{"id":206,"date":"2018-07-23T13:15:37","date_gmt":"2018-07-23T13:15:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/socp4.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=206"},"modified":"2019-05-06T11:29:53","modified_gmt":"2019-05-06T11:29:53","slug":"206","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/socp4\/chapter\/206\/","title":{"rendered":"Contested Modernity"},"content":{"raw":"
\"epgp<\/a>\r\n<\/span><\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nTable of Contents:<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1. Introduction\r\n\r\n2. Modernity and the West\r\n\r\n3. Colonial Modernity\r\n\r\n3.1 Gandhi, Ambedkar and Nehru on a Contested Terrain of Modernity\r\n\r\n4. Modernity and Knowledge\u2010Power\r\n\r\n4.1 Modernity and Sociology in India\r\n\r\n4.2 Modern \u201cScientific Temper\u201d and People\u2019s Science\r\n\r\n5. Modernity and the Crisis of Secularism\r\n\r\n6. Globalization of Modernity\r\n\r\n7. Conclusion\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n1. Introduction<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

The title of this module \u2013 Contested Modernity \u2013 indicates an unresolved and disputed state of \u201chabitations of modernity\" in India. One may ask why there is no clear consensus among scholars and intellectuals on a seemingly straight forward question: What constitutes modernity or what qualifies as modern in the case of India? Even a commonsensical answer to such a question comes with its own baggage of tradition. In other words, it resonates in the public domain as India or Indians being \u201cmodern yet traditional\u201d or a blend of modernity and tradition. Let\u2019s take a cue from this commonsensical answer which suggests that modernity and tradition are not completely antagonistic to each other; they do not constitute mutually exclusive domains in India as they perhaps did in Europe during the Enlightenment. In Europe modernity emerged out of the Enlightenment movement from the 17th Century onwards and received philosophical and intellectual attention that defined European modernity as a new mode of being represented by modern institutions and practices against the then existing European tradition.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In this context, the module will first discuss the development of Western European modernity as a distinctive mode of social life and how it spread to the rest of the world primarily through the vessels of colonial rule. Once it reached the shores of so-called \u201ctraditional\u201d society under the garb of the \u201ccivilizing mission,\u201d indigenous scholars engaged with the idea of European modernity and elicited a wide range of responses. Therefore second, in the Indian context, we will discuss Gandhi, Ambedkar and Nehru\u2019s distinct approach to the question of colonial modernity and the effects and echoes of their voices heard in future debates on postcolonial modernity. Third, this module will delineate and analyze the equation of knowledge and power and the way it structured colonial institutions and practices; the way it shaped modern disciplines of anthropology, sociology, and science in general; and finally the way later indigenous\/traditional knowledge emerged against this dominant Eurocentric perspective. The fourth part of the module engages with the troubling relationship of modernity and secularism and religious fundamentalism; in contemporary times, this pressing issue unravels further dilemmas and ambiguities attached to the concept of modernity. In the final section, the module draws towards contemporary practices of globalization and meanings of global modernity in India.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n2. Modernity and the West<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Modern literally means pertaining to current age or period; however, beginning in the 17th Century it specifically refers to a distinct mode of social life - knowledge, values, institutions and practices - that emerged in Western Europe. During that time, modernity had two widely accepted meanings: One represented scientific and technological advancements, and progress encapsulated in the process of modernization, whereas the other meaning expressed itself in terms of human liberation and freedom, and was embedded in the ideas of reason, justice, equality, and humanism. A question emerges: How to differentiate modern social institutions from the traditional ones? Giddens (1990) asserted that modernity, in comparison to tradition, signified greater \u201cpace of change\u201d with respect to technology, intensified \u201cscope of change\u201d with global interconnections, created new political systems articulated in the nation-state and introduced wage-labor as a condition of capitalist system.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

