Page 237 - DSOC201_SOCIAL_STRUCTURE_AND_SOCIAL_CHANGE_ENGLISH

Social Structure and Social Change

Notes elite who are much more interested in their personal prosperity than in the future of the country,
from the special interest groups and the economic monopolizers who prefer to flourish in the non-
competitive environment, and from the fanatic communal and religious leaders and the uninterested
bureaucrats who are reluctant to shed their enormous powers.
The fundamental rights guaranteed by India’s Constitution assert individual liberties while the
directive principles, on the other hand, commit the state to promote the welfare of the people by
establishing a social order based on justice—social, economic and political—by systematic distribution
of material resources, and by preventing the concentration of wealth. Thus, the fundamental rights
and the directive principles represent two different traditions. When the former are ‘justiciable’, the
latter are not. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution gave primacy to the directive principles (that
is, commitment to socialism) above that of individual liberties (fundamental rights). Jaya Prakash
Narain warned that the abrogation of the fundamental rights for the achievement of socialism would
destroy India’s democratic institutions. But Indira Gandhi’s declaring of national emergancy in 1975
restricted fundamental rights. Indian socialism thus faced crisis because emergency in 1975 was not
promulgated for creating a social order based on justice but for the vested interests of the political
elite in power. The result was that the Congress party lost power at the Centre in 1988 elections, that
is, after remaining in power for forty-one years. When Rajiv Congress came in power in 1984 in the
parliamentary elections, socialist ideology had lost its lustre. The Janata Dal government also did not
focus upon it during its remaining in power for two years. The Rao government in early 1992 and the
Congress party in its April 1992 session at Tirupati called for liberalizing the economy, ending licensing
in industries, permitting expansion of the larger private firms, eliminating subsidies, encouraging
collaborative agreements with foreign capital, ending the policy of nationalizing sick industries, and
opening the economy to greater competition. Thus, socialism unofficially faced its death in India in
early 1992 and India chose to adopt new strategy of development. Communism died in Russia after
seventy years. There are no prominent intellectual spokesmen for socialism in India today. The bulk
of India’s educated youth in political power and in educational institutions show no sympathy for
the socialist perspective. How far the new liberal and competitive non-socialist policies will take
India to its goals is yet to be seen.
10.5 Hinderances to Social Change

It is true that Indian society is changing and certain directions of social change and development are
clearly apparent, yet it is a fact that we have not been able to achieve all those goals which we wanted
to achieve. What have been the hinderances in achieving our goals? Some western scholars like Gunnar
Myrdal suggest that the main cause of India’s economic weakness is not lack of technical skills among
the people but rather a lack of intiative, of interest in improving their status, and of respect for labour.
Such views are illogical, biased, and vigorously chal-lenged by Indian and some western scholars
like Morris (1967), Milton Singer (1966, 1969), T.N. Madan (1968), Yogendra Singh (1973), and S.C.
Dube (1982). A good number of studies in rural India have shown keen desire on the part of the
villagers for improvement. They are willing to work hard, change their harmful customs, eschew
temptations, and rise above human fallibilities. The impediments to developmental efforts are not
human factors but political environment, social structures, and economic handicaps.
Forces of Tradition
Change in a society is possible only by fostering attitudes of receptivity toward new ways of doing
things. Sticking to one’s traditions and refusing to accept new ideas act as a barrier to social change.
The degree of cultural accumulation and the amount of contact with other societies determine the
nature and extent of social change within a society. The possibility of invention and the introduction
of new traits from other cultures is limited by the degree of cultural accumulation, which in turn
depends upon the willingness to discard traditions—if not all, at least non-utilitarian and dysfunctional
ones. What transpires through contacts with other cultures is diffusion, the source of most social
change. Relatively isolated societies experience little change, whereas societies which are meeting
grounds of people from many cultures experience rapid social change. In a society which does not
change, one finds people refusing to intermingle freely and declining to share others, customs,

232 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY