21 State in Asian and African Societies

Dr. Kanwalpreet

Introduction

The Asian and African societies have their origins in traditions, culture and values of a very different kind than their western counterparts. These societies are steeped in rituals and habits which, it times, have no specific explanation and defy logic but have bee passed down through centuries. The societies in these continents believe in connecting with the past. Their rituals which are adhered to, by a majority of the population, were found to be strange by the Wshites who became colonial masters of these societies. After the initial process of conquer and control, the European, the Westerners turned their attention to the societies of Asia and Africa. What they observed in these societies was beyond their rational thought, though historians now contend that there was a certain order in the chaos in the native civilization even then. But the Colonizers did not like what they saw and set about changing, eliminating and replacing it. Just because the tradition and cultural of the indigenous people did not appeal to the sensibilities of the white settlers, they started the process of replacing them. This led to short as well as long-term repurcussions for the Asian and African societies. Right from the attire, language, education and thought the colonial powers tried to modify each, initially partially and then completely. These societies had a very rich past and an equally rich heritage which had characteristics that were of immense value. These societies, especially the Asian masters had made rich strides in science, medicine, astrology and astronomy but without losing their uniqueness. They also had their own set of political , social and economic institutions that kept their society in order. The hierarchy in the tribes was one example of a perfect order which was followed by one and all. Tribes in Africa as well as in Asia had their own rules and regulations and were perfect social entities in their own unique way. They had their own ways of solving conflicts and also had their own tradition of marriage, succession etc. Yes, they were different from those that existed in the West, but they nevertheless served the purpose for which they existed for the indigenous population.

 

https://www.google.co.in

Society includes a wide range of activities. It is the unit where individuals operate and interact with each other. It is the place where people live together, communicate and express their solidarity with each other. The family, the smallest unit of the society is the building bloc of the society. State is a combination of population, fixed territory, government and sovereignty- both internal and external. ‘Internally, state possess a single centre of power that, however, internally differentiated reserves for itself the faculty of exercising or threatening legitimate violence’.1 State consists of Constitutions, laws, formal and informal political institutions. The hierarchy in the State is strong and functions of each organ are pre-determined. While there is lack of order in the society because it does not have legal coercive power, State can boast of well-organised institution with well-defined rules. ‘This hierarchical arrangement is intended to bring unity and coherence to a variety of legal instruments and related organs. But other aspects of the state reveal the same preoccupation with unity and coherence and express it enough hierarchy.’ 2

Distinction between State and society

The society is a larger entity than the State. The State is just one part of it along with the economic, religious and cultural sub-parts. In the society people perform roles and do activities in their private domain. ‘Individuals undertake those activities in their private capacities, pursuing values and interests of their own, and establishing among themselves relations which are not the concern of public policy.3 These activities of the individuals are considered apolitical and neither does the state control or command over these. On the other hand, ‘The State in principle is an ensemble of institutional arrangements and practices which on the one hand address all and only the political aspects of the management of a territorially bounded society. It represents and justifies itself as a realm of expressly political activities (legislation, jurisdiction, police, military action, public policy) complementary to a difficult realm-society-comprising diverse social activities not considered political in nature, which the state’s organs do not expressly promote and control.4

Before industrialization there was not much difference between the State and society. In Europe, the Kings with their ‘Divine Rights theory’, the Church and the feudal lords dominated and dictated over the society. Even in the Asian and African societies the kings commanded over the society and there was a very thin rather an invisible between the society and the state. The king or the head of a tribe could just step into the domain of the society. The rulers associated themselves with any one religion, sect, etc. , thus, giving birth to an elite society.Private activities were carried out within the domain of the public sphere, but controlled by the rulers. The process of modernization has made the difference between the society and the state very stark. The State monitors the activities of the society and its inhabitants. In the process it pitches in to assist wherever and whenever required because the State has now evolved into a welfare state.

Society in Asian Societies

The Asian societies believed in hierarchical status. Unlike the West, individualism and demanding rights for oneself was considered detriment for the whole group. The social system was group oriented. That is why power and authority rested in the hands of the heads of the groups. The social systems were traditional which suppressed women and those who wanted to be inovative . Yet the traditional social systems survived for many centuries because these groupings were associated with feudal-style relations, kingship, kinship, occupation etc. Education was considered very important in all the Asian societies for literacy led to achieving status and position in the society. The Chinese, Korean and Japanese societies emphasised learning But in the Hindu society learning was a prerogative by birth. Caste occupied a major part in an individual’s life. Pollution if touched by somebody from the lower caste , purity of body, being pure or impure etc. defined one’s daily routine. Caste also gave confidence to people as they could forge ‘group identity’ . Voluntary transfer of people from their birthplace was a rarity. Family was the state in microcosm and hierarchy was well-maintained within the family. In some regions of South East Asia daughters were considered an asset and were valued. In the rest of Asian societies, patriarchal family was order of the day. Purdah or veiling of women was practised in some countries. A small elite existed in each country that controlled the assets as well as the means of production. People were hard-working, God-fearing and depended a great deal on destiny. The society talked about collective responsibility and group identity. Dowry was common. Women were discriminated and often forced to go into the sex-slave trade, prostitution, trafficking and do begar. The ‘Geisha’ tradition of Japan, Devdasis in India, the ‘flower-boat’ women of China etc. are a few examples. Foot-binding of young girls was a common malpractice in China because girls with small, dainty feet were preferred for marriage and the father of the bride had to part with less dowry.

https://www.google.co.in

Among the Asian societies, divisions on the basis of caste and religion are common. India, for example, boasts of an ancient civilization where people sometimes, lived under Kings and at other times faced the onslaught of invaders. ‘Hinduism’ assimilated people and hence, grew as a civilization with diverse groups living together. Adjustment, accommodation and assimilation were the words that drove the society. Every community was given the right to profess and propagate its religion without stepping into the others realm. Of course, cases of certain rulers imposing their religion were there, but were few. Caste was one factor that divided the Hindu society and led to gross violation of human rights of the people placed on the lowest ring in the hierarchy, i.e. the Shudras who were treated as untouchables. The different strata had definite functions to perform and each lived in its sphere with no room for violations. The society and the state often over-lapped. The last century saw the emergence of many newly independent states which managed to break the shackles of slavery. Prior to their independence, the great civilizations of Asia had been annexed by colonial powers like the British, French and the Portuguese. The colonial masters brought with them their lifestyle, customs and traditions which were entirely different from the practices of the Asian society. Then started a process of ‘repair and patch work’ by the colonizers and they started the process of ‘fixing’ the gaps in the Asian societies. They found everything wrong with the Asian societies – the culture, habits, lifestyle, religion, education etc. ‘……Churchill argued that ‘to abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins (who in his opinion dominated the Congress Party) would be an act of cruel and wicked intelligence.’5 He also predicted that all the public services which had been created by the British ‘………….. would perish and India will fall back quite rapidly through the centuries into the barbarism and privations of the Middle Ages.’6     They ignored the fact that many cultures and

races inhabited this great land. The Indian sub-continent had a very hospitable soil and whoever came here became its resident forever ‘or went back , at least, influenced by it. But the evils of caste, class, religion and language divided the society, coupled with the fact that women were suppressed. Sir john Strachey, who spent many years in the sub-continent recounted his image of India to an European audience, ‘This is the first and most essential thing to learn about India-that there is not, and never was an India, or even any country of India of India possessing, according to any European ideas any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious.’7

State in Asian Societies

The State in Asian societies, as a modern entity has been a new entrant. But gradually, it has helped in achieving the aspirations of the people or at least has tried to include their dreams in every programme. The State has stepped in as a welfare state in most of the Asian societies. It has tried to strengthen the existing, formal, political institutions which it inherited from the colonial masters. In other societies; it has tried to create legal institutions. The State, as in India, is very actively involved in the welfare schemes which are many in number. There are various schemes floated for women, scheduled castes and tribes, children, senior citizens and other Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy, 2007, Picador, New Delhi, p. xv. marginalized and vulnerable people of the Country. The Constitution of India has made provisions for the minorities so that they can flourish in an environment where they can develop their personality to the full. The Constitution promises that India would be a ‘secular’ state where all religions would be given equal status. ‘The challenge that India faces today is to continue its growth path in a sustainable form. That means creating conditions that enable the majority of Indians to participate in the gains of growth. And that in turn will require the renewal of our social contract, based on a new bargain between the state, citizens and social actors and the world of business and entrepreneurship. It would be a social contract that integrates and renovates India’s foundational commitments to democracy and social justice with recognition of the necessity of open markets for economic growth’.8

The State, in all the Asian societies, has tried to build a close network between the various sectors. Following the principle of distributive justice, fairness and equitable distribution of wealth, the Indian state has passed laws so that there is no concentration of power. The tax-structure is based in such a way that the rich pay more so as to reduce spending on luxuries and this also curbs the black economy. A lot of people are living below the poverty line. The government is trying to eliminate poverty, again through various schemes. There are many who struggle for one square meal a day. The infra-structure is being built by the government. The government of India has passed many laws to protect women and also to give them equal status in the society. Years of suppression of the women in the society could be mitigated only by the intervention of the state. So, we have the Hindu succession Act of 1956, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, to protect and empower the women. Sex determination test is banned and so are evils like sati, child-marriage etc. There is no clear distinction between the State and society in China. The society is tightly controlled by the party in power. The State controls all the spheres of life be it social, cultural, economic or political. This raises the problem of absolutism and denial of rights to the vast population. The State’s hegemony is a cause for concern because it is very dominating. Thus, there is no reciprocity among the two – the society and the state.

The State is considered as an impressive partner in development of any kind for the people. The State is the only option to have organized social co-operation to move ahead. It is the State that can co-ordinate the many actors – political as well as non-political to achieve development. The State in Asian societies is trying to do so but there are too many obstacles. The small elite that has managed to come to power does not want to leave or share power. The State has not been able to break free from the feudal set-up. The relationship between the state and society is a two-way relationship. A healthy process of transfer of resources and knowledge is possible only when there are positive ties between the state and the society. The effectiveness of the State depends also on the society in which it is embedded. When the society is fragmented, as in the case of Asian societies, it becomes a herculean task for the State to bring about a cohesive unity.

China and Korea are examples of a cohesive state where bureaucracy is competent and is an authority. They have firm control over the society. There is no accountability to the people but they have an explanation for every act. India, Nepal, Sri Lanka are fragmented societies where the respective States are doing a remarkable job to bring about unity and oneness. Though successive governments have tampered with this goal, yet the Constitutions of these countries talk about mass participation of the people. Nepal’s Constitution adopted in 2014 is an example of a Constitution based on equality and liberty. In the Middle East Islam binds the society of the States together. It becomes the duty of the State to keep the societal limitations in mind while making any law.

