Idea of development planning and mixed economy

The idea of development planning has played a pivotal role in shaping India’s post-independence economic and social trajectory. Planning refers to a systematic, goal-oriented process that evaluates national needs, sets priorities, and outlines concrete strategies to fulfill them. It embodies the vision of a welfare state where progress is not left to market forces alone but is consciously guided by the state in alignment with societal needs.

Planning in India was not merely an economic exercise but a nation-building tool. For planning to be effective, certain prerequisites are essential. These include the formulation of a well-structured blueprint with clear objectives and strategies, mobilization of public opinion to ensure mass participation, and sustained commitment likened to a ‘missionary zeal’. Planning should also be socially acceptable, respecting India’s diversity and democratic ethos, and coordinated effectively among different sectors and institutions.

Different types of planning exist globally. Democratic planning, which India adopted, ensures participation through elected representatives and reflects the will of the people. In contrast, totalitarian planning, seen in authoritarian regimes, is shaped by a central elite and often disregards public opinion. Social planning, a broader framework, seeks to reform social institutions and eradicate evils like poverty, alcoholism, and terrorism.

Planning holds unique significance for a country like India. First, it enables efficient resource allocation. David Hall emphasized that planning helps in making the best use of limited resources for collective welfare. Second, planning acts as a mediator between individual aspirations and the goals of the state, thereby promoting inclusive development, especially for marginalized communities. Third, it serves as a mechanism to reduce socio-economic inequality and eliminate poverty. The inspiration for such a framework was partly drawn from the USSR, where a centrally planned economy had shown remarkable industrial growth. Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru believed that India, having inherited an underdeveloped economy from colonial rule, needed state-led development to catch up.

Nehru, the principal architect of Indian planning, strongly advocated for centralized economic planning through Five-Year Plans. He viewed planning not just as an economic necessity but as a democratic and socialist instrument for achieving rapid industrialization, equitable growth, and social justice. For him, planning was crucial for building a modern, self-reliant nation.

Economic growth was identified as the core goal of planning. The strategy aimed to generate resources, create employment opportunities, enhance social welfare, and attain self-sufficiency. During the initial decades post-independence, especially in the 1950s, planning focused on both agriculture and industry. A notable example was the Nehru-Mahalanobis model, which prioritized heavy industries to lay the foundation for long-term growth. The model also addressed rural poverty, recognizing that nearly 80% of India’s population depended on agriculture.

Several thinkers contributed to the discourse on development planning. P.C. Joshi, in his work on developmental strategies, advocated a Gandhian approach emphasizing trusteeship, human happiness, and cultural harmony over mere material progress. M. Visvesvaraya, as early as the 1940s, called for a technocratic and industrial development model. The National Planning Committee, set up by the Indian National Congress in 1938 under Nehru, was one of the earliest comprehensive planning initiatives. Another key contribution came from the Bombay Plan of 1944, where industrialists like Tata and Birla proposed a 15-year development roadmap. This plan marked a significant moment when even private capital acknowledged the need for state-led economic coordination.

Institutionally, the Planning Commission was established in 1950 by a government resolution. Its mandate was vast – assessing the country’s resources, formulating plans for their effective utilization, setting development priorities, identifying growth bottlenecks, suggesting corrective measures, and recommending suitable administrative machinery for implementation. The Commission served as the nodal agency to operationalize planning across the country, reviewing progress and revising strategies based on periodic evaluation.

Mixed Economy and Its Role in Indian Development Planning

A mixed economy is characterized by the coexistence of both public and private sectors, working in coordination to achieve national development goals. Post-independence, India deliberately adopted this model to address the challenges of widespread poverty, economic underdevelopment, and social inequality. The Indian version of the mixed economy was designed not merely as an economic arrangement, but as a broader developmental vision—one that would promote inclusive growth, uphold redistributive justice, and prevent the concentration of wealth in private hands through monopoly capitalism.

