Impact of Colonial Rule on Indian Society

Impact of Colonial Rule on Indian Society: The establishment of British rule in the late 18th century prompted British officials, missionaries and scholars to acquire knowledge of the classical languages of India, of the structure of Indian society and of values and manners of her people.

The economic base was primarily agricultural, the tools and implements did not register any remarkable change through time, and arts and crafts mostly connected with poorly developed production grew. Socially the framework consisted of comparatively self-sufficient village communities in groups of contiguous villages. Caste was the typical Indian institution to accommodate various socio-economic strata and nascent classes, binding them together in groups and ensuring such constituents an occupational protection as well.

Land settlements broke down old economic relations. Land was now a sellable commodity whereas earlier it had been communally owned.
Cash revenue demand pushed the agricultural economy from subsistence towards commercialisation which broke the self sufficiency of the villages.
Trade in towns was limited to nobility and royalty and was soon replaced by English imports pushing the artisans back to the villages creating further stress on land.
Penetration of rural areas by English goods further degraded Indian small artisans’ economic value. Couldn’t compete with machine made mass produced goods.
Rise of lower bureaucracy and western educated middle class. English think they will act as interlocutors.
The bros apply western ideas to Indian condition for the first time. However, they themselves were the result of western interventions in Indian economy.

The emergence of nationalism as a social phenomenon typically occurs during the transition from a feudal to a capitalist society. In many countries, this shift is instigated by a rising bourgeoisie class that rebels against feudal aristocracy, aiming to establish a unified nation with shared political and economic interests. India’s path to nationalism was distinct as it was driven by foreign bourgeoisie (British capitalism) due to the Indian bourgeoisie’s inability to challenge the entrenched feudal system, largely due to the absence of private property ownership.

The self-sufficient structure of Indian villages posed another obstacle to nation-building, as there was no collective economic identity among the populace. Additionally, there was no sense of a common political identity, as a change in ruling aristocrats merely meant a shift in tax collection. The apparent political and administrative unity under various monarchs was superficial and did not penetrate the economic fabric of village life.

In the pre-British feudal-agrarian Indian society, culture was predominantly mystical, reflecting the low economic development, social rigidity, and lack of mobility. Even secular art of that era lacked a national character, typically focusing on glorifying monarchs, depicting court scenes, or showcasing landscapes.

A capitalist nation is socially, politically, culturally, and economically more robust than a feudal society. Capitalist nations develop a shared identity, while feudal societies remain divided and, consequently, weaker economically and politically. Nationalism fosters a sense of horizontal solidarity among citizens, mitigating vertical inequalities. This unity was evident as few Britons betrayed English interests in India during colonial history, unlike some “Indians” who collaborated with colonial powers.

The advent of English capitalism in India dismantled the village autarchy by introducing private property and commercial agriculture through systems like zamindari, mahalwari, and ryotwari, all aligned with the company’s commercial interests. Communal land that was previously held collectively became transferable, mortgageable, and alienable. Each step in England’s political expansion in India disrupted old economic relations and introduced new economic structures. Consequently, English actions reshaped the Indian economic landscape while simultaneously sowing the seeds of nationalism.

The economic integration of India laid the foundation for the gradual unification of a disparate Indian population into a cohesive nation.

This transformation gave rise to a prosperous Indian middle class employed in lower administrative roles and educated in Western ideals. Exposure to concepts like liberty, equality, and fraternity prompted the colonized to question their colonizers. While the British had initially envisioned the Indian middle class as intermediaries to maintain control, over time, this middle class spearheaded the nationalist movement.

Modernization of Indian Tradition

Modernization in Indian society represents a specific trend within an evolving and continuous process. Scholars like TN Madan argue that European ideologies such as secularism, individualism, and rationality have limited relevance in the Indian context, where cultural prescriptions guide major life decisions. This perspective challenges the application of European ideas of modernization to India.

On the other hand, JPS Oberoi highlights how European modernization was used to assert European superiority on a global scale. Many newly formed nations adopted European modernization hastily, resulting in internal contradictions and social turmoil. In the 21st century, identity crises have emerged worldwide, exemplified by South Africa’s quest for identity through campaigns like Rhodes/Gandhi/Science Must Fall. This underscores that modernization is an ongoing process without a fixed endpoint.

