Background of fragmentation

In 1940s, even before the independence of the country it was decided that the new government would opt for the industrial socialist model of development, which was to be named as Nehruvian or Mahalanobis model of development later. Thus the Gandhian model of Sarvodaya and Swaraj, which had drawn masses of India towards national freedom struggle, was rejected. To follow Beck’s concept of risk (1992), it produced new risks in the country – social, global and hidden. They are wholesale product of industrialization (and the concomitant processes of planning and change in the country). They are the systematic ways of dealing with hazards and insecurities induced and introduced by modernization. After independence, a new agenda was set and competition and success became the new values of society. This happened at a time when the overwhelming majority of people lacked the means to be able to share the fruits of development and modernization. The result of this conflict between values and availability of means to achieve them produced the division of society into two parts: a forward looking, modern and Westernized upper class; and the traditional and poor masses, getting marginalized further by the processes of development and modernization. Leaders stressed that there is no alternative to industrial development. They also maintained that with right economic thinking it is possible to catch up with the Western countries. It was hidden that under the new model, the gains of development would be available only to a small part of Indian people. Gradually, as the country developed it became amply clear that this form of development cannot meet the needs of all. It cannot solve the problems of the toiling masses and can lead to mass discontentment posing threat to very survival of the nation. As a matter of fact in the early days of development the poverty and deprivation increased and the urban-rural gap became wider. Then it was realized that if development cannot help all and has potential to destabilize the country, for a stable democratic polity all powerful groups must be co-opted. This thinking produced several responses on the part of state as well as civil society. One of them has been to divide society into a few major social groups and provide preferential treatment to backward classes. In India social class is easily mixed up with caste and religious community. This thinking has produced a situation in which state is constantly defining and re-defining castes, classes and communities. The position of a caste and community depends on its relationship with the state and, therefore, to get declared “backward” (i.e., entitled for positive discrimination) a caste or a community has to mobilize strong political support. This is the new risk of 21st century and the future of India depends heavily on how it is dealt with.