23 Issues of Modernization

Dr. Kanwalpreet

Modernisation is a gradual but a complex process. It is a multi-faceted concept as well as a multi-faceted process. ‘When social change is consciously planned with a view to putting an under-developed society on the level of a developed society, the process of change is described as modernization’.1 For many people modernization is another name for economic development. It is partly true because only when the economy is industrialised can there be advancement. A progressive economy leads to new technological advances and injecting of new thought and ideas into the minds of people. The basic pattern of the style of people changes once the society is egalitarian. This can only happen when, ‘the traditional feudal-based master-servant relationship will change over to a contractual employee-employer relationship.2 Modernisation means when the masses inculcate a scientific temper and show an inclination towards a better life devoid of ills like poverty, low growth rate, superstitions and ignorance. Modernisation occurs when the common citizen defies the norms that bind them to progress.

As a term, modernisation means transition from a traditional society to modern society. By modern society, one means the kind of society that exists in the western countries. But is this the solution? Will such modernization of any traditional society, with its own set of values and norms be good for it? Would a break from its past be beneficial to it in the long run? It involves changes at the political, economic, social, religious and cultural levels. The changes can vary in different fields. It is a comprehensive concept for it encompasses changes at a micro as well as macro level.

Modernisation talks about change but does not guarantee modernity. Modernisation occurs when it is desired but at other times it can be unplanned. There are instances when the process of modernisation is welcomed. But there are many examples when the path of modernisation is strewn with obstacles. At other times, modernisation can occur in places and can also be confined to a few pockets. It is usually for the better. An abstract concept, modernisation is a flow of ideas. An exchange of views and implementation of these suggestions leads to modernisation. In many cases, modernisation embodies hope for it is a transition, usually, for a different and improved future.

But it is a matter of perspective whether the process of modernisation is progress or not. Modernisation occurs in stages and each stage has its own predicaments. The test of the political system is how it manages to take up challenges and balance. ‘Modernisation takes place where it is most easily accepted or wanted. We will call modernisation the transfer of roles from metropole to periphery’.3

Modernisation is difficult to explain for it defies any definite pattern. Every society has its own path of modernisation which can be gradual or sudden. Huntington describes modernization, ‘a multi-faceted process involving change in all areas of human thought and activity’.4 Modernisation includes changes in the culture norms and values of people. ‘It (political modernisation) implies the existence of a traditional order that is to be changed for the better. That is, it is the effect of the new on the old, not the total eradication of the old and the substitution by the new as it is covered under the rubric of political development.’5 The challenge of the political system is to change and reinvent itself. This change becomes essential because ‘decay’ and ‘stagnation’ can only be fatal to any political system. If a political system does not adapt itself to new situations it would lead to the eventual collapse of any political system. As the process of modernisation takes place the political system formulates various policies to adapt to new changes or herald in the required changes. ‘We feel more comfortable in asserting that a society is modernising, than in claiming that it is developing….. A modernised house is very different from a modern one … and often more comfortable to live in. Modernisation does not necessarily result in modernity’.6

We usually trace the historical development of modernization from the European countries to be more specific, it is Britain which is identified as the first country to start its journey on the path of modernisation and an example for the other countries. It is Britain which was the trend setter of modernisation. The Industrial revolution heralding in scientific and technological development in Britain led to far-reaching changes in Britain. ‘The

Industrial Revolution opened up the vision of unlimited possibilities’.7 In Britain, modernisation occurred because of a lethal combination of inventivenesses, innovation and the urge for growth. The availability of abundant work-force and stagnancy in agriculture were other factors that led the enterprising people to search new areas to rake profit. Britain’s strong Navy and command over the seas helped it to expand its market to those parts of the world which were, hitherto, untouched by the modern changes. Britain decided to modernise these countries in its own way. This aspect is known as the ‘White man’s burden’. Of course, the people of these backward countries were not taken into confidence. The developing countries whICH were called the ‘Third World countries’ faced a strange dilemma. They were caught in a quandary and are still caught in it though, today they are known as the developing countries for they have worked hard to move steadily on the path of progress. The question was that they wanted to modernize but in what degrees at what speed. There were a few who did not want change. ‘The subject of political modernisation has its special relevance in the case of the developing countries of the Third World which “are dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t.”8 The developed countries like Britain maintained that they were helping the ‘Third World’ progress while there were thinkers like Marx who felt that this was an eye-wash to a certain point. ‘ Even Marx, who regarded industrialization as a necessary evil, believed in its progressive consequences. Not only would it generate the possibility for a new kind of life of abundance and freedom in advanced societies, but in countries like India, China and Turkey which he regarded as static, despotic and barbaric, colonialism would serve to innovate and stir things up. Colonialism then, for Marx was a progressive force in so far as it was the instrument of advanced capitalist societies breaking through what he called the ‘Asiatic mode of production’. This would introduce conflict and change in backward countries, while producing war, depression and intensification of crisis in the ‘metropole’ or ‘mother country’.9