The relevance of the mixed economy in the Indian context becomes clearer when seen through the lens of development planning. It provided a framework in which the socialist vision of reducing inequalities could be pursued through democratic and institutional mechanisms. Planning in India—via the Five-Year Plans—took on a distinct socialist orientation by aiming to correct historical injustices and uplift marginalized groups. The nationalization of banks, insurance companies, and core industries during the early years exemplifies this interventionist approach. Furthermore, development initiatives such as agricultural subsidies and poverty alleviation programs like the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) highlighted the state's redistributive role.

India’s choice of a mixed economy was shaped by several pragmatic reasons. In the immediate post-independence period, the Indian state lacked the resources and capacity to operate all sectors of the economy independently. Therefore, selective private participation was encouraged. Moreover, the welfare needs of a newly independent, poverty-stricken nation could not be left to the profit-driven motives of the private sector. The existing private sector was also underdeveloped, especially in terms of capital and technology, and was unable to shoulder the burden of nation-building alone. Thus, the state took a lead role in heavy industry, infrastructure, and welfare provisioning, while allowing space for private enterprise in other sectors.

Equity concerns also played a central role. Indian leaders, particularly Nehru, were wary of capitalism’s potential to deepen inequalities. The planning system aimed to build a just and egalitarian society by redistributing wealth and creating opportunities for the underprivileged. This approach led to tangible social benefits. For instance, poverty levels, which stood at nearly 80% during colonial rule, declined significantly over time. Literacy improved from roughly 12% at independence to over 75% in the present day.

Several thinkers have critically engaged with India’s mixed economy model. Daniel Thorner noted that capitalist agriculture, particularly after the Green Revolution, flourished within a policy framework that was ostensibly socialist. The rural elite—often described as ‘kulaks’—benefited from state subsidies and land reforms more than the landless. Tom Bottomore viewed Indian planning as a movement toward socialism, given the dominance of the public sector and the redistributive aims embedded in policy frameworks.

The mixed economy facilitated numerous positive socio-economic transformations. Economically, poverty levels declined sharply, especially after targeted welfare interventions and technological revolutions in agriculture. The Green Revolution brought food self-sufficiency and even exportable surpluses. Industrially, the Nehru-Mahalanobis strategy helped build a strong base for heavy industries, ensuring self-reliance in strategic sectors such as defense and energy. These gains were sustained and expanded in later years through localized and participatory planning mechanisms.

Social inclusion, too, was a significant outcome. Constitutional provisions such as Article 17, which abolished untouchability, and policy instruments like caste-based reservations in education and employment, have created space for historically oppressed communities to participate in public life. Sociologist Surinder S. Jodhka described this as a “silent revolution” marked by the rise of a Dalit middle class. Women’s empowerment also gained momentum, with female literacy improving from 5% in 1947 to nearly 65% by 2011, and increased participation in higher education. Legal reforms, such as the Domestic Violence Act and POCSO, added further strength to the mixed economy’s welfare agenda.

However, the mixed economy has also resulted in significant shortcomings. Despite high growth rates, economic inequality has widened. According to Oxfam’s 2021 report, the wealth of India’s top 11 billionaires could fund the rural employment scheme (MGNREGA) for over a decade. This stark inequality indicates that the “trickle-down” effect of economic growth has been limited.

Another concern is development-induced displacement. Scholar Walter Fernandes has documented how large-scale infrastructure and industrial projects have displaced millions, with tribals constituting nearly half of the displaced population. These groups often face downward mobility and are absorbed into the informal sector under exploitative conditions. Environmental degradation, seen in projects like Ken-Betwa which threaten biodiversity hotspots such as the Panna Biosphere Reserve, also points to the costs of unbalanced development.

Amartya Sen has critiqued India’s development model as being top-down and non-participatory, leading to deprivation despite economic growth. He advocates for inclusive planning that involves people in decision-making. A recent NITI Aayog report echoes this by recommending a shift from focusing merely on reducing absolute inequality to enabling “competitive equality” through better capital and human resource utilization.

