Skip to main content

FEUDALIZATION OF MODERNITY IN INDIA

FEUDALIZATION OF MODERNITY IN INDIA

Most of Indians are still fascinated by their feudal roots and interestingly both modern Indian Polity and modern Indian economy are typically characterised by feudalization  .Both capitalist economy and socialist economy in India have this feature. So interestingly we could not  have any capitalist society or socialist society or even social democratic society in their classical terms. Rather our entire social system including it's  social, cultural, political and economic aspects have never fully modernized nor demodernized.  Of course the pull of demodernization on a modern practice or institution hascbeen more powerful than the pull of modernization.
We see, our social traditions seldom adopt  radical transformation, our religious faiths and practices find new ways to interfere into personal lives, religion in India has never faced that sort of philosophical challenge as religion in the West faced, our financial system never become updated as per modern principles of capitalist economy, our education system has still heavy load of traditionalism , traditionalism in education is so strong that even top managers of our education often express serious doubts about scientific facts and above all  our politics which is all powerful and which decides everything from birth to death and that still heavily draws it's relevence from caste, religion, language, gender, region etc. Thus we see Indian social structure has never shown any tendency to become modern and consequently we have always been on backfoot in competition with any contemporary power of east or west. And there is every sign of continuation of this trend in coming future. So no major improvement in increase of Indian power appears  in near future, particularly when we have such powerful forces which have strong fascination for unproved knowledge due to their own ignorance and due to potential gains in politics.
     In Europe when feudalism was crumbling , entire range of the thought process was emerging.  Society of then Europe was intensely eager for material progress and for this religious principles and practices were being challanged. Those Christians had Calvin like people who could dare to challange deep rooted principles of the European Church which were against the demands of capitalism. Later on they showed same restlessness for scientific progress. Of course it is true that Europe exploited the rest of the world in a very ruthless manner but it is also true that it was Europe where new thoughts could take birth which paved the way for modern society. In contrast to that natural and spontaneous growth of modernity in Europe in India it was externally induced by Britishers and as it was externally induced , it was induced in favour of the Britishers. So introduction of modernity in India was not from the existing structures as was in Europe but it was planted and so the modernity in India had hesitant start and it has remained hesitant till today. No feudal structure could be dismantled as those structures had not given birth to new system and withered  away, rather they remained at their place and remained as the competitors of new modern structures. Hence feudalism in India had not given way to modernity , rather it remained and has remained existent  side by side with modernity. Consequently both continues to influence each other. Since majority of Indians live in rural and small urban areas they remain more traditional and feudal in their outlook. Majority of Indian middle class has been emerging from these feudal settlements they continue to carry their feudal characteristics even after getting into the fold of middle, upper middle and upper middle classes. And so Indian modernity has been continuing to have feudal features .
    Interestingly afterb1990 when Indian market was exposed to global market more Indians started getting opportunity to have direct western exposure but as their feudal roots were in their place even the highly westernized Indian middle class remains feudal at its core in its first and second generation . 

Popular posts from this blog

SHRIMADBHAGAVAD GEETA CHAPTER 2 SHLOKA 47

गीता अध्याय 2 श्लोक 47 ----------------------------------- कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।  मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भुर्मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥ तेरा कर्म करने में ही अधिकार है, उसके फलों में कभी नहीं। इसलिए तू कर्मों के फल हेतु मत हो तथा तेरी कर्म न करने में भी आसक्ति न हो  ॥47॥ कर्मपथ की सावधानियों और विशेषताओं को बताते हुए श्रीकृष्ण इस पथ के सम्बंध में समझाये हैं कि अन्तिम लक्ष्य तो साँख्य बुद्धि को प्राप्त करना है लेकिन उस तक पहुंचने का मार्ग योग है, कर्मपथ है। इस पथ को ध्यान पूर्वक समझना और उसका अभ्यास करना बहुत जरूरी है तभी हम साँख्य और उसके पश्चात परमब्रह्म को प्राप्त कर सकते हैं। इसके अतिरिक्त कोई और रास्ता नहीं है जो हमारेके कल्याण का मार्ग प्रशस्त कर सके।        श्रीकृष्ण समझते हुए कहते हैं कि कर्म ही वो मार्ग है जिसपर हम चलकर के परम नैष्कर्म्य की स्थिति तक पहुँच सकते हैं लेकिन जब हम कर्म करते हैं तो उस कर्म की विशेषता और सावधानियों को समझना अनिवार्य है अन्यथा हम कर्मपथ से भटक जाते हैं।       ये विशेषताएँ और सावधानियाँ निम्नवत हैं----- 1....

श्रीमद्भागवत गीता-प्रवेशिका से सारांश तक

श्रीमद्भागवत गीता-प्रवेशिका से सारांश तक-- श्रीमद्भागवत गीता की शुरुआत महाभारत का युद्ध वास्तविक रूप से शूरु होने के ठीक पहले होती है और इसके अंत के साथ युद्ध प्रारम्भ होता है। तो क्या गीता युद्ध को उकसाने वाला ग्रंथ है?      इस प्रश्न का उत्तर द्वितीय अध्याय की शुरुआत में ही मिल जाता है। प्रथम अध्याय के अंत में अर्जुन हथियार डाल देता है, साफ साफ मना कर देता है कि वो अपने अंग्रजो, अनुजों, गुरुओं, बंधुओं से नहीं लड़ेगा।।सनद रहे वो डरा नहीं था, उसे  विषाद  हो गया था, वो डिप्रेशन में चला गया था। उस समय उसे उकसाने का सबसे सरल तरीका क्या  हो सकता था? कृष्ण उसे जुआ यानी चौसर की सभा याद दिलाते, द्रौपदी का वस्त्रहरण याद दिलाते, लाक्षागृह याद दिलाते, वनवास के दिन याद दिलाते। तब ज्यादा सम्भावना थी कि अर्जुन हिंसक हो कर युद्ध के लिए ततपर हो उठता। लेकिन तब अर्जुन हिंसक होता, उसमें और कौरवों में कोई फर्क नहीं रह जाता। जैसे को तैसा होता । लेकिन कृष्ण ने उसे आत्मा की अजरता, कर्तव्यबोध, धर्म, कर्म के विषय में बताया। एक बार भी प्रतिशोध की आग नहीं भड़काई उन्होंने, बल्कि उसे सत...
It's a hard fact that more than common masses it's the elite, which ditches idea of India as enshrined in the Indian National Movement and in  the  Indian  Constitution. Role of the judiciaal elite in this context has been more objectionable considering the weight of onus she has to carry to carry on the democracy.     It's the elite which sets the course of actions in most of the cases. And among all elites judicial elites are of paramount importance. In india it's judicial elite which has been responsible for killing of democratic credentials.     And when elite fails masses step in and then elite becomes useless. Farmers movement is it's example. Success of farmers mov is not less than a revolution.