                         https://upload.wikimedia.org

While the countries following the democratic norms believed in bestowing social and political equality, the countries advocating Communalism and Socialism believed in giving economic equality a priority. But modernization does go through different stages in different countries. The developing countries, which were called the Third World countries in the last century also, went through different stages. In the first stage, the developed countries expanded and this led to acquisition of territories in different parts of the world. A group of people in the developed countries decided to venture into new lands for different purposes. The purpose could be missionary zeal or a thirst for adventure or a craving for more wealth. Whatever be the reason, these people were the ones who started the process of modernisation in the acquired territories overseas. The native people, the indigenous population had to be civilized. These people who became dependent on these colonizers had to toe the line of these ‘civilised masters’. The dependent people lived a traditional life with their own set of customs and values which differed from their masters. Because their customs and norms differed, they had to be changed. This was decided by the colonial masters who brought their living style as well as their values with them. There was scant regard for the lifestyle of the indigenous people. Whatever was not according to the colonial masters was looked down in disdain and had to be replaced. The dependent population was in ‘awe’ of the ‘Whites’ and felt it a privilege to be ‘guided’ by the ‘superior’ race. This not only complicated the situation but made it easier for the people of the Western civilization .to garner full support to introduce many changes. They termed all these changes as modernisation though there were some among the ‘natives’ who differed. The latter felt for their norms and customs and believed in the usefulness of their values. With little contact between the colonial and indigenous populations, changes were slow to be adapted. Contact at this time was according to the wishes of the Whites. For example, while the Christian missionaries were in contact with the masses for they wanted to spread Christianity, a majority of the whites practiced discrimination and maintained a degree of distance from the natives, taking the latter’s help for menial jobs. We can take the case of India, one of the biggest colonies of Britain. The British came with the purpose of trade and gradually expanded into the social sphere and then gained control over the political institutions. In the case of India, there were certain civil practices like sati, child-marriage, female infanticide and the caste system. The last , the caste system, horribly discriminated against the Shudras. The latter were at the lower most rung of the caste system. A few enlightened intellectuals like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chander Vidyasagar, Keshav Chandra Sen, Jyotirao Phule, Shri Narayan Guru, Pandita Ramabai etc. sought the help of the British to eradicate these and other social evils as it is difficult to break into the customs and habits of the people. The people would not pay heed to the preaching of their fellow Indians. The latter’s advise was ignored so these educated, enlightened Indians took the help of the British to break into the barriers of customs by passing laws. Lord William Bentick enacted a law against the practice of Sati. Foreigners like Colonel Todd, Malcolm have written about the evil practice of female infanticide, an inhuman practice that killed girls’ right after birth through various means. Various laws were passed in 1795, 1802, 1804 and in 1870 to finish this practice. The Widow Remarriage Act was passed in 1856 that encouraged widow remarriage. The minimum marriageable age for a girl was 10 years in 1846; it was raised to 12 years in 1891 through the enactment of the Age of Consent Act, then to 14 years through the Sharda Act and in 1978 to 18 years. Caste system was another practice that was in vogue in India. It was Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who struck at this evil practice. Periyar, E.V.R., founded the Self-Respect Movement in the Madras Presidency to fight against the caste system. They faced much opposition from the upper castes yet they continued in their efforts.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com

In Africa, there was a scramble to capture land as it was a rich source of raw materials as well as a huge market for finished goods. In the beginning (before the Berlin Act in 1885), the European powers traded under the primary commodity commerce which is also known as a ‘Legitimate trade or Commerce.’ Under this, they got the supplies from African intermediaries. After the Berlin Act in 1885 in which the Africans were not included, the Europeans felt that the former had signed away their sovereignty. The European powers felt that they had full right to trade, invade and colonise any part of Africa. When the Africans resisted the Europeans efforts to ignore the African intermediaries the Europeans asked their respective home governments to impose ‘free trade’. At this time, the Europeans arrived on a formula to take care of the ‘surplus’ population in Africa. They decided to export the people to other parts of the world, either to work or settle in uninhabited lands so that they could start settlement colonies with availability of large work-force.

