Centrality of state in Indian tradition

Undoubtedly, the best of all the ideas that the traditionalists provide are the ideas of cooperation and holism in which the divine, the spiritual or the religious reference frame is used to develop solutions to worldly problems. Apologists of traditions have long attempted to show that the Indian society could not have been sustained for five thousand years without the continuity of cardinal values of cooperation, exchange, spiritualism, tolerance and pluralism. There is a merit in this argument. It is also possible to argue that in Indian tradition inequality was tolerated for long because it was dispersed and there was not one centre of power. In absence of accumulated inequality the Indian state could not be as despotic as in absence of dispersed inequality. There have been historical and ideological wars against the closed system of caste. It could not have been as closed as it is believed to be. The twin concepts of cooperation and holism are consistent with the basic spiritual and Dharmic framework of traditions and the traditionalists offer them as an alternative. They are two values which stand on their own. For the self-sustaining development of human society we need coordination between religious and other social institutions and cooperation between castes, communities, regions, and social groups. Dumont (1970) shows how such a system might have worked in the past. State has to perform an important role in this.

One must understand that a large and complex society like India with multiple collective actors and their diverse backgrounds, networks and visions, cannot spontaneously create cooperation. Gandhi realized this most when he supported use of law for agrarian reforms. Gandhi, who dreamed of equality and trusteeship, was often quite disillusioned with effectiveness of voluntarism. Thus he favored law to enforce the redistribution of land in case the voluntarism fails.