Indian Society and Ways of Living

INDIAN SOCIETY
Allen Ginsberg rightly said – “A society is a collection of individuals united by certain relations or modes
of behaviour which mark them off from other who do not enter in relations or who differ from them in
behaviour.”

Parsons quoted – “Society may be defined as the total complex of human relationships in so far as they
grow out of action in terms of mean-end relationships, intrinsic or symbolic.”

“Society is not a group of people. It is the system of relationships that exist between the individuals of the
group.” said Prof. Wright.

Society exists only when the members of society know each other and possess common interest or objects. The
members who constitute the society ought to realise their likeness and their interdependence on and towards
each other. They should have a community of feelings for each other. Whole system of social relationships and
not a mere agency for the comfort of the beings but it is what we call a Society.

Society is an institution and is a kind of a natural organisation which has emerged out of natural instincts of man
and is permanent in nature. The true nature of society consists not in the external factors of interdependence or
likeness on and towards each other or an authority but in the state of mind of the beings that compose society.
Three main types of society
1. tribal,
2. agrarian and
3. industrial
have been marked out on this globe.

1. The African society is tribal,

2. The Indian society is ‘agrarian’ (peasant) while
3. The American society is industrial.

India offers astounding variety in every aspect of social life. Diversities of religious, linguistic, regional, ethnic,
economic, class, and caste groups crosscut Indian society, which is also permeated with immense urban-rural
differences and gender distinctions. Differences between south India and north India are particularly significant,
especially in systems of kinship and marriage. Indian society is multifaceted to an extent perhaps unknown in
any other of the world’s great civilizations—it is more like an area as varied as Europe than any other single
nation-state. Adding even more varietion to contemporary Indian culture are rapidly occurring changes,
affecting various regions and socio-economic groups in contrasting ways. Yet, amid the complexities of Indian
life and society, extensively accepted cultural themes intensify social harmony and order.

Themes In Indian Society

Hierarchy
Indian society is a hierarchical society. Whether it is north India or south India, urban or village, Hindu or
Muslim, virtually all things, social groups and people are ranked according to various essential qualities.
Although India is political democracy, notions of equality are seldom evidence in daily life.
Societal hierarchy is evident in caste groups, individuals, in family and kinship groups. Castes are primarily
associated with Hinduism, but caste-like groups also exist among Muslims, Indian, Christians, and other
religious communities. Within most villages or towns, everyone knows the relative rankings of each locally
represented caste, and behavior is constantly shaped by this knowledge.
Individuals are ranked according to their power and wealth. For example, some powerful people, or “big men,”
sits confidently on chair, while “little men” come before them to make requests, either standing or squatting not
presuming to sit beside the man of high status as an equal.
Hierarchy plays an important role within families and kinship groupings also, where men out-rank women of
equal age, and senior relatives out-rank junior relatives. Formal respect is accorded family members—for
example, in north India, a daughter-in-law shows deference to her husband, to all senior in-law, and to all
daughter of the household. Siblings also recognize age differences, with younger siblings addressing older
siblings by respectful terms rather than by name.
Social Interdependence
People are deeply involved with others, for many, the greatest fear is the possibility of being left alone, with no
support socially. Psychologically, family members typically feel intense emotional interdependence. Economic
activities, too, are deeply imbedded in a social circle. Almost everywhere a person goes, he can find a relative
from whom he can expect practical and moral support.
In every activity, social ties help a person and absence of them can bring failure to him/her. Seldom, people
carry out even the simplest task on their own. When a very small child eats, his mother puts the food in his
mouth with her own hand. When a girl draws water home from the well in pots on her head, someone helps her
load down the pots. A student expects that an influential relative or friend can facilitate his college admission. A
young person presumes that parents will arrange his or her marriage. Finally, a person facing death hopes that
relatives will conduct the proper funeral rites ensuring his own smooth passage to the next stage of existence
and reaffirming social ties among mourners.
This sense of interdependence extends into the theological realm. From birth onward, a child learns that his
“fate” has been “written” by divine forces and that his life is shaped by powerful deities with whom an ongoing
relationship must be maintained.

Social Change
The abstract idea of '' social change'' evince dimension of some of the characteristic of a group of people. If any
action which affect a group of people who shared value or characteristic can also be said as ''social change.''

Generally, the change in existing pattern of social life is known as '' Social Change''. Society and social
condition never remain static. Basically, social change is to be understood as change in social structure.
According to Gainsberg, social change is change in social structure e.g the size of a society, the composition or
balance or its part or the type of its organisation. According to Jones, ''social change devote variation in, or
modification of , any aspect of social process, social pattern, social interaction or social organisation.'' Davis
observed that social change is large number of persons are engaging in activity that differ from those which
their immefiate fore-fathers engaged in some time before. According to Anderson and Parker, social chnage
involved alteration and structure or functioning of forms or processes themselves.