The Africans were not united among themselves and the European powers took advantage of this. In what is called Zimbabwe, today, the British used the dispute between Ndebele King and the neighouring areas to their advantage. In a treaty between the Ndebele King and Cecil Rhodes, the former said he had extended only numerical rights to the diamond magnate but Rhodes argued that the entire area/country had become his. He gave the territory his name, Rhodesia. When Ndebele resisted, the British attacked. They even played Ndebele against Mashona, a neighbouring territory. The infighting among the people coupled with exploitation by the colonial masters led to these countries becoming very weak. The colonial masters damaged the very delicate fabric of the tribes. The Africans lived in tribes where the elders took the decisions for the tribe and the younger generation, ‘the warriors,’ took part in fights as well acted the role of ‘providers’ by hunting animals and gathering fruits. This routine was upset as the land which was clearly demarcated by the tribes among themselves was taken over by the foreigners. The latter benefitted from this agreement because it gave them unlimited control over the material resources in the Colony. On the other hand, the colony, because of exploitation, suffered and continued to suffer severe problems of deprivation and destitute.

Gradually, in stage two, according to Apter, the efforts of colonialism are noticed. The emergence of urban areas, trade centres and expansion of market are the new features. Because of the increase in trade and more activity by the colonial regimes, more man-power is required to run the daily affairs of the state. ‘Native people drew into closer contact with foreigners. Rules and regulation required local authorities to aid and assist in carrying out the dictates and mandates of the colonial regimes’.10 The belief was that with education and exposure to the West the natives would prosper. The benefits came with many costs too for the indigenous population. They had to say goodbye to many things which had their utility. This led to the birth of the inferiority syndrome among the natives and assertion of domination of the Whites. At this stage, the natives were bound by chains which were more mental than physical. Efforts were made to ape the people from the West. Their way of dressing, talking, eating was considered superior. An alternative lifestyle was offered to the natives, one the ‘traditional’ which was considered lowly and the other, the ‘modernised’ version which was, in a nutshell, ‘the European lifestyle.’ The Whites hobnobbed with the natives, but only in the economic and political spheres. Socially, distance was maintained between the colonial masters and the people on whom they ruled. Marx was proved right for in this stage ‘development spread from metropolis to periphery, creating towns, markets, schools, all of which offered alternatives to lives which in European standards were regarded for the most part as dull, nasty, brutish and short’.11 The endeavour was to continue domination. The negative efforts of colonialism were many. There was a direct attack on the culture of the natives. The effect was to wipe away the values and norms of the indigenous population. The sense of superiority was unabashedly showcased which led to the native population, especially the younger generation, to turn their backs to their own culture. In India, the education system was one such victim. The ‘Guru shishya’ parampara (tradition) was the hallmark of the Indian education system. A teacher, after taking training from his master, set up school in any village that did not have a teacher or a school. Wirth the help of the villagers , the Guru took classes in the temple courtyard or in the land donated by the villagers. The disciples paid in kind or cash as it suited them. There was no fixed fees, nor were classrooms regimented. All the pupils were taught together and slowly the brilliant were identified and given extra coaching. On the whole, there was no discrimination and all the pupils were treated equal. Learning was oral. The system was very friendly for there was no attendance system. Pupils helped at home and attended classes according to their convenience. During the harvest season, classes were suspended for two months as all the children helped in the fields. Thus, the education system was pupil friendly. No one remained illiterate. The pupils were taught in the lap of nature for they studied under trees, in the open. It induced a healthy lifestyle too. All this was replaced by the British education system which confined children to classrooms with a fixed fee structure and compulsory attendance. School drop outs were reported. The schools of the natives which refused to toe the line of the British were denied grants. Gradually, they closed down or gave way to the British type schools. Rabindra Nath Tagore was a great votary of these schools and wanted them to continue with introduction of science, maths and astronomy. His school in West Bengal, ‘Shantiniketan’ is moulded on this concept of ‘Guru Shyshiya’ parampara with classes held in the open. Jobs went to youth who knew English and had studied in the schools mentored by the British. Macaulay introduced his famous Minute which advocated the Anglicist point of view. Lord William Bentick got the resolution passed on March 7, 1835 that declared that all government funds would be, henceforth, used for the promotion of Western literature and science. were many among the Whites opposed Macualay.