Yet, the States in Asian societies have to face many challenges. ‘Large parts of state functioning are embedded in various forms of a patronage–corruption–political finance nexus. This flows from many sources. In many ways patronage or clientelism is a natural form of state behavior, in which political loyalty (including, but not limited to, votes in an election) is provided in return for the delivery, or at least the promise of delivery, of specific goods, jobs or services to individuals or groups’.9 The State is caught in corruption, nepotism and also in the mire of vote-bank politics. The formal institutions, in many countries like Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka are weak. In these states ,the democratic process has broken down many times. The State has not been able to escape the negative influences of caste, religion, region, language etc. Rather, it has been forced to take sides which has led to the rise of fissiparous elements. Groups with separatist tendencies are active in most of the Asian societies. In India, if we have the problem of Naxalites, then in Sri Lanka we have had the Liberation of Tamil Tiger’s Ealam ( henceforth LTTE) that challenged the might of the State and government for many decades. Bangladesh and Pakistan states have seen periodic coups by the military. Social deprivation has led to political instability and weakening of the state structure or the retaliation of the state to dissent in a brutal manner. In all the Asian societies, the elites have hijacked power and resources and the common people are following in their footsteps. Corruption has seeped into the society as well as the state. ‘The big politician has messed up politics, the Civil Servant has clogged the administration, the business man has indulged in sharp practices and increased the imbalance in the social order, the worker has let down the country by his stance against higher productivity, the former has upset the normal channels of trade by hoarding and black-marketing his produce, the petty official and petty politician have organized rackets to defraud the state and the people.10

The Directive Principles of State Policy have been included in the Indian Constitution and are considered as, ‘fundamental principles of the governance’, yet they have not been implemented satisfactorily. ‘….the Directive Principles were a product of a compromise. They

are an extremely watered down version of what many leaders of the national movement, predominantly Nehru in 1929, Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and a radical Bombay economist by the name of K.T.Shah who wanted to constitutionalise the right to work, strongly advocated’.11 The State in India is caught in a trap. The problems in the society are so many that they affect the state, directly or indirectly. As the societies become more prosperous, greed and hoarding are also on the rise. This affects politics too because politicians are not immune to avarice and greed. The State then, becomes weak and the institutions cannot work effectively

The economic growth has to empower those who are deprived, disadvantaged and are discriminated against. The government has to be responsible and responsive because it is a representative government, the voice of the majority.

Religion is a major issue in most of the societies and thus, becomes issue of conflict for the state and within the state. Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Hamid Gul, former ISI Chief, takes pride that “Pakistani army soldiers have always been religious, but now a growing number of officers have turned Islamist.’12 With the society steeped in religion, it becomes difficult to reverse the process. But other reports talk about a majority of people in the society who do not agree to Islamisation in Pakistan. But they are scared to talk for they would be treated as traitors. This silent majority, ‘…. May be believers but not fundamentalist as is projected on foreign televisionafter interviewing die-hard Islamists like Haq and other powerful clerics who pride in their muscle-power and their chain of madarsas’13.

The State-Society relationship suffers in Afghanistan where ‘divisions and identities along the traditional lines of ethnicity, tribe, clan, language and religion are still a vital component of Afghan life. The ethno-territoriality, pr,imordial loyalties and shifting alliance have since time immemorial to the day characterized and defined the socio-political behavior and the resulting conflicts in this unique land’.14

‘Although the revolution for national independence in India has been largely won, the more deep rooted “revolution of rising expectations” has just begun. Already it is threatening to become “the revolution of rising frustrations”. 15 The patience of the people is running thin with each passing-day. The institutions are not delivering what they promised. “For its part, the so-called Third World, wishing to gain a unique identity and to limit both Western and Eastern cultural and political domination, has sought to develop a set of systems and styles of governance that are particularly suited to their poor economies and immobile societies.’16 The endeavor is to develop with the best combination of developing while retaining the old. The elites also desire to develop but on their own terms so that the management remains in their hands and there is no shrinking of their space. With the concept of welfare state there is no escape from the fact that the benefits will be demanded by all and sundry, irrespective of caste, class or region. As the impatience of the voters grow, the government has to accelerate the process of development.