Caste and class inequalities remain entrenched. Anand Chakravarty argues that while India is a political democracy, land-owning upper castes continue to dominate socio-economic structures and political decision-making. Rudolph and Rudolph, analyzing the rise of a backward caste middle class, point out that instead of fostering solidarity, globalization and economic mobility have led to conspicuous consumption, reinforcing class distinctions. This mirrors Thorstein Veblen’s concept of “conspicuous consumption,” where the newly affluent display status through consumer goods rather than collective empowerment.

A particularly pressing issue within India’s mixed economy is the gendered experience of development. Veena Das has highlighted the “cultural enslavement” of women in public and private spaces, underscoring how the normalization of sexual violence limits women’s freedom and economic participation. India's female labor force participation stands at a dismal 24%, one of the lowest globally. This suggests that despite economic reforms and legal protections, women’s security and access to economic opportunities remain deeply constrained.

DEVELOPMENT

Development, in sociological terms, refers to a positive and organized transformation of societal conditions that encompasses economic growth, modernization, improved material consumption, and institutional change. It is a broad concept that extends beyond mere increases in income or production to include social and cultural progress. Development is understood not as a static achievement but as a continuous process that requires deliberate effort, policy interventions, and active participation from society.

One key characteristic of development is that it is an ongoing process rather than a fixed state. Societies constantly evolve, but not all change constitutes development. Change can sometimes exacerbate inequalities or injustices if it does not incorporate fairness and social justice. Development is value-laden, meaning it is rooted in the cultural context of the society it affects; local traditions, norms, and aspirations significantly influence what development looks like in different settings. Furthermore, development is not automatic or guaranteed; it must be earned through human agency, concerted effort, and thoughtful policy. Its nature is dynamic and varies according to time, place, and social context.

In the Indian context, development carries a comprehensive and justice-oriented meaning. It surpasses the narrow focus on GDP growth to include social and cultural advancements. Given India’s complex history marked by colonial exploitation, caste discrimination, untouchability, gender inequality, and bonded labor, development must involve rectifying these deep-rooted injustices. This commitment is reflected in India’s Constitution, where the nation identifies itself as socialist in its Preamble and includes provisions such as Article 15, which endorses affirmative action for marginalized communities. Sustainability is also central to India’s developmental paradigm, which aligns with global perspectives like those from the Brundtland Report. This means development should be environmentally responsible, socially inclusive, and respectful of indigenous knowledge systems.

Several sociological thinkers provide insightful perspectives on development. Amartya Sen views development as the expansion of human capabilities—improving education, health, justice, and individual agency. Anita Minocha critiques the effects of liberalization in India, highlighting the rise of exploitative labor conditions despite economic gains. Novack underscores that rising per capita consumption alone does not equate to true development. Kofi Annan emphasizes the centrality of gender equity, asserting that women’s empowerment is crucial for sustainable growth. Ram Ahuja breaks down social development into key components such as demand measurement, institutional reforms, responsive governance, and participatory decision-making, all essential for meaningful development.

The determinants of development are multifaceted and include both economic and non-economic factors. Gunnar Myrdal’s framework, as elaborated in his work Asian Drama, emphasizes that economic indicators such as output, income, production conditions, and living standards matter, but they are deeply influenced by the social and cultural environment. For example, attitudes toward work and life, shaped by religion or cultural norms, can foster or hinder economic growth—as seen historically in Europe’s Protestant work ethic contributing to capitalism. Institutions, such as legal systems, family structures, and educational bodies, also play a vital role, alongside political stability and visionary leadership, which create an environment conducive to development.

Additional determinants include capital formation, which involves physical investments in infrastructure like roads and machinery that boost productivity and welfare. The capital-output ratio (COR) measures investment efficiency and typically improves as economies mature. Population growth rates impact development as well; rapid population increases can dilute per capita income, while reductions in birth rates often lead to better living standards. Human capital—investment in education, skills, and health—is a critical factor, exemplified by the rapid development of East Asian countries like South Korea and Taiwan, which prioritized human capital to achieve economic success.