It further declared that the medium would be English. There who desired the teaching in Oriental language and they Indians moved away from their culture by wearing the European trousers and shirts instead of the traditional clothes. Though the European clothes were not comfortable in India’s heat and according to the climate, yet these clothes were considered modern. A small elite emerged, among the locals, which were quick to modernise and adapt to the latest trends. But unfortunately, the exploitation of the natives grew by leaps and bounds. We have the example of the slave trade in Africa. Land was taken away from the tribes and the natives were pushed away from fertile land which had been theirs for centuries.

In stage three , the newly emerged local elites demanded more participation in the affairs of the state. There was an increase in the interaction between the local elites and the common masses. Local elite who had received their education from the Western system emerged as leaders. They raised the demand for more active participation in the political institutions. These elites, at first, associated themselves with the British. They learnt a lot from the western elite and then decided to implement these in their own countries. These elites accelerated the pace of development and struggle for freedom in the Colonies . The backlash against the colonial authorities started as the indigenous population grew tired of all the exploitation and as well as the domination meted out to them. The people of the colonies were also inspired by the American War of Independence of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789 and the Russian Revolution overthrowing the Czar in 1917. The leaders at the national level combined their strength with the regional leaders and asked freedom from the shackles of slavery. The colonial authorities tried to handle the situation by gradually introducing reforms in their colony. The colonial masters tried to appease the demand of the people by giving in to the demand for participation in bits and prices. Whatever they would ‘bestow’ on their subjects would only provoke the local elites to ask for more concessions, especially in the political arena. The nationalist leaders got unstinted support from the masses. This led to protests on large scales which were put down, at times, ruthlessly. Associations were formed and leaders promised a new life to the people of the Colonies with the dawn of Independence.

In African countries, for example, the emperor of Ethiopia. Menelik II defeated General Oreste Baratieri ’s Italian Army in March 1896 in the Battle of Adiva. Samony Toure in West Africa created a large Mandinka Empire between 1860s and 1890s and resisted the French till he was captured by the French and died in exile in 1900. People rose at the local level and resisted the colonisers. The Aba Women’s Revolt also known as Igbo Women’s War in south eastern Nigeria in 1929 led by rural women in one such example. The protest was against a tax that was imposed by the British imposed warrant chiefs.