Social change implies that there is must change in social structure. Social structure which can be understood as
nature, social relations , social behaviour, social organizations, community of people. Social change is change in
the social order. According to Charles L. Harper, "significant alteration of social structure and cultural patterns
through time."
In this context, I deem it is apt to remember, the observation of Dennis R. Fox:
''Well-meaning efforts by liberal psychologists to reform the law in keeping with values such as dignity,
privacy, justice, and equality are often misguided because law exists to serve the status quo. Law inhibits the
systemic, radical social change necessary for psychological and societal well-being. It does so through coercive
power, substantive assumptions about human nature, a preoccupation with procedure rather than substance , the
ideology of law's legitimacy, a focus on rational technicality rather than equity, self-defeating legal solutions
and encouragement for limited. Psycho-legal scholars should arouse public dissatisfaction with law and assist
social movements seeking to overcome legal impediments to social change.''

The theories of Social Change:

1. Linear theory of social change
2. Cyclic theory of social change.

Elements of Social Change:

The word ''social change'' is used in history, politics, economics and sociology. Social change is an issue in
social work, political science, history, sociology, anthropology, and in many social sciences also. Social change
is being created by communities, politics , protest, revolution, and by direct action. Elements of social change
can be listed as follows.
1. Physical or geographical
2. Biological
3. Economic
4. Cultural
5. Psychological
6. Technical
7. Population

Resistances to Social Changes in India

It is true that Indian society is changing in 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 hindrances in achieving our goals?
Some western scholars like Gunnar Mydral recommend that the main reason behind India’s economic weakness
is not lack of technical skills among the people but rather lack of initiative, of interest in improving status, and
respect for labour. Such views are illogical, biased, and vigorously challenged by Indian and western scholar
like Morris , Milton Singer , T.N. Madan , Yogendra Singh , and S.C. Dube.
A very good number of studies in rural India show keen desire on the part of the villagers for improvement.
They are very willing to work hard, change their customs, eschew temptations, and rise above human falli-
bilities. The impediments to developmental efforts are not human factors but political environment, social
structures, and economic handicaps.

