Prof K S Chandrasekar
“Unity in Diversity” is the mantra of India. The ethnic and linguistic diversity of Indian civilization is more like the diversity of an area as variable as Europe than like that of any other single nation-state. India has a vast numbers of different regional, social, and economic groups, each with different cultural practices. Throughout the country, religious differences can be significant, especially between the Hindu majority and the large Muslim minority; and other Indian groups–Buddhists, Christians, Jains, Jews, Parsis, Sikhs, and practitioners of tribal religions–all pride themselves on being unlike members of other faiths. Access to wealth and power varies considerably, and vast differences in socioeconomic status are evident everywhere. The poor and the wealthy live side by side in urban and rural areas. It is common in city life to see a prosperous, well-fed man or woman chauffeured in a fine car where we see the street dwellers huddled beneath the shelters along the roadway. In many villages, solid cement houses of landowners rise not far from the flimsy thatched shacks of landless laborers. Even when not so obvious, distinctions of class are found in almost every settlement in India.
Urban-rural differences can be immense in the Indian Society. Nearly 70 percent of India’s population dwells in villages, with agriculture providing support for most of these rural residents. In villages, mud-plastered walls ornamented with traditional designs, dusty lanes, herds of grazing cattle, and the songs of birds at sunset provide typical settings for the social lives of most Indians. Gender distinctions are pronounced. The behavior expected of men and women can be quite different, especially in villages, but also in urban centers. Prescribed ideal gender roles help shape the actions of both sexes as they move between family and the world outside the home. One of the most serious challenges that India faced post-independence was economic backwardness. However, with time and introduction of new economic policies India emerged as a nation with the fourth largest in the World. In spite of several internal and external problems, India has maintained its unity and democracy. Different communities with their different identities demanded different rights.
The social problems of contemporary India are the result of a complex nexus between the factors of exclusion and inclusion rooted in history, values and cultural ethos. Many of these problems based on the policy of segregation have not been addressed by the development strategy launched since independence. Recent policies of globalization have further undermined the role of larger societal norms as well as the state apparatus that could counter exclusionary forces. The agenda of social development has remained unfinished, keeping social tensions simmering. Today, however, in the policy debate, orthodox economic liberalism is giving way to concerns regarding social consequences of globalization. Thus a number of highly important and far reaching social policy measures have been brought on to the development agenda. This unique volume argues the need to harness the energy of the nation to ensure their effective implementation through an overview of trends and patterns of development along with policies and programmes. It identifies key concerns and proposes measures of possible intervention.
Change is a fact of human life. We may not feel in our day-to-day experience but it continues to affect us in one way or the other. A hundred and thousand years might be a moment in the life of rocks and mountains but in human society changes take place in the course of merely one or two generations. The society is made up of people of different tastes. Social change is the result of a number of factors. Changes occur due to the process of formation, reformation or decay at various levels. Structural processes of change are due to a transformation in the network of social relationships. Caste, kinship, family and occupational groups constitute some of the structural realities. Change in these relationships is a structural change.
When we think of a situation in which our grandmother was living in a village where a large number of family members were staying together in one household. She was not allowed to come out of the four walls of the house till she had become old. That is they were not allowed to get education and to participate in any social activities. Their functions were restricted to household duties alone. Now when we compare it with the condition of our mother we can see a change in structure of our own family. At present the woman are free to get educated, do any job and to deal in society as in the case of male. The status of woman are equal to men.We will notice several corresponding changes even in the life-style of our own family. In dressing, food habits i.e., before only homely foods was consumed but now most people prefer Fast food service, the different ways of entertainment etc. Eating out is now almost a norm with the presence of large number of restaurants across cities.
The nature of social life, their educational system, their cultural activities, family set ups etc., have been changed from generation to generation. For example, for years ago joint family system was prevailing in the society. But nowadays joint family system is very rare but nuclear family system is seen everywhere. These alterations have occurred merely in a generation or two.The Indian society is divided into 6000 and more castes. Before 3000 years ago there was no caste system in the society. People were living under different gothrams and kulams. This system was prevailing during the Indus valley civilization (freedom, equality and fraternity), there is prevalence of Chaaturvarnya (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra) or caste system . Such caste system prevails in India today also.
When the traditional agrarian system based on family labour is transformed into agrarian system based on hired labour with a view to produce for the market, we may call it a structural change. The backbone of Indian economy and the main means of lively hood of the people of India is considered as agriculture. Long ago the traditional agrarian system was based on family labour. But it has changed now a days by engaging hired labours for more production. It has paved for marketing the surplus production. It is a structural change. Urbanisation has altered the structure of joint family as a result of occupational diversification. Consequently, the functions of family and kinship have declined considerably. The traditional family norms are relaxed and interpersonal relationships have become more formal. The cities are now seeing single child being reared, or DINKS (Double Income No Kids), Single mothers etc. An urban child now grows within much smaller world. The child has to select playmates outside the family. In this manner, the child develops a new type of personality characterised by ideas of freedom and innovation. Such a situation is remarkably different from the environment of dependence found in a joint family. The nature of love and affection in interpersonal relationship has also changed. While children and their mothers receive considerable attention, sentiments and attachment towards other relatives have weakened. Likewise, the division of domestic duties between wife and husband is changing in the urban settings. They both share domestic duties, as there is no other adult member available to share the burden. Thus, social life in urban areas faces isolation due to diminishing kinship obligations.
Several ties that formerly bound members of the family to group and community life are now broken. Consequently, the quality of human relationships tends to become more formal and impersonal. Another visible change is in the domain of caste identity. Urban dwellers participate in networks that include persons of several castes. Individual achievement and modern status symbols have become more important than caste identity. Caste norms are not strictly maintained which is manifest in family relations, marital alliances and in occupational relations. It is, thus, possible to suggest that urban way of life has made people think more as individuals than as members of a particular caste. The importance of ascription as the basis of social status is declining and the significance of achievement is taking its place. The level of education, nature of occupation and the level of income are now major indicators of one’s achievement in an urban setup. Therefore, people recognize education, occupation and income as prerequisites for higher social status. It does not mean that the achieved status has completely replaced ascribed status and class has fully overshadowed caste. It is, however, necessary to clarify that changes brought about by urbanization have not altogether replaced the traditional patterns of family, kinship and caste. They go through adaptations and their functions are not completely eroded. That’s why there is a clear societal and structural changes which one has to accept and also live with it.
(The author is Vice Chancellor, Cluster University of Jammu)
