Tradition and Modernisation

DP MUKHERJEE was an influential Indian sociologist. D.P.
came to
sociology via history and economics, and retained an active interest in a
wide variety of subjects ranging across literature, music, film, western and
Indian philosophy, Marxism, political economy, and development planning.
He was influenced by Marxism but instead called himself a Marxologist
because of the former’s reservation that prevented it from addressing the
specificities of Indian context.
He had a deep interest in Traditions. He wrote it is not enough for the

Indian sociologist to be a sociologist. He must be an Indian first, that is, he
is to share in the folk-ways, mores, customs and traditions, for the
purpose of understanding his social system and what lies beneath it and
beyond it.” He believed that sociologists should learn and be familiar with
both ‘high’ and ‘low’ languages and cultures — not only Sanskrit, Persian
or Arabic, but also local dialects. He proposed a unique way of doing
sociology based on the traditions which is different from the Eurocentric
understanding of society. His work can be broadly understood in terms of
dialectical processes of tradition and modernity, nationalism and
colonialism and individualism and collectivism.
DP Mukherjee called the 19 th century British rule in India as the last

renaissance as it made an impact on the Indian society. India entered into
a new lease of life. India was now in a transition from tradition to
modernity. Since DP used Marxist method of historical method, and
believed that empirical research uninformed by sense of history and
deductive reason is only superficial, he attempted a dialectical
interpretation of encounter between Indian tradition and modernity which
unleashed many forces of cultural contradiction during the colonial era.
His aim was not to create dichotomies but to understand them in
continuum as a gradual transformation from one to another.
This encounter between tradition and modernity has two consequences

either synthesis or conflict. For a longer period of time, synthesis has been
dominant organising principle. Through the assimilation and conflict of
various forces of Buddhism, Islam and western commerce and culture,
Indian culture became what it is today neither Hindu nor Islamic neither a
replica of the western modes of living and nor a purely Asiatic product.
This meant that an attitude of indifference to supreme reality was formed.
DP called it mystic outlook. He argued that Islam could have shaken Hindu
society but buddhism served as a cusion. Similarly buddhism also failed
in tearing hindu society and only rendered it more elasticity. Muslims were
economically progressive but they brought very little change. But the
British rule proved to be a turning point. It changed the relations of
production, introduced new pattern of education, educational mobility and
the liquidation of middle class and led to the emergence of new spurious
middle class .
DP’s vision of progressive India was born out of the union of diverse
elements rather than the type of unity imposed by britishers from top. The
accommodation of various kinds of conflicting loyalties within national
framework rather than national integration was the stategy favored him
which was both feasible and advantageous. Thus, his plea is for the
reorientation of tradition.
DP employed Franklin Gidding’s classification of tradition: primary,

secondary and tertiary. He suggested at the time of british arrival, hindus
and muslims had not achieved full synthesis of traditions all all levels of
social existence. the greator aggrement was regarding utilisation and
appropriation of resources but not in religious and aesthetic aspects. It
was in this situation that british arrived and gave Indian history a serious
jolt and brought several changes but they couldn’t be utilised for they had
cut across India’s traditions.
The British rule that DP called the last renaissance brought the spirit of
nationalism.. With nationalism, patriotism became new dharma and
the Indian culture or riti took aside. The Gandhi struck to riti but the
political and social undercurrents were too strong for general
acceptance of riti. Thus, patriotism became the reason for decay of
religious feelings and cultural values. The extension of national
consciousness had taken place at the expanse of quality of culture.
According to DP nationalism had produced culture but without the
achar capable of doing any duty. Consequently, regional culture had
to yield place for vague all India feeling that National movt
demanded.
This Culture is an affair of total consciousness. it engages

consciousness and its integrity or it is lost in the shades of
sentimentality. the national movement skimmed a part of our
consciousness the political one and the rest was left high and dry
unsupported by behaviours. this means that our politics has ruined
our culture. in a colonial country like ours Politics had a place more
important than what it occupied elsewhere. but in that selective
preoccupation we lost a few things including the need of a political
theory. for example, we plunged into action in the abundance of
sacrifices. Thus, DP Mukherji urged readers to free the culture from
the clutches of political partisanship.
DP Mukherjee argued that in order to save the culture, efforts should

be made to plan culture that is conditions should be created. Even
the unconscious part of it should be brought into realm as it is not
outside history. The conditions of culture signify freedom. The same
was also pointed out by Malinowski from his book “freedom and
civilization”. The values of culture. are embodied in ideals,
miythologies, political constitution an economic ideology. The
culture demands freedom of discussion, freedom of association and
action and the third freedom of securing distributive justice by
removing fear of obstacles. These sectors of freedom are the very
conditions of the culture system that DP wants the people to retain.
The freedom gives individuals a sense of personal value and
achievement. In free culture people can form their purpose by
undertaking activities and enjoying the gains. All this implies
towards an intrinsic relationship Between freedom gained and
culture inherited.
This renaissance also brought individualism to India. It arrived late in