Barriers to Development in India: A Sociological Perspective

Development, as a positive and organized process of societal transformation, faces multiple impediments in India. While economic indicators like GDP growth often project progress, a deeper sociological lens reveals persistent and interwoven barriers that hinder inclusive and sustainable development. These barriers are not merely material but are rooted in the socio-cultural fabric, historical injustices, and institutional limitations. Prominent sociologists and thinkers have critically analyzed these obstacles, offering a more nuanced understanding of India’s developmental challenges.

Structural and Economic Constraints

Ernest Novack highlights that economic growth in developing societies like India is hampered by multiple structural issues. Among the most pressing is the lack of innovation, which limits technological advancement and industrial competitiveness. Similarly, the absence of meaningful agrarian reform has led to the stagnation of the rural economy, where a significant portion of the population remains dependent on outdated farming methods. Novack also emphasizes the role of weak work discipline and poor vocational ethics, which reduce productivity and hinder the cultivation of a strong industrial labor force. Additionally, rapid population growth exacerbates resource strain, lowering per capita income and diminishing the benefits of economic development. Foreign exchange shortages, arising from high import dependency and limited exports, further restrict India's economic autonomy and growth capacity.

Sociological Impediments and Institutional Weaknesses

A.R. Desai provides a critical Marxist perspective on the sociological barriers to development. According to him, parochial mentalities, such as casteism, regionalism, and communalism, lead to social fragmentation and obstruct the development of a unified national consciousness. Nepotism and favoritism, often based on caste or kinship, undermine meritocracy and institutional fairness, thereby deterring equitable resource allocation and social mobility. Desai argues that such social attitudes prevent the formation of values like equal citizenship, which are essential for a democratic and developmental state. Furthermore, he identifies a disoriented attitude towards work and productivity, where traditional notions of labor and hierarchical values distort the modern work ethic. These factors contribute to the misallocation of resources and poor governance outcomes.

Cultural and Value-Based Barriers

Yogendra Singh emphasizes the role of traditional values and institutions in slowing down India’s modernization. He notes that in many cases, cultural elements such as transcendentalism—the belief that traditional norms and roles are beyond question—impede rational-legal institutional change. This resistance to questioning age-old customs hinders necessary reforms in education, law, family structures, and governance. Singh’s work illustrates how deeply embedded values can act as unconscious resistors to change, preventing the transition to modern, development-friendly institutions.

The Indian social structure itself embeds certain cultural themes that resist change. The idea of holism prioritizes collective over individual rights, which can sometimes suppress innovation and personal initiative. Hierarchy, particularly in the form of caste stratification, limits occupational mobility and equitable access to resources. Continuity, reflected in beliefs like karma and rebirth, often justifies present inequalities and resists radical transformation. Together, these themes reinforce a status quo that is antithetical to developmental ideals like justice, equality, and freedom.

Marginalization and Exclusion

Amartya Sen provides a human-centric understanding of development, where freedom is both the primary objective and instrument of development. For Sen, barriers to development are fundamentally about “unfreedoms”—conditions that restrict individuals from realizing their potential. These include hunger, famine, lack of education, environmental degradation, and unemployment. In India, large segments of the population remain deprived of these basic freedoms, indicating that development has not been inclusive or equitable.

Similarly, S.C. Dube criticizes the elitist nature of India’s development model, arguing that benefits have disproportionately accrued to a small section of the urban elite, while the rural poor and marginalized communities have remained outside its ambit. This skewed distribution reflects deeper institutional biases and policy failures, exacerbated by entrenched social inequalities.

Way Forward: Sociological Remedies

Sociologists and development economists alike propose transformative pathways to overcome these barriers. H.W. Singer underscores the need for structural transformation, especially in agriculture, where a majority of India’s workforce is still engaged. Reforms such as land tenure regulation and improved irrigation infrastructure are essential to boost rural productivity and reduce inequality.