The colonial effect was to stay forever. ‘The colonial state introduced modern institutions necessary for its own functionary like a centralised legal system, unified administration, census for counting population groups, elected legislative assemblies (initially with restricted franchise) and modern English education. Modern education gradually produced a section of people in the society that came in contact with European political ideas and concepts’.12 This led to political awakening among the people. The views of Rousseau, Mill, Bentham, introduced them to the concepts of liberty, equality which were cherished in the West yet most practised in the colonies. ‘Under the influence of the new ideas, the English-educated classes became critical of some of the liberty and equality – hindering practices of their own culture. Gradually, they became critical of the colonial state.13 The issue of modernization becomes very important because the developing countries are at the crossroads. The traditional political system is being replaced by a modern political system. In the former the political system was concerned in discharging the compulsory functions of collecting taxes and maintaining law and order but any political system that calls itself modern has to discharge its duties in many fields to improve the quality of life of its citizens. In the developing countries, the people have moved from being ‘subjects’ to ‘citizens’. As citizens they have a participatory role in the affairs of the government, where the government takes their feedback very seriously. The opinion of the people matters to the government because this opinion becomes the ‘verdict’ of the people during the elections. The support of the people is important as is the dissent. There are three features of political modernisation according to the ‘development syndrome’. They are (a) Differentiation (b) Equality (c) Capacity. ‘Differentiation refers to the process of progressive separation and specialization of roles, institutional spheres and associations, within the political system’.14 The early stages of colonialism when the British were taking over the reins of the country and cutting down the authority of the Kings can be said to be the process of differentiation. The British gradually introduced reforms and tried to separate religion and politics. In developing countries, though there is separation of religion and politics yet they are inseparably bound together. Mahatma Gandhi wanted inter-mingling of religion and politics for he believed that the values of religion will be transferred to politics. He felt that good people would be attracted to politics. His political disciple, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru differed. He felt religion and politics would vitiate each other. Unfortunately, Pt. Nehru’s fears have come true. Religion is influencing politics and has become a vote-bank. The invasion of religion into politics and vice-versa is one of the biggest obstacles in the path of modernisation. Besides religion, caste, linguistic differences and people divided on the basis of region, all continue to be detrimental in the modernisation process. Not only India, but Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka are victims to these negative traits. ‘Equality is regarded the ethos of modernity. It implies the notion of universal adult citizenship, legal equality of all citizens and the psyche equality of opportunity for all to gain excellence according to their respective talents and efforts. The ‘subjects’ of traditional society become ‘citizens of modern society. Modern political system encourages people’s participation in the process of governance. This results in the greater respect for law.15 The developing countries in the process of modernisation have partly achieved this. The people are citizens of their country and law ,in theory, reigns supreme but there is a gap between theory and practice. Respect for law is there but when the leaders show scant regard for it, the respect for it as well as the other political institutions is mitigated by the masses too. Elections are held but the use of money and muscle power are a great obstacle. The third feature is Capacity. ‘Capacity in this sense denotes the increased capacity of political system for the management of public affairs, control of disputes and coping up with the new demands of the people’.16 In the developing countries, the political system has to increase its capacity to fulfill the expectations of the people. The developing countries still have pockets of poverty and people dying because of mal-nutrition, disease and ignorance. These and other social evils coupled with low level of awareness need to be worked upon. Superstitions rule the roost and scientific temper still has to be developed. Rather, development of a scientific temper is still in its infancy. Thus, the efforts of the governments are there to eradicate these evils because, at times, people in these countries shut their minds. So, Lucian Pye asserts that modernization is but a state of mind. Modernization means changing the minds of people so that they can adapt to changes quickly and that too effortlessly.

Modernisation is a process that spans centuries. This process is an on-going one because social change continues. As new developments take place, the process continues. ‘Modernisation, after all, is a comprehensive concept, encompassing an all-around change in all aspects of the living pattern of a society’.17 Many things that are useless and obsolete are left behind. In the developing countries, at the moment, specialization and role differentiation are taking new dimensions. With the entry of Multinational Corporations, these traits alongwith risk-taking and entrepreneurship are being welcomed. Though the traditional system and its compartmentalization exists, it is gradually being broken down, despite stiff opposition from many quarters. The ‘Khap Panchayats’, in Haryana are just one example of stiff resistance to some of the progressive laws made by the Indian political system. Because of increase and spread of education, there is an increase in movement of people. This is encouraged by modernization, because it leads to the breaking of many mental barriers. Both horizontal and vertical mobilisation is supported which gives chance to every citizen to rise up the social ladder and exploit one’s potential. Because of social equality, that is bestowed by law, everybody is treated equal. Modernisation leads to an increase in activity in the industrial sphere. Though people continue to depend on agriculture yet the shift to secondary and tertiary sectors is considerable. The shift is visible though dogged by problems of conservation and ignorance. This leads to secularization of political culture where people start deserting their narrow parochial groups. Modernisation involves changes in all the spheres, economic, political, social, religious and cultural. Planning in the modern states is a great help to have balanced development. Planning, in the developing countries, is done on a war-footing; the need is to implement the plans honestly. This is hoarding of wealth in a majority of the developing countries, where a few amass wealth as well as all the privileges.

It is here that the State has to set in by playing a very mature role. It has to mobilize resources in a manner that there is equitable distribution. None should lag behind. Unfortunately, the State’s contribution is lacking. Periodic assessment of the plan has to be done so as to fill the lacuna. The developing countries are forced to borrow money from outer agencies to carry out development work. Paying a huge interest on that money matters to any developing country.. Thus, the money has to be spent judiciously. For this the States have to develop a very capable administrative cadre. Law and order has to be maintained and for this the defence forces have to be modernized. The citizens of a country need to feel safe to be able to do constructive work. Manpower, technology, money and resources have to be mobilised.

In the developing countries it is the civil society which is playing a very active role. With many people feeling that the government has failed to deliver, people are taking up cudgels and trying to spread awareness. The government, in the developing countries, needs the inputs of the civil society because the demands exceed the supply of resources. Though the civil society is still in the initial stages yet seeing the dividends, people are encouraged.