https://www.google.co.in

African societies

Most of Africa was under colonial rule since the late 1950’s. Known as “the dark continent, the African society is divided among tribes. ‘Africa is a troubled continent, bubbling with conflicting forces and tribal, personal and national rivalries’.17 The society is religious, conservative and has its own social and cultural norms. Poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, superstitions, slavery – the African society has seen it all. Witchcraft, black magic, the oracle sciences have guided the people since centuries. The patronage-client relationship is strong and loyalties span generations. Slavery, forced labour and Apartheid struck at the psyche of the Africans, in the past. Discrimination of the most ruthless kind created havoc with the self- confidence of the African citizen. The settling of the colonisers in Africa led to the introduction of a new culture, religion and norms to the African society. Discrimination has made the indigenous population bitter. The old institutions and loyalties broke down under the colonial impact. The clash of values between two cultures has created a clash between traditionalism and family ties. The tribal life brought about oneness and wholeness to the Africans. Hierarchy was strictly followed in the tribes and each tribe was divided into the elders, who were responsible for mediating, resolving conflicts and running the day to day affairs of the tribe and the youngsters who hunted, worked and provided for the tribe. Thus, there was special age and work associations. Custom and habit played a predominant role in these societies. The concept of private property did not exist and land was commonly owned. The chief of the tribe was the one to dictate terms. The patriarchal family was the norm. Sometimes, the Chief ruled with the help of a Council of elders. Individual’s interests were subservient to the interests of the group or tribe. Urbanisation led to the breaking of tribal traditions. Tribal warfare also led to local wars which made the State interfere in the tribal matters. The State, that time, meant the colonial masters who took advantage of the chaos. Tribal societies lived by their own rules in stateless societies. Religion played a very important role in the lives of the people. They associated themselves closely with Nature. Loyalty to the tribe was of utmost importance and people could not fathom a life without their tribe. Ancestor -worship was a norm and the ancestors were venerated through elaborate rituals, ceremonies and prayers. Women tended to the children and played the role of nurturers. The society was thus traditional, with its own rules. African tribal society was considered rigid, Inculcating poor habits, ignorant of health and steeped in ignorance. But the Africans understood this life and were comfortable in it. This life was in a primary society but gave a unique wholeness to the tribals. The tribal precedents were valued and followed which gave the Africans a sense of belonging to the land, an attachment to their brethren and link with their past. All this was broken by the entity of foreigners who connived with the tribal chiefs and other selfish people who sold their land and culture for personal profit.

https://www.google.co.in

State in African societies

Many rue the fact that the Africans have been transported very abruptly from the traditional societies to the modern state. The change has been abrupt and painful. The colonial masters left the society very weak and divided. They were substituted by local leaders who started amassing wealth ,ignoring the impoverished many. In many countries, the leaders were naïve and inexperienced so they could not hold power and it slowly passed into the hands of dictators or the military junta. In other countries, the small elite continued to attain power, many times by fraudulent means. The elite and the selfish leaders were blinded by the power that came with office. The emphasis was on personal advancement. The elites enjoyed the same privileges that the imperial masters enjoyed. The majority of the African states had weak formal institutions where it was easy for the elites to remain in power. In all this, the masses suffered. Gradually, the people started agitating for the State had failed their expectations. When the people expressed their frustrations, many leaders retaliated by imposing authoritarian rule. These dictators imprisoned, tortured and maimed their own citizens. There were gross human rights violations and dissenting voices were curbed. Democratic norms and culture were sacrificed at the altar of totalitarianism. The State failed to protect its own citizens, rather became the ‘inflictor’ itself. The people mistrust politicians as well as the the elite. The bureaucratic control has stifled the society as well as the State. The emphasis of the elite, bureaucracy and the politicians is on their own survival. Corruption is eating into the vitals of the society as well as the State and both the institutions are encouraging it. The colour of the skin of the elite is different, the colonial masters were white and the natives are blacks, but the purpose is the same – exploitation. A majority of the people continue to be marginalized and poor. The State has not been able to reach them and improve their lot. The basic facilities like food, clean water, medical aid and infrastructure are still in a pathetic shape. The politicians have hoarded wealth while the population is impoverished. The elites have sold the State to foreign companies which are pilfering the resources at an alarming speed. Bad governance by the State and its organs has led to internal conflicts within the societies of the respective sectors. The problems are not addressed. The States are spending more on the military, especially in those countries where dictators are in power. The elites are amassing wealth at the expense of those whom they are

supposed to govern. ‘Today politics has become an absorbing profession or at least pastime’.18 The elite have refused to step down from power. They manipulate power, institutions and structures in such a way that the essence of democracy is eliminated. The State has not been innovative in creating and implementing programmes.

