Last night a show on television was hosting a debate on issues stemming from Hindutva groups claiming to protect Indian culture and the consequent opposition expressed by liberal sections of society. The show was by a news channel catering to the urban educated middle class and predictably assumed that the position of the liberal progressive urbanite was the one to reckon with. However, despite the idealogical bias in the show, it did manage to throw out one interesting and fundamental contradiction existing in Indian society at this point. A question was raised about the difference in perception between small town India and big city India on what is considered morally and culturally acceptable in Indian soceity.
First and foremost, this question throws to light the reality of an increasingly diversified India, one where differences in perceptions, aspirations and ideals are glaring not only between small towns and big cities, but even more so between a rural and an increasingly urbanised India. It is an India where social spheres are increasingly drifting apart as a result of the enormous economic evolution underway in the country. From an economic standpoint some might still argue that the economic trajectory will have these spheres converge eventually. But there is no doubting the enormous social and cultural gap that is establishing itself as part of the evolutionary dynamic.
It is not surprising then to see that the idea of what might be socially acceptable to a big city person might not necessarily bode well with people from the small towns with a villager possibly not being able to relate to either of the two mindsets. A villagers social realm rests on principles of close nit community life where everyone knows everyone and every individual's activities are open to public scrutiny. Most are deeply religious and allow themselves to be governed by well established socio-religious customs and norms. Small towns in India largely consist of families with small scale businesses with the majority of the populace engaged with them in some way or the other. The towns consist of close knit areas having a few well known families where the lives of the members are closely followed by the common populace. The increased exposure to different media and western ideas is met with almost stronger opposition from the joint family system which lays utmost importance to public impression and reputation. Big cities on the other hand are characterised by shallow social relations and nuclear families. With ample opportunities to earn and spend, people have little time to think beyond their limited social groups. The general attitude is largely self-centred with little time or inclination to bother about others in the city. The scale and size of the cities also allow for avenues where one can remain unknown and unnoticed.
The socio-economic equations of each of the three groups are so drastically divergent, it is unreasonable to expect any one to relate to, let alone accept the others viewpoint. Also, each group is economically and politically significant enough in its own right so as not to give way to the perception of the others. Each has its own unique social dynamic in which it sees sense and purpose. Unfortunately, these social spheres do not operate in isolation. Further, each has a well developed sense of being part of the Indian identity and in turn feels that it has a right to influence it. The problem gets worse when people feel insecure about their identity and in retaliation attempt to force a particular identity onto others. Who then has a right to determine what is understood as socially acceptable or not in this country? Who has a right to lay claim to the idea of India and what it should be like?
Each social sphere has a definite right to define and follow the limits that make sense to its members in their respective social contexts. Limits cannot be absolutely followed within social spheres just as they cannot be expected to be uniform across them. It is important to realise and inculcate the understanding that today's India is one where multiple and often clashing dynamics exist. There needs to be a conscious recognition of the increasing social divide and a concomitant shift in attitude from confrontation to reconciliation. It is for this very reason that a system of democracy becomes ever so relevant. We are lucky that we have such a system in place and it is thus increasingly important for us to effectively use the institutions available within this system to resolve and reconcile the contradictions which are developing between our ever evolving social spheres. For all its contradictions, we cannot have an India that is one's and not the others. No 'ONE' can lay claim to it.
First and foremost, this question throws to light the reality of an increasingly diversified India, one where differences in perceptions, aspirations and ideals are glaring not only between small towns and big cities, but even more so between a rural and an increasingly urbanised India. It is an India where social spheres are increasingly drifting apart as a result of the enormous economic evolution underway in the country. From an economic standpoint some might still argue that the economic trajectory will have these spheres converge eventually. But there is no doubting the enormous social and cultural gap that is establishing itself as part of the evolutionary dynamic.
It is not surprising then to see that the idea of what might be socially acceptable to a big city person might not necessarily bode well with people from the small towns with a villager possibly not being able to relate to either of the two mindsets. A villagers social realm rests on principles of close nit community life where everyone knows everyone and every individual's activities are open to public scrutiny. Most are deeply religious and allow themselves to be governed by well established socio-religious customs and norms. Small towns in India largely consist of families with small scale businesses with the majority of the populace engaged with them in some way or the other. The towns consist of close knit areas having a few well known families where the lives of the members are closely followed by the common populace. The increased exposure to different media and western ideas is met with almost stronger opposition from the joint family system which lays utmost importance to public impression and reputation. Big cities on the other hand are characterised by shallow social relations and nuclear families. With ample opportunities to earn and spend, people have little time to think beyond their limited social groups. The general attitude is largely self-centred with little time or inclination to bother about others in the city. The scale and size of the cities also allow for avenues where one can remain unknown and unnoticed.
The socio-economic equations of each of the three groups are so drastically divergent, it is unreasonable to expect any one to relate to, let alone accept the others viewpoint. Also, each group is economically and politically significant enough in its own right so as not to give way to the perception of the others. Each has its own unique social dynamic in which it sees sense and purpose. Unfortunately, these social spheres do not operate in isolation. Further, each has a well developed sense of being part of the Indian identity and in turn feels that it has a right to influence it. The problem gets worse when people feel insecure about their identity and in retaliation attempt to force a particular identity onto others. Who then has a right to determine what is understood as socially acceptable or not in this country? Who has a right to lay claim to the idea of India and what it should be like?
Each social sphere has a definite right to define and follow the limits that make sense to its members in their respective social contexts. Limits cannot be absolutely followed within social spheres just as they cannot be expected to be uniform across them. It is important to realise and inculcate the understanding that today's India is one where multiple and often clashing dynamics exist. There needs to be a conscious recognition of the increasing social divide and a concomitant shift in attitude from confrontation to reconciliation. It is for this very reason that a system of democracy becomes ever so relevant. We are lucky that we have such a system in place and it is thus increasingly important for us to effectively use the institutions available within this system to resolve and reconcile the contradictions which are developing between our ever evolving social spheres. For all its contradictions, we cannot have an India that is one's and not the others. No 'ONE' can lay claim to it.
