Page 236 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Unit 10: Social Change

Contrary to this, a transitional or a modern society is one in which (i) individual’s status in society is Notes
determined by his own potentialities and capabilities; (ii) a person’s behaviour is governed more by
law than by custom; (iii) social structure is based on equality; (iv) secondary relations predominate
over primary relations; individuals identify with different kinds of groups as different situations
require and may compete for higher rank in each context; (v) individual’s position in society is achieved
and it is given more importance in social relations; (vi) people are innovative; (vii) economy is based
on complex technology; and (viii) rational thought predominates in society.
Does this mean that traditionalism and modernity are two extremes and the two cannot co-exist?
Scholars like S.C. Dube, and Yogendra Singh are of the opinion that the two can co-exist. Accepting
traditionalism does not mean completely rejecting modernization. It may simply mean regulating
the forces of modernization. Similarly, accepting modernization does not mean complete rejection of
traditionalism. It may mean retaining only those elements of traditionalism which are considered by
the society as functional for it in view of the set (collective) goals.
Accepting this viewpoint, we have to find out, to what extent Indian society continues to be traditional
and to what extent has it become modern?
It will not be wrong to say that the nature of social change in India is such that we find synthesis of
tradition and modernity. On the one hand, we have discarded those traditional beliefs, practices and
institutions which we believed were more dysfunctional and on the other hand, we have imbibed
those modern values and have created those modern institutions which we thought will help us in
achieving our basic goal of ‘change in quality of life of the people’.
In comparison to the British period, today we enjoy more individual freedom; we have more
opportunities to rise in social scale; we have become more rational in discarding traditional social
practices or creating new institutional structures; the number of people living below the poverty line
has decreased; our per capita income in real terms has increased by 92 per cent in four decades since
we became a republic; and active higher social status and positions of privilege and rank is no longer
an illusion for the backward and the low caste people.
In forty-five years, India’s economy has grown by 3.5 per cent per year, per capita growth rate has
been 1.4 per cent, agricultural growth has been 2.7 per cent and industrial growth has been 1.0 per
cent. On the other hand, inflation rate has been 7.0 per cent, total indebtedness is 2.28 lakh crore
rupees, exports have gone down, and about 33 per cent people are living below the poverty line in
the rural areas and 45 per cent in the urban areas. There are 34.2 per cent of the total number of poor
people of the world in India.
Have we achieved communal harmony? Have we been able to bring women or par with men? Have
we been able to ameliorate the conditions of untouchables? Have we been able to remove the feelings
of deprivations among different classes like cultivators, industrial workers, daily wage-earners? Have
we been able to alter property relations in favour of the less privileged? Can we claim to have egalitarian
society?
The existing widespread unrest is the result of increasing contradictions in our social system. Some
important contradictions are: our roles have become modern but our values continue to be traditional;
we project egalitarianism but we practice discrimination; our aspirations have become very high but
the means for achieving these aspirations are either not available or not accessible; we talk of
nationalism but we encourage parochialism; we claim that our republic is dedicated to equality but
in fact it is mired in an archaic system of caste; we claim to have become rationalists but we endure
injustice and unfairness with fatalistic resignation; we proclaim the policy of liberalization but we
still impose too many controls; we support individualism but we reinforce collectivism; we aim at
ideational culture but we hanker after sensate culture; many new laws have been enacted and old
ones modified but these laws are either not implemented or are full of loopholes and benefit none
except the legal profession. There are too many laws and too little justice, too many public servants
and too little public service, too many programmes and plans and too little welfare, too much
government and too little administration.
The result of all these contradictions is that social unrest has increased in our society. The development
has encountered formidable opposition from the corrupt and non-committed political elite and sub-

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 231