A.R. Desai calls for a comprehensive reorganization of social institutions, advocating the replacement of outdated structures with a new web of social relations that align with the needs of a modern economy. This involves not only legal and administrative reforms but also a redefinition of social authority in favor of democratic and participatory values.

Modernization and Social Change in Contemporary India

Modernization refers to the multifaceted process of transformation in society from traditional to modern forms. It involves changes in social, economic, political, and cultural spheres, driven by rationalization, secularization, scientific advancement, and increasing functional differentiation. In the Indian context, modernization has led to profound shifts in both structural arrangements and everyday life. However, this process has been complex and often contradictory, shaped by media, technology, politics, and deeply entrenched traditional norms.

From Tradition to Modernity: Core Changes

The transition from traditional to modern society in India has been characterized by several key structural transformations:

Economic relations are now governed more by contract than by kinship or status, indicating a shift towards formal economic systems and rule-based engagements.
The division of labor has become highly complex, promoting functional interdependence across various occupational roles and increasing specialization.
Achieved status increasingly replaces ascribed status, marking a move toward meritocracy and the potential for mobility beyond birth-based hierarchies.
Both vertical and horizontal mobility have expanded, allowing individuals to shift classes and careers, particularly in urban contexts.
Aspirations for upward mobility and material improvement have risen, fuelled by education, media exposure, and the growth of consumer culture.

These changes highlight the dynamic nature of Indian society, yet the forces of tradition often interact with or resist modernizing influences, especially through cultural institutions like caste, religion, and kinship.

Media as a Catalyst and Complicator of Social Change

The role of media in shaping and responding to social change in India is both pivotal and paradoxical. It acts as a tool for democratization, resistance, and awareness, while also enabling manipulation, polarization, and control.

Media and Caste Politics

One of the most striking examples of media-driven social change is the Dalit Panther Movement (1972) in Maharashtra. Young Dalit intellectuals drew from Ambedkarite, Marxist, and Black liberation literature, using newspapers, poetry, and pamphlets to challenge caste oppression and raise collective consciousness. Media became a platform for marginalized voices to assert dignity and demand justice.

Media and Neoliberal Policy Promotion

Post-1991 liberalization saw the media becoming an active agent in legitimizing neoliberal economic policies. State and corporate actors use media to disseminate curated narratives through infographics, advertisements, and endorsements, such as those seen during the promotion of Indira Rasoi Yojana in Rajasthan. This media strategy seeks to build consent for reforms while downplaying adverse effects on the poor.

Media and Elections

In the electoral domain, media significantly influences political behavior. The 2014 Lok Sabha elections, studied by Verma and Sardesai, showed that media-exposed voters were more likely to support the BJP, linking political persuasion to digital and print media consumption. Internationally, cases like Cambridge Analytica during the 2020 US elections demonstrated how user data can be weaponized to influence voter behavior.

Baudrillard and the Hyperreality of Media

Jean Baudrillard offers a radical critique, arguing that media no longer reflects reality but creates simulations—a concept he terms hyperreality. In the Indian context, events like the Pulwama attack and the Muzaffarnagar riots (2013) show how misinformation and manipulated media can incite strong emotional responses, shaping public opinion in distorted ways.

Media as the Fourth Pillar of Democracy

Digital media often serves as a check on state power. For example, during the farmers’ protests in 2020, platforms like Twitter temporarily suspended and then restored accounts, highlighting its contentious yet critical role. Similarly, Twitter’s ban on Donald Trump after the Capitol Hill violence signals how media can counter authoritarian tendencies.

Media and Neo-Colonialism

However, the media landscape is not without its problems. The rise of Big Tech companies—Google, Meta (Facebook), Amazon—reflects a neo-colonial dynamic, where a few corporations exercise enormous control over digital infrastructure through vertical integration, predatory pricing, and capital leverage. The acquisition of WhatsApp and Instagram by Facebook exemplifies this monopolization.