Modernisation initially came to India as socio-religious reforms based on the western ideas of rational humanistic progress.
Soon followed by a national awakening, and industrialisation, rise of democracy, advent of modern education, and a whole new constitution.
Values of liberty, equality, and fraternity were supported by the green revolution, political decentralisation, positive discrimination and globalisation in the 90s.
Since the process of modernisation is ever dynamic the Indian society has responded to it in an Indian manner thereby making it if not wholly unique at least partly so.
For instance the political democracy in India, a western concept, is Indianised due to its caste-based and communal nature. Rudolph & Rudolph consider the Indian democracy to be a mass democracy which is different from the ideologically focused representative democracies of the west. Thus, Political modernisation in India has been Indianised.
Avijit Pathak
Yogendra Singh traces the impact of Islam, tribal cultures, and westernisation on the changing Indian traditions. He says that all social phenomenon must be analysed at two levels of structures and traditions. He says that what changes the structures may not change the traditions but what changes the traditions definitely changes the structure. He further says that there are multiple contradictions in Indian modernisation:
Promoted Eisenstadt‘s idea of multiple modernities arguing that modernisation in India is in conflict as modern & traditional values co-exist. Classical ideas of modernity:
Durkheim: moral individualism.
Weber: goal rational authority and bureaucratic organisation of work.
Parsons: gesellschaft pattern variables.
Modernisation has been a macro phenomenon with the Great traditions having modernised and the little traditions showing tremendous resilience to them.
Modernisation in India has been a state led modernisation from above. Thus, traditional values still survive on the ground.
Caste has lost most of its traditional attributes but use of caste has increased due to politicisation. Modern civic institutions are embedded with primordial ties.
Women are losing out their space in traditional roles with increasing modernisation.
Growth has been regionally skewed in the favour of educated, professional, and urban groups of people. The development deprived areas have seen the rise of LWE.
Influence of Islam and westernisation on the modernisation of Indian traditions:
With Islamisation two traditional structures came in contact, with almost equal sharing of cultures due to dominant position of Islam and diffusion of Hinduism.
While a foreign phenomenon, India has lent it a unique flavor. Caste structures are found in Indian Muslims in an otherwise egalitarian religion. (Ashraf-high, Ajlaf-low. arzal-Muslim dalits)
With westernisation it was a contact between a traditional and modern structure. One-sided acculturation followed by rise of nationalism, modern education, and a new constitution.
Affects all institutions of society, the cultural norms, political system, stratification, work & economic life. While a European phenomenon, Indian society has lent it a distinct Indian flavor, ex. political democracy in India is mass democracy as opposed to the ideal based representative democracies of the west.
NOTE: Little & Great Traditions by Milton Singer and McKim Marriot.
Universalisation: movements of new traditions from micro to macro levels and
Parochialisation: movement of old traditions which lost favour from macro to micro.
India saw an indianisation of modernity rather than a modernisation of Indian tradition.
Dipankar Gupta – Mistaken modernity

Modernity is an attitude charaterised by equality and univeresalistic values. Modernity demands this baseline similarity as all are citizens.
Indian modernisation is superficial with absence of technical efficiency and professionalism which are characteristic of western modernity.
Modernity mistaken as:
Contemporary trends in fashion and ideologies
Technological advancement
Consumerism
SN Eisenstadt – Multiple Modernities
Modernity and westernisation are not identical.
Western idea of modernity as promoted by Marx, Weber and Durkheim has not been reflected in reality.
Countries around the world have witnessed structural differentiation in social institutions which have bypassed the western view of modernisation.
Multiple modernities exist influenced by specific cultural, traditional and historical experiences.
The best way to see modernity is a continuous constitution and reconstitutions of a multiplicity of cultural programs.

In the initial decades post-independence, Indian modernization was primarily driven by the elite and followed a top-down approach, as it did not align with the immediate needs of the masses who were largely unaware of the nation’s overall requirements. However, over time, this approach evolved to accommodate the changing needs and desires of the public. It represents an ongoing quest for a form of Indian modernization that is both beneficial to the people and in harmony with their collective consciousness.

Protests and Movements during Colonial Rule

Various reforms movements picked up before and after 1857. Some of these reform movements were based around groups while some of them were spearheaded by individuals. The most prominent of these movements were: