industrial Revolution. See Modernity: Technology, Economy, Society, Politics.

Modernisation

"Once these attributes are in place, it does not really matter if there is high-level technology. Generally speaking, technology (is a) consequence of the four characteristics of modernisation listed above, and (does not by itself) constitute modernity."

This is complete nonsense. The above characteristics are the features of an industrial society – which was the product of the Industrial Revolution. See The Techno-Economic Basis of Society.

India Today

"An analysis of contemporary India will reveal that while there has been a definite move from tradition, what we see around us is not yet modern. If the clock were to stop here, the final diagnosis should declare India as still unmodern."

Of course India is not yet modern. India began modernising properly only from 1991 onwards. See India's Modernisation. Today India can be said to be only 50% modern. See my Index of Modernisation. By the way, this delay in India's modernisation was due to Nehru's socialism – which Prof Gupta also believes in (see below).

Economics

"In this era (of globalisation), trade unions have been laid low and, along with it, the emphasis on production and producers as the main planks of economic thought and policy making. In their place, the consumer has stepped in and has become pivotal in all calculations.
Thus in the age when production was central, technologies entered only if they first cleared national barriers regarding what will be produced. Today, consumers get the first preference and any obstruction, in getting these goods and services across to them is anathema to the ideology of globalisation. In the age of globalisation, the consumer is king while the producer has been put out to pasture.
In other words, economic policies today tend to centre on what consumers want. It is no longer material if this brings about unemployment, greater economic dependency or lack of trade union privileges. These issues mattered a great deal in the age of internationalisation, which was production-centric."

Production and consumption are two sides of the same coin, two halves of the same process. How can there be any production without consumption? What is the use of producing goods for which there is no demand? Prof Gupta should stick to sociology, and leave economics alone (but then, he has gotten his sociology also wrong). To talk about production vs consumption is meaningless. His real argument here is socialism vs capitalism.

Socialism

"(Before globalisation,) national well-being and economic sovereignty were critical issues then that could not be ignored; indeed, these had to be kept up front in any policy formulation. This approach quite logically favoured planned and centralised development in which workers' rights, wages, wage goods and production conditions were critical considerations. Therefore, if the long-term interest of the nation meant that cars of a certain kind, or colour televisions, would not be produced because that might jeopardise a country's economic self-reliance, then that was that.
Economic restrictions and trade policies that earlier determined what will be produced, and how, are now looked at with distaste."

Here Prof Gupta openly makes the case for socialism. These are exactly the policies that kept India poor for 40 years – and delayed India's modernisation (an issue he is so worked up over).

Tradition

"The encumbrances of tradition permanently debased large numbers of people who were locked in an unyielding social hierarchy. There was no such thing as a universal law in traditional India, leaving subjects completely at the whim of their superiors. People suffered untold misery because of the accident of their birth.
Anyone who has seen how tradition has shackled the poor, or how it has tormented Hindu widows, will not have the slightest hesitation in welcoming modernity with all its stated drawbacks."

Tradition is the way of life of agricultural society, and modernity is the way of life of industrial society. Agricultural society was an unequal society all over the world – not just in India. Even Western society was like this before the Industrial Revolution.

Feudalism

"Much of the recent spate of murders and mayhem is only a bold reassertion of traditional Indian culture. Women and underlings must always be subservient, or else. Those wielding positions of power are not accountable to anyone. Children, especially boys, are supposed to run amok all their lives, more so if they come from privileged homes.
To hold modernity responsible for the grisly incidents of urban violence perpetrated by political brats, or to blame westernisation for the molestation of women in hotel discotheques, only corroborates what we Indians hate to admit: that our traditional culture is deeply flawed at its core."

These perversions are not "tradition", but feudalism – which was the product of 1000 years of Islamic and British rule. See India: Ancient, Medieval, Modern Periods. It is not Hindu tradition that is "deeply flawed at its core", but Islamic+British feudalism – which sadly still survives in India today.

It is Prof Gupta who is mistaken about modernity (and many other things), not India.

Industrialisation/Modernisation: Definition

What is industrialisation/modernisation? What is its definition?

Industrialisation/modernisation = Increasing output by using technology (in agriculture, industry and services – in that order).

This is the core/heart/essence of industrialisation or modernisation.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica ("Economic Development"):

"A broader view of industrialisation is more relevant to economic development. In this sense, industrialisation is the application of modern science, technology and management to the task of raising the productivity of resources – not only in the manufacturing sector but in the economy as a whole, including the agricultural sector."

India's Development and the Five-Year Plans

Development economics tells us that the keys to a country's development are:
1. Agriculture
2. Education
3. Healthcare
4. Infrastructure

How has India fared in these four areas (in terms of inputs) since 1947? Let us look at the resource allocation for different sectors in our Five-Year Plans:

	Resource Allocation (%)
Plan	Agriculture	Industry	Infrastructure	Social Services
1. 1951–56	37	5	34	24
2. 1956–61	21	24	37	18
3. 1961–66	21	23	40	17
A. 1966–69	24	25	36	15
4. 1969–74	24	20	38	19
5. 1974–79	22	24	36	17
6. 1980–85	24	15	44	16
7. 1985–90	22	13	45	16
8. 1992–97	22	11	46	18
9. 1997–02	21	5	48	21
10. 2002–07	20	4	43	27
11. 2007–12	19	4	41	30

a) "Agriculture" = Agriculture + Irrigation. From the Seventh Plan onward, it includes Rural Development also.

b) "Infrastructure" = Energy + Transport and Communications.

c) "Social Services" = Education + Healthcare + other services. Separate figures for Education and Healthcare are available only till the Sixth Plan. Till the Sixth Plan, allocations for Education and Healthcare averaged around 6% and 4% respectively – together about 50% of "Social Services".

d) Totals do not equal 100% due to rounding off. Also, the Seventh and later Plans have some minor sectors, which I have left out.

• Agriculture and Industry were given equal importance till 1974-79. They received an average of 22% and 23% respectively of the total allocation (from 1956-61 to 1974-79). But we should have given more importance to Agriculture – like the East Asian countries.

• Infrastructure was not neglected, contrary to popular opinion. It received the largest share of resources (average 40%). Then why is our infrastructure so poor?

• Education and Healthcare were neglected – getting only around 6% and 4% respectively. This was our biggest mistake. Only in the last two Plans (2002-07 and 2007-12) did we allocate more resources for them – presumably around 9% and 6% respectively.

• Finally, Industry was given importance till 1974-79: average 23%. This decreased with the "limited liberalisation" of the 1980s (1980-85 and 1985-90): average 14%. It decreased even more after the 1991 reforms (1997-2002 onwards): average 4%, with industry being left to the private sector.

In sum, our report card on the four key areas (on the input side) is:
1. Agriculture – Average
2. Education – Poor
3. Healthcare – Poor
4. Infrastructure – Good

Data from Indian Economy (2010) by S K Misra and V K Puri.

D D Kosambi: An Introduction to the Study of Indian History

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

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!

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.

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 :-)

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.

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.

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