‘Some of the new States are controlled by the same groups, and often the same leaders that headed the independence movements, while several others have come under the control of military regimes; but these revolutionary groups and leaders are not necessarily well-qualified to lead in the difficult tasks of nation-building.19

The State has failed to protect women and also failed to improve their lives. Water has to be carried from miles. Lack of basic facilities make the people want to migrate to other countries. Failure on the part of the State to implement plans and to spend judiciously is a big reason for frustration. Lack of action on the part of the State has led to a feeling of indignity among people. There is absence of peace and security because armed groups move about freely even in those States which claim to be democratic. The people are misinformed and they have to be participants in wars which are actually going to benefit the elites because the latter are going to profit by imparting arms and weapons. Lack of enlightened leadership is a curse of Africa and its people. With the destruction of traditional forms of governance, Africa is a confused state. Opposition and dirty politics have made many African states be termed as failed states. In many countries the State has collapsed and given way to authoritarian regimes. The elites have, at times, provoked their own people to fight against each other so that they can remain in harness. People are disillusioned because the States have failed to deliver.

Conclusion

With a large informal sector in the economy which is not organized in the Asian and African societies, problems of poverty, inequality and exploitation have to continue. These pose problems to progress. ‘It is a known fact that unequal societies cannot achieve their full potential or even sustain a high level of growth indefinitely. In other words, islands of prosperity in a sea of deprivation can only give rise to storms of conflict and instability. The story of India’s contrasts is well-known: ability, aspiration and achievement coexist with injustice, inequity and inequality’.20 Besides the people, the leaders in these societies have to be more responsible. But because the politicians emerge from the societies, they carry these habits of sycophancy and greed from society to the political system. Thus, the attitude of the State becomes rent-seeking.

The States have tried to directly help the poor and the disadvantaged, but have been partially successful because of the fight control of the bureaucracy on policy-formation and implementation in these societies. The bureaucracy’s authoritarianism becomes a central issue which is not healthy for any society. This gives birth to the elite culture that further consolidates power. In India, for example, the caste system has to end which is dominant in the society that it has direct effect on the political system. ‘Nehru was also opposed to most reservations and wanted to move towards what we term a caste-blind system. His ultimate goal, as he wrote to Charan Singh in 1954, was to end the caste system, which he saw as “the biggest weakening factor in our society.21

But the institutions in these States are steeped in colonial legacy and colonial culture. The institutions remain feudal even post-independence. Pakistan is one example of a State that has to work keeping the society in mind. Being a theocratic state, religion dominates the society as well as the state. The control of the institutions remains with the Muslim feudal class. Maulana Ala Maududi with his Jamaat-e-Islami wanted to create a truly Islamic state in Pakistan since ages. ‘What Ala Maududi and General Zia were preaching was a kind of ‘Theo-democracy’ by disseminating of Islam through schools, teaching and preaching, publication, rendering social services and creating Islamic student organizations. They felt that the best of western value based institutions could be appropriated, selectively and carefully to be fixed with Islamic values.’22

In the African societies, with the decline of tribes and advent of modern society, there has been a social disintegration. The peace, satisfaction and tranquility of the tribal life has been replaced by a modern society that has traits of greed, corruption and authoritarianism. The State has stepped into the vacuum but has not done exceptional work. The State has faced too many problems, there are too many bottlenecks, some that have evolved from the society and others created by the state. But with the idea of a welfare state, the State has no choice in both Asia and Africa but to play a much larger role in their respective societies for these countries have a major.

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.