Political instability is another detriment in the path of modernisation. This leads to lawlessness and power slipping into the wrong hands. Military coup in various parts of Africa and Latin America are a testimony to this. Welfare works suffer for the effort of such an illegitimate government is to remain in power by hook or crook, So, favours are distributed out of the way so that dissent can be minimized. Political instability leads to stagnation in all parts of the economic and political spheres. This has to be looked into so that political instability can be mitigated.

We can see modernisation being successful when a majority of these countries talk about sustainable development which would help them develop but without bringing about over-whelming changes that would wreck the society’s fabric.

The next stage is the stage for complete Independence. With Independence new problems arose. ‘The application of the contemporary concepts of civil society for understanding and analyzing the politics and society of the post-colonial societies poses unique problems. Such problems arise basically because these societies have their own historical logic and at the same time they have been irreversibly affected by Western modernity.18 The developing countries are very slow in adapting to change because they have not yet developed the infra-structure. Lack of infra-structure is because of the huge population and centuries of exploitation. ‘The developing countries of today, had inherited extremely backward economies at the time of their Independence because their natural and human resources were intensely exploited during the period of their colonial domination.19

Conclusion

Modernisation assumes that traditional societies are not inclined towards growth , risk taking and profit making.Traditional societies are considered stagnant and bereft of innovation. Though the traditional societies have a subsistence economy that is sustaining its people, modernization bypasses this and more. The theory believes in growing from a sustenance economy to a sustainable economy. This theory also ignores the various evils like slavery( as in Africa), exploitation and discrimination that accompanies modernization at some stages. Modernisation is ushered in when efforts are made to eradicate social evils, emphasis is laid on building infra- structure, education is in sync with the western societies and there is a voluntary movement towards modern political institutions. The focus is on the detriments, the obstacles to progress and as to how to eliminate them. There is less emphasis on religion which becomes something very personal and private. The traditional order is on a decline and there is more stress on reason, logic and inculcation on the growth of scientific temper. The itch to control Nature and the surroundings leads to innovation . The exposure to a life that is modern, upmarket, urbanized and industralised leads to mass production and mass consumption. The media is responsive, alert , active and plays a very important role in the feedback process.There is an increased awareness not only about one’s future but also about the other political systems. Capitalist system is considered the vehicle that can herald in modernization and lead to growth in per capita income. Modernisation also leads to growth in literacy and awareness. The critics of modernization , however, point out that modernization is nothing but moulding oneself according to Westernisation. The latter is considered natural that might not augur well for many traditional societies that have to move away from their path to progress that they might define in their own way or might suit them better. In a nutshell, modernization in the developing countries has been dictated by the Westernised world. If the traditional societies have lost in many spheres, they have also gained in many areas. No society can ignore modernization in this era of a , ‘ global village,’ where all the countries are inter connected and any change in one leads to changes in the others.

Modernization is here to stay and irrespective of the developing or the developed world, each has to develop its own internal mechanism to modernize as well as to safeguard its interests.

Suggested Readings

• Bertsche, Gary K., Clark, Robert P., Wood David, M., Comparing Political Systems: Power and Policy in Three Wolds, 1978, John Wiley and Sons.
• Bhadur, Kalini, and Uma Singh (eds.), Pakistan’s Transition to Democracy, Joint Study of Indian and Pakistani Schools, 1989, South Asia Books, New Delhi.
• Brass, Paul. The New Cambridge History of India, Vol. (rev.). The Politics of India since Independence, 1994, Cambridge University Press, New York.
• Brown, Louis T., The Challenge to Democracy in Nepal: A Political History, 1996, Routledge, London.
• Caramani, David, Comparative Politics, 2011, Oxford University Press.
• Chadda, Maya, Building Democracy in South Asia India, Nepal, Pakistan, 2000, Vistaar, New Delhi.
• Hague, Rod, Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics, An Introduction, 2015, Palgrave Macmillan, Replika, New Delhi.
• Jayal, Niraja Gopal, Mehta, Pratap Basu, The Oxford Comparison to Politics in India, 2015, Oxford University Press.
• Palmer, Norman D., Perkins, Howard C., International Relations, The Word Community in Transition, 1997, A.I.T.B.S., New Delhi.
• Weiner, Myron, The Indian Paradox, 1989, New York.