Citizen Journalism and Influencers

The emergence of citizen journalism and digital influencers has decentralized information dissemination. As Evgeny Morozov argues in The Net Delusion, while these voices can challenge state narratives, they also risk amplifying misinformation. Influencers like Dhruv Rathee and Akshay Banerjee have become key opinion-makers, often shaping youth perceptions and public discourse.

Digital Democracy and Accountability

Media’s role has expanded beyond information to enable participatory governance. Reflecting Robert Dahl’s concept of dispersed power, digital platforms facilitate continuous accountability by exposing corruption, organizing protests, and empowering grassroots activism. Movements like the Nirbhaya protests were fueled by viral media campaigns that transcended traditional political channels.

Risk Society and Communalism

According to Ulrich Beck’s ‘Risk Society’ thesis, modern societies are preoccupied with managing risks produced by modernization itself. Social media exemplifies this: while it can mobilize protests and aid disaster responses, it also spreads fake news, often leading to communal riots, lynchings, and moral panics, as seen in various parts of India.

Corporate-Political-Media Nexus

The NN Vohra Committee Report exposed the nexus between politics, crime, and business, raising concerns about the integrity of media. Noam Chomsky’s Propaganda Model identifies five filters—ownership, advertising, sourcing bias, flak, and ideological control—that distort news to serve elite interests, resulting in a passive and manipulated public.

Cyber Politics and Digital Gatekeeping

Matthew Hindman, in The Myth of Digital Democracy, contests the idea that the internet is a great equalizer. He argues that search engine algorithms, attention economies, and lack of net neutrality concentrate visibility in the hands of a few, making most digital voices invisible and political discourse asymmetrical.

Media in Crime Prevention and Policing

In a more functionalist role, media has also aided law enforcement and public safety. During the London riots of 2011, police and citizens used photo-sharing sites like Flickr and social media platforms to track, identify, and deter rioters, showing how media can serve as a tool for community surveillance and crime prevention.

Public-Private Partnerships and Social Media

Finally, media can spur action by non-state actors. A notable example is when a Nagaland school headmaster highlighted power shortages on social media, prompting the Global Himalayan Expedition to install solar panels for remote tribal villages. This reflects the growing influence of media in mobilizing development from below.

Globalization and Social Change

Globalization refers to the increasing interconnectedness of societies through the flows of goods, information, people, and ideas across national borders. This global integration has brought about profound social, cultural, and economic transformations, especially in countries like India. While globalization has spurred economic growth and cultural exchange, it has also posed challenges to traditional social structures and cultural identities.

One of the most significant social consequences of globalization is the threat to cultural identity. George Ritzer, in his concept of McDonaldization, argues that culture is becoming uniform and standardized—driven by principles such as efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control. As a result, traditional cultural uniqueness is increasingly being replaced by a homogenized global culture shaped by capitalist values. For instance, shopping malls, fast food chains, and media content across different countries often mirror each other, eroding regional distinctions.

However, this cultural homogenization is not unidirectional. Globalization also gives rise to bicultural or hybrid identities, where individuals incorporate elements of both local and global cultures. This phenomenon, known as glocalization, is reflected in everyday practices—such as Indian youth wearing Western attire while observing traditional festivals or Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) who maintain Punjabi customs while embracing Canadian citizenship. This dual identity allows for cultural continuity amidst global change.

Dipankar Gupta introduces the concept of "Mistaken Modernity" to highlight a peculiar aspect of globalization in India. He argues that while Indians have embraced modern technological and institutional forms, they often retain deeply entrenched traditional mindsets. A pertinent example is the continued practice of manual scavenging by Dalits, despite its constitutional abolition and the availability of modern sanitation infrastructure. This reflects a disjunction between surface-level modernization and actual transformation of values.

Globalization has also reshaped cultural norms and gender relations. Sylvia Walby’s distinction between public and private patriarchy becomes relevant here. While public spaces such as workplaces may appear gender-neutral due to globalization and legal reforms, private spheres—like marriage and family—continue to be governed by patriarchal values. The persistence of dowry practices, often negotiated discreetly within families, exemplifies this private patriarchy even in globalized urban settings.

One of the major criticisms of globalization is its role in cultural homogenization. Western consumption patterns—fast food, branded clothing, and media—are increasingly emulated across the globe. This is evident in the aspirations of youth who idolize global celebrities and lifestyles. In the process, regional dialects, traditional crafts, and indigenous practices often suffer neglect. Language homogenization is another by-product, as English becomes the dominant lingua franca promoted by multinational corporations, often at the expense of local languages.

At the same time, globalization has led to the secularization of caste identities in professional and public life. As meritocratic criteria become dominant in hiring, particularly in multinational corporations, caste-based considerations appear to recede. MNCs generally recruit based on qualifications and skills rather than caste affiliations. However, this transformation is not absolute; upper-caste dominance often continues through class-based privilege and social capital.

Another domain of change is the institution of marriage. The impact of consumerism, media, and individualism has brought shifts in marital norms. There is a growing prevalence of love marriages, live-in relationships, and even rising divorce rates, particularly in urban areas. These trends indicate an erosion of traditional marital ideals and the emergence of more individual-centric partnerships.

Globalization also encourages the formation of self-selected cultural groups, which aim to preserve cultural heritage in a global context. While values such as democracy, individualism, and tolerance gain global appeal, they are not universally accepted. Some communities resist these changes and strive to protect their unique identities by creating cultural enclaves, both online and offline.

Interestingly, globalization has also facilitated a revival of caste consciousness, especially in global platforms. In 2020, Apple Inc. added caste to its list of protected identities, acknowledging caste-based discrimination among its employees. This reflects a growing awareness of caste as a global human rights issue, not just an Indian social problem.

Technological globalization has enabled digitization and academic exchange, strengthening cultural preservation. Projects like the National Manuscripts Mission have undertaken large-scale digitization of ancient texts, thus conserving India's literary and philosophical heritage. Similarly, academic collaborations with foreign universities have allowed for cross-cultural dialogue and exchange of knowledge.

Moreover, globalization has allowed for the global spread of Indian culture, fostering two-way cultural exchange. For example, International Yoga Day is now celebrated worldwide, showcasing how Indian traditions have gained global recognition and appeal. The proliferation of Bollywood films, Indian cuisine, and classical music in Western countries further highlights this cultural diffusion.

Finally, globalization contributes to the emergence of new cultural identities, where people blend modern and traditional symbols. For instance, an individual wearing a kurta with jeans or celebrating Holi with international friends represents this cultural synthesis. These hybrid identities reflect the negotiation between tradition and modernity in an interconnected world.

Approaches to Social Change in India

The study of social change in India has often revolved around understanding how tradition adapts to modernity. One influential approach focuses on the interplay between different layers of cultural traditions, particularly through the concepts of Little and Great Traditions, as introduced by Robert Redfield and applied to the Indian context by scholars such as Milton Singer and McKim Marriott. These models offer a nuanced framework to analyze how Indian society has experienced both continuity and transformation in the face of historical and modern influences.

Redfield’s distinction between the Great Tradition and Little Tradition was foundational in the cultural anthropological study of civilizations. The Great Tradition refers to the classical, elite, literate, and scripturally-rooted aspects of a civilization, while the Little Tradition encompasses the everyday, local, folk, and often oral practices of the masses. In the Indian context, Milton Singer and McKim Marriott adopted and refined this framework to study how India's civilizational core—particularly Hinduism—has maintained a dynamic equilibrium between these traditions.