1. Forces of Tradition:
Change in a society is possible only by fostering attitudes of receptivity towards new ways of doing things.
Sticking to individual’s traditions and refusing to accept new ideas act as a great barrier to social change. The
extent of cultural accumulation and the amount of contact with other societies determine the nature, extent of
social change within a society.
The possibility of invention and the introduction of new attribute from other cultures is limited by the degree of
cultural accumulation, which in turn depends upon the willingness to discard traditions—at least non-utilitarian
and dysfunctional ones , if not all.
Isolated societies experience little change, and societies which are meeting grounds of people from many
cultures experience rapid social change.They allege that merit of traditions extract from transmission from a
sacred orientation. In a society which does not change, anyone finds people refusing to intermingle freely and
not preferring with to share others’ customs, knowledge, technology and ideologies. This refusal is born of
people’s belief that their traditions are sacred
Traditionally transmitted norms are accepted not because they exist, but just because they fullfill the need to
have rules in a given situation. They perform a stabilising function in society. So, the role which traditional
norms are most likely to play in an economically and technically changing society depends at least in part, on
the place which tradition-oriented behaviour holds in society.
And here we can draw a division on the chain of tradition and modernity. For, in traditional society, traditional
values are given importance because they have been carried forward from the past. But in present modern
society, the conditions for change are well welcomed because they offer solutions to present problems.
2. Caste System:
Caste system has been and is a great obstacle in achieving both justice and prosperity. Kingsley Davis was
absolutely correct when he said that the conception of hereditary occupation is exactly the opposite of the idea
of open opportunities, increasing specialization , free competition and individual mobility associated with
dynamic industrial economy.
Factionalism is an important factor in the failure of development projects, particularly in rural areas. Caste and
the sub-caste membership is one of the basis of the formation of factions. In many areas where farmers belong
to one caste amongst many, other castes do not wish to co-operate as there will be of no direct benefit. In areas
where farmers are the ruling group, the development programme likewise fails to gain widespread acceptance.
Any project that aim all aids one caste is opposed by all others castes who are jealous/compitent of their
position in society or eager to defend their own position at everyone else’s expense. Like caste groups, the intra-
caste groups also act as a barrier to social change.
Earlier, limitations of caste system on interaction with people of other castes did not permit mobility and
industrialisation, and today its use in politics has prevented rulers to function in constructive ways. William
Kapp has also pointed out that Indian/Hindu culture and Hindu social organisation are determining factors in
India’s low rate of development.
His disagreement is that there is no considerable evidence to indicate that Hindu culture and caste system have
had any diminishing effect on India’s development. He calls Kapp’s conclusions as largely speculative
assumptions derived from misunderstood scriptural concepts.
3. Illiteracy, Ignorance and Fear:
Ignorance caused by illiteracy creates fear which impedants social change. Customary ways of doing things are
always considered safe because they have been tried ‘n’ tested. Opinions about trial in villages or in simple
societies is not so agnostic.
If creations, which are in part determined by the existing material culture, are often, people become accustomed
to change and conflict to change tends to break down. Conversely, if material culture creations are not frequent,
change may be rare and feared. When illiteracy promotes hierarchy, education insists on the idea of equality for
all. It encourages rationality too. Educated people have all kinds of new desires, inventions, etc., and also
develop means for achieving them.
4. The Values:
The role played by values in bringing a social change in India is a subject of a lot of controversy. For instance,
Hegel always felt that the social change was a result of unfolding of ideas. Marx ,on the other hand, felt that
values were not effective on long-term social change. He felt that social change was extensively a result of the
interplay of forces of economics and was manifested in class struggle.
Most of the Indian sociologists will agree to that values do influence both individual and society’s behaviour,
thereby influencing social processes. Many also feel that values are the end result of change and therefore
should not always be taken under consideration as primary factors in social change. The values of caste system
(hierarchy, pollution, endogamy, etc.) are a great barrier in changing Indian society.
It was only when technology and industrialisation is accepted by common people that geographical mobility
and as a result social mobility became possible. Fatalism also averted hard work and social change. Famines,
floods, earthquakes, poverty, unemployment are all considered to be the result of God’s outrage. In industrial
societies, people have proved that control over nature is possible and undesirable situation is not a hopeless
obstruction but a hurdle to man’s ingenuity.
Ethnocentrism (belief in the superiority of one’s culture) also obstructs people from accepting
things/innovations from other cultures. Ethnocentrism is so deeply inculcated in the minds of Indians that even
when they are sensitive to the philosophy of cultural relativism and they easily fall victim to evaluating others in
terms of their own point of views. Pride and dignity to prevent people from accepting things suggested or
advised by others. They think that they are so much mature and so much learned that others’ suggestions and
advice needs to be discarded.

5. The Power Elite:

It has been considered almost by all scholars in India that government has been a principal agent of social
change and a good part of social change has been brought forward and directed by government agencies. In
government, the innovative and redeemed functions rest with ‘power reform’, or what Pareto has called the
‘governing reform’.
All reforms are not committed to community’s welfare or society’s development; many reforms function on the
basis of vested interests. In terms of their interest in self (S) and in public (P), I classify them in four groups : in-
different (S- & P-), manipulative (S+ & P-), progressive (S-& P+), and rationalist (S + & P+).
The development of a society depends upon the type of political reforms who pre-dominate. My contention is
that in the first two decades of independence, our reforms were nationalist-rational while in the last three
decades, they have been cosmopolitical-irrational. Since indifferent and manipulative reforms have dominated
over progressive and rationalist reforms, our bureaucrats are more ritualist than innovative, our judiciary is
more traditional than liberal, our police is committed more to politicians in power than to law. Thus, our policy-
makers and law-enforcers do not share necessity of social change conducive to people’s welfare, development
has been tardy.
6. Population Explosion:
The nation’s potential for achieving the set goals is handicapped by explosion in our population. About 46,500
persons are added to our existing population every day, or 17 million persons every year, or 170 million people
in a decade. Its calculated that for every addition of about 165 lakh people in our country, we will require every
year 5 lakh tons cereals, 2.5 million houses, 1.5 lakh primary and secondary schools, 5,000 hospitals and
dispensaries, 2,000 primary health centres, 2 lakh hospital beds, and 50 thousand doctors. The large population
thus checks our integral efforts to overcome poverty and bring about rapid development.
It may be concluded that as considered direction of social change in India is concerned, there has been
considerable cultural continuity along with change based on absorbing modern values, practices and
institutions. Traditional patterns have never been held static and modern behaviour is commonly shaped into
long-standing pattern of action.

A discussion of these approaches facilitates understanding of basic structural and cultural impedances to social
change in India as envisaged in plans and policies. A study of the institutional devices, distributive processes,
resources, educational system, land relations, wages and levels of living in terms of time, people and context is
necessary for a comprehensive understanding of social change. Along with structural and cultural changes
traditional modes of social relations still persist.