India. the doctrine of individualism was about assertion of particular
type of freedom especially from external authority like freedom
against encroachment by government, freedom of a wife against
husband's notion of conventional family and citizen against
policemen etc. If India had not adapted to British individualism the
only alternative could have been orthodox Hinduism and political
terrorism.
The dignity of man is also considered the gift of the West but the
question is if this is the case then did britishers actually abolish
caste system. It doesn't look that way because whenever any bill for
social reform was sought British administration maintained
neutrality. As far as the status of caste system is concerned they
only isolated the person from the system temporally and gravitated
him towards offices, mercantile firms and mills where it was easier
for people to maintain anonymity and imbibe the new ideas.
The britishers in the name of rule of law made legal contracts and
killed lacks of people and seized their acres of land. Their law was
separated from morality. It did not cover the dignity of man within
its ambit. Within this context it is important to remember the phrase
coined by lala lajpat Rai “ birthright”. An allotropy of Natural rights
which state in Indian political vocabulary. It is also illustrative of
India's assimilation of western influence. But here lies the irony of
last renaissance. They talked about the idea of social good and
dignity of man but in fact britishers were a split personality. more
disturbing is the fact that Indians always had a sense of humanism
which got tainted by individualism. So while he was appreciative of
renaissance for bringing individualism, he also opposed it as it stood
against humanism. According to Mukherjee India could only attain
its dignity back in its protest against British rule. With the Indian
technique of satyagraha we can get our moral dignity back. He even
added that India also needs to add intellectual dignity to the ethical
one. Till, then India will remain an adolescent of dignity.
D.P. also argued that Indian culture and society are not
individualistic in the western sense. The average Indian
individual’s pattern of desires is more or less rigidly fixed by his
sociocultural group pattern and he hardly deviates from it.
Thus, the Indian social system is basically oriented towards
group, sect, or caste-action, not ‘voluntaristic’ individual action.
The synthesis of double process of individuality and
socialisation of the uniqueness of individual life , the perfect
unity called personality is a core concept in his thinking.
D.P. pointed out that the root meaning of the word tradition is
to transmit. Its Sanskrit equivalents are either parampara, that
is, succession; or aitihya, which comes from the same root as
itihas or history. Traditions are thus strongly rooted in the past
that is kept alive through the repeated recalling and retelling of
stories and myths. However, this link with the past does not
rule out change, but indicates a process of adaptation to it.
Internal and external sources of change are always present in
every society. The most commonly cited internal source of
change in western societies is the economy, but this source has
not been as effective in India. Class conflict, D.P. believed, had
been “smoothed and covered by caste traditions” in the Indian
context, where new class relations had not yet emerged very
sharply. Based on this understanding, he concluded that one of
the first tasks for a dynamic Indian sociology would be to
provide an account of the internal, non-economic causes of
changes.
The three principles of change are sruti, smriti and Anubhav.

Sruti implied listening, smriti meant memorizing and Anubhav
meant personal experience. The high traditions were centred in
smriti and sruti, but they were periodically
challenged by the collective experience of groups and sects, as
for example in the bhakti movement. D.P. emphasised that this
was true not only of Hindu but also of Muslim culture in India. In
Indian Islam, the Sufis have stressed love and experience
rather than holy texts, and have been important in bringing
about change. Thus, for D.P., the Indian context is not one
where discursive reason (buddhi-vichar) is the dominant force
for change; Anubhav and prem (experience and love) have also
been historically superior as agents of change .
DP prescribed that there should be conscious adjustment to these
values and traditions for no new culture can be built from scratch.
The genuine modernization was not possible. DP favoured the
concordance btw both Indian and Western. He even appreciated
Tagore and Rammohun Roy for their attempt to synthesise Indian and
western Traditions. Tagore was deeply involved with Indian tradition and
hence he could absorb more. For DP, this tradition was a facility rather
than an obstacle to modernization. Obviously, there could be conflict, but
it happened at intermediary stage in the dialectic triad which later paved
the way for synthesis.
It can be concluded that tradition was neither to be worshipped nor

ignored, just as modernity was needed but not to be blindly adopted. D.P.
was simultaneously a proud but critical inheritor of tradition, as well as an
admiring critic of the modernity that he acknowledged as having shaped
his own intellectual perspective.

Tradition and Modernisation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tradition and Modernisation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tradition and Modernisation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DP MUKHERJEE was an influential Indian sociologist. D.P.

He had a deep interest in Traditions. He wrote it is not enough for the

DP Mukherjee called the 19 th century British rule in India as the last

This encounter between tradition and modernity has two consequences

DP employed Franklin Gidding’s classification of tradition: primary,

This Culture is an affair of total consciousness. it engages

DP Mukherjee argued that in order to save the culture, efforts should

This renaissance also brought individualism to India. It arrived late in

The three principles of change are sruti, smriti and Anubhav.

It can be concluded that tradition was neither to be worshipped nor

You might also like