Social change in India, according to this perspective, takes place through two primary channels: orthogenetic (indigenous or internal) and heterogenetic (external or cross-cultural) processes. Orthogenetic evolution involves changes that arise organically within Indian society, such as caste mobility or local religious reform. Heterogenetic encounters involve contact with outside civilizations—such as Islamic rule, colonialism, or globalization—which introduce new institutions, ideas, and cultural norms. This interplay typically sees cultural practices evolve from localized folk origins toward broader, often urban and even global patterns.

Milton Singer’s work emphasized cultural continuity rather than rupture. He argued that India developed as a “primary civilization,” wherein the Great Tradition of classical Sanskrit texts and philosophical systems coexisted and interacted with the Little Tradition of village rituals, caste customs, and tribal folklore. This blending gave rise to a shared cultural consciousness, where a common ethos, symbolic world, and ritual practices helped sustain unity across vast regional diversity. Cultural transmission was mediated by certain social groups—particularly Brahmins—who acted as conduits through sacred texts, religious symbols, temple networks, and pilgrimage circuits.

Singer also noted that even when India adopts modern ideologies such as development and scientific rationality, the form in which these ideas are internalized is distinct from the Western model. Innovations are often “traditionalized”—that is, interpreted and expressed in culturally familiar forms. For instance, technological advancement may be legitimized through religious idioms or integrated into rituals, such as using digital tools in religious festivals or astrology apps on smartphones. Thus, tradition and modernity are not binary opposites but co-evolving elements in Indian society.

McKim Marriott extended this analysis through his ethnographic work in Kishan Garhi, a North Indian village. He demonstrated how the Little–Great tradition interaction unfolds in practice. Two key processes he identified are Universalization and Parochialization. Universalization refers to the movement of cultural elements from the local to the classical level, such as when a village deity is elevated to a pan-Hindu status or local customs are Sanskritized. This often mirrors the process of Sanskritization, where lower castes adopt upper-caste rituals to claim higher status. In contrast, Parochialization refers to the localization or simplification of classical practices when they are adopted at the grassroots level. For example, complex Vedic rituals may be transformed into folk versions in village settings, often losing their original theological sophistication.

Despite the utility of the Little–Great Tradition model, it has been critiqued by S.C. Dube, one of India’s foremost sociologists. Dube argued that the model overemphasizes rituals and religious symbols, often neglecting the secular institutions and forces—such as education, political mobilization, and mass media—that are vital drivers of modern social change. Additionally, the framework suffers from definitional vagueness. The terms "Little" and "Great" are not always clearly defined and may not capture the multiplicity of traditions present in India. For instance, Dube pointed out that India is home to more than one Great Tradition—including not just Sanskritic Hinduism, but also Islamic, Christian, and Western civilizational traditions—each with their own canonical texts and moral-ethical systems.

Another limitation is the neglect of regional and national traditions. The model tends to overlook the emergence of regional linguistic cultures, modern political ideologies, and nationalistic movements, which have played a crucial role in shaping India’s social fabric. It also does not adequately address the role of Westernization and globalization, which have deeply influenced urban lifestyles, occupational structures, and social aspirations.

To address these shortcomings, S.C. Dube proposed a broader, six-fold classification of traditions operating in Indian society. These include:

Classical Tradition – rooted in Sanskritic or canonical texts.
Emergent National Tradition – formed through anti-colonial struggle, constitutional values, and modern state institutions.
Regional Traditions – specific to linguistic or cultural regions like Tamil, Bengali, or Marathi traditions.
Local Traditions – associated with specific villages or small communities.
Western Traditions – ideas and practices derived from colonial and global modernity, such as liberal democracy or scientific rationality.
Local Subcultural Traditions – the practices and worldviews of specific social groups, such as tribes or marginalized castes.

This multi-layered approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of Indian tradition as complex, overlapping, and hierarchical. Dube emphasizes that no single binary—whether it be Sanskritic vs Western, or Little vs Great—can fully capture the nature of social change in India. Instead, each tradition must be analyzed on its own terms and within its particular socio-historical context.