India and Democracy
sitar...@my-deja.com
(found posted at http://www.sulekha.com/philosophy )
From the little I know about history and development of human thought,
I feel the following.
Eastern thought (lot of it originating from Hinduism) addressed the
individual. Whether it be metaphysical speculation or just
physical/mental conditioning (through Yoga), the focus was always on
the individual. This has led to some fantastic insights and deep
understanding of the self. I don't know of any significant body of work
that talked about a person's relationship with others and the mechanics
for developing and evolving an efficiently functioning society.
Western thought, on the other hand, focused little on the individual
and more on the structure and the group. This has led to remarkable
inventions such as liberal democracy and free enterprise.
Maybe...just maybe... is it possible that the British rule (for over
200 years) has cultivated in Indians the liberal democratic ethos while
a good part of Asia suffers from the lack of it? In other words, is it
because of the British that India has been able to prize and cherish
its democracy despite its rickety political/economic infrastructure?
==================================
(someone else's Reply):
Well here are my musings. Eastern thought (that originated from
Hinduism) was developed in a predominantly resource-rich setting. The
society was based in an environment where surviving from hunger or the
elements was not that big an issue. Whatever was needed to overcome
survival problems had been addressed -- the planned townships of
Harappa, and of most other Indian kingdoms. However, what was the issue
was that of management of human societies and of problems like over-
indulgence.
If you look back at Indian history there are sciences on almost every
topic -- economics, management, astronomy, medicine, mathematics,
music, dance, painting, language,... BUT a conspicious lack of
paradigms like technology, large scale manufacturing, mass production,
machine construction, etc.
Eastern thought that has led to eastern philosophy had their roots in
management of societies! (Unlike what you have observed.) Societies led
to the inquiry of human relationships and ultimately into the nature of
humans themselves -- the Self. In fact, Hinduism revolves around a
concept called Brahman that is the soul of all souls; an absolute
undefinable that is for itself, unto itself. And even existence is just
a part of the Brahman. The universe is said to be an "outpouring of
joy" of the Brahman. And that is where the term satchitananda comes
from.
On the other hand, western thought was developed in a very different
setting. Here, survival was much more of an issue (although no one
explicitly recognized it, of course -- 'cause there was no other
reference.)
Western society in the early centuries of this millienium were based on
a feudalistic organization. Human introspection had not reached that
levels of depth as it had in the east.
Here, the major source of change were the adventures by the seafarers.
They came to be regarded as heroes when they went to conquer far away
lands and "discover" new ones. In fact, once these adventures ended,
Europe seemes to suddenly have a pathway to immense resources that can
help beat the harsh environment at home. But they were faced with a
tremendous organizational and logistic problems.
It is no wonder that technology was born in response to this. It is not
to say that people never experimented with steam kettles anywhere else;
or never had an urge to fly. But the present situation gave so great a
market for technology, it had to blossom.
A characteristic of technology is that it deals with inanimate objects
of the real world. The require rational reasoning. And they don't
require one to know and understand human feelings and relationships.
And all this "objectivism" is based on those tenets. The pull of
technology was so great that it induced wide spread changes all through
society. Technology developed by a paradigm of mass production and
precise organization and coordination. Even society took the same form!
Society was "optimized" for mass dissemination, and mass consumption.
Hence, while western thought seems to address societies; they actually
address abstract concepts of systems and organization, and have used it
on societies as well (in addition to a number of other fields like
engineering, management, medicine, etc.)
Eastern thought on the other hand also addressed systems -- but mostly
human and naturally occurring systems. There was no concept of an
abstract organized system without any concrete reference.
And democracy is a result of the abstract concept of organization
applied to human systems. Human systems in the western world also went
through similar concepts that are used in technology. A computer-
science engineer should know in how many places the concept of "master"
and "slave" is used in computer science, for example. But finally
democracy emerged as the best alternative to all the other
organizations.
Were the British responsible for bringing democracy to India?? Hmmm
well, when the British occupied India, democracy was just as alien a
concept to them as it was in India! Democracy was a result of the
culmination of the industrial revolution; in order to substantiate such
a claim, just have a look at the role technology plays in maintaining a
democratic system. The better the technology, the better a democratic
system be maintained. It is quite difficult to imagine some kingdom
like that of Ashoka or Chandragupta Maurya having a democratic
structure like the democracies of today. The assurance of fundamental
rights itself could probably not have been achieved!
So, if we conclude that democracy was one of the results of the
industrial revolution; does it mean that India did not have democracy
because it "missed" the industrial revolution? Well, India did not
"miss" the revolution in any way. The existence of far away resource-
rich environments like India could well be one of the motivating
factors for technology to develop in the west, in the first place.
I think, fundamentally, the structure is simple: we are an
interconnected world. And there can be no well defined dichotomies that
can divide the world into different paradigms. Each paradigm of thought
also seems to have influenced the development of the other.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.