From a sociological point of view, Karl Marx identified capitalism as a transformative and central force shaping modern society along with commodification of labor power, alienation, and the class struggle between antagonistic modern classes: the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. In comparison, for Emile Durkheim, it was industrialism, division of labor, social solidarity, and\u00a0harmony that was central to an emerging modern society rather than capitalist competition and exploitation. Additionally, a third important intellectual figure of this time, Max Weber, characterized \u201crationalization\u201d and \u201cbureaucratization\u201d as key factors to understand an emerging modern European society. Though both Durkheim and Marx had divergent views on modern society, nonetheless, both believed in two meanings of modernity mentioned above, that is, modernity as a way to technological and scientific progress and modernity as way to achieve human liberation and freedom. In other words, Durkheim saw expansion of industrialism \u2013 technological progress \u2013 as a way forward to a harmonious social life, whereas Marx envisaged technological progress of the capitalist system leading to the condition of class struggle which, in turn, would create a more humane and liberated society. Weber, in comparison, agreed with the first meaning of modernity as a condition of technological and material advancement but disagreed with the second meaning of modernity. In his pessimistic world view, he argued that the modern processes of rationalization and bureaucratization restricted human freedom and individual autonomy.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Looking historically, it becomes evident that the two meanings of modernity \u2013 scientific and technological advancement and human emancipation \u2013 have remained in a frictional relationship with each other as European colonization, World Wars, the Holocaust, genocides, and unfulfilled promises of the Left\/socialist\/communist ideology marred most of the 20th Century. These instances led academic scholars to question two claims of European modernity: Its technical\/scientific superiority and its potential universal applicability to all societies. It is true that modernity as a distinctive mode of social life emerged in a local European context but it also true that its institutions, practices and values have affected and reshaped, to varying degrees, the ideological and intellectual framework of the entire world. In that sense, modernity has a universal appeal but it has not been completely successful in erasing particularities of other cultural and social life. Its superiority and universalist claims have been contested, appropriated, negotiated, debunked and critiqued as it traveled to other parts of the world. Let\u2019s turn to some debates and discussions regarding the effects and contours of modernity in India.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

3. Colonial Modernity<\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

The term colonial modernity, in spatial terms, refers to existence of modernity in the colony while in temporal terms it means experience of modernity under colonialism. Though, still matters of debate, some Indian scholars understand colonial modernity as a \u201ccompromise\u201d between European modernity and indigenous traditions, and they examine the universal claims of modernity\u2013 equality, liberty, freedom, individual rights \u2013 that manifested itself in contradictory ways in colonial India. In this context, Subaltern Studies scholarship shows how the modern colonial reformist tone failed to dismantle precolonial institutions and practices. For instance, the professed equality imagined by the modern legal system, particularly towards colonized subjects, often in practice subordinated such egalitarian values to preexisting in-egalitarian caste and religious systems. Similarly, for many scholars colonial modernity became a curious quest to make sense of the social groups that constantly question modernity\u2019s distinction between rational and irrational, the secular and the sacred.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

Today we have an academic vantage point to understand the rhetoric of the universal modernist project and to critically examine its claims but until the 1970s and 1980s European modernity and the American model of modernization were uncritically accepted by newly independent countries. It was the seminal work of Franz Fanon \u2013 The Wretched of the Earth \u2013<\/em> and Edward Said\u2019s \u2013Orientalism \u2013<\/em> which raised questions about the purported supremacy of European modernity. In India, the Subaltern Studies scholars and postcolonial critics have similarly raised important questions regarding many dubious claims of modernity. These scholars employed a critical stance towards modernity to closely examine the relationship between colonial power and\u00a0the distribution of knowledge. In this regard, they examined how disciplines, such as, history and anthropology\/sociology got institutionalized in colleges and universities as a part of the colonial modernist project, and how in turn, the project created an ideological framework of a false binary: modernity versus tradition in which many scholarly works were found to be trapped. The module will come back to discuss the contours and content of these debates but before that let us understand the engagement and response of three important political figures \u2013Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Nehru - with colonial modernity, and their contributions towards the making of ideas of India.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n3.1 Gandhi, Ambedkar, Nehru on a Contested Terrain of Modernity<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

While M. K Gandhi rejected western modernity, B. R Ambedkar realized its potential for emancipation for the \u201cuntouchable\u201d caste, though it was J. L Nehru who put faith in the \u201ctemples of modern India\u201d as decolonization unfolded as a historical process of becoming modern after the British Raj ended. Let us deliberate on each of them in some detail because their thoughts on western modernity and modernization have implications for current debates about tradition and modernity in India.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In Hind Swaraj<\/em>, Gandhi presents his critique of modern civilization and modernity. Gandhi argues against industrial civilization and technological advancement; he cites the inherent ills and violence perpetrated by scientific rationality; and questions the idea of progress and the speed of modern society. Gandhi attaches a moral superiority to an ancient Indian civilization and argues in Hind Swaraj <\/em>that modern science and technology has eroded the traditional morality of Hindu society. Thus, he reimagines a Swara<\/em>j\/self -rule adorned with simplicity, austerity, ahimsa, with a slow pace of life. The political, social, and economic aesthetics of Gandhi helps him to envisage a self-sufficient village life where decentralized political structures (Panchayat)<\/em>, communal harmony and Swadeshi<\/em> cooperative economy based on needs take precedence over pleasure and desire created by Western modernity. In this way, Gandhi aimed to restore a traditional Indian identity as a spiritual nation devoid of modern values: money, machinery, and pleasure. Unceremoniously after independence, Gandhi\u2019s ideals and arguments against modern civilization were swept under the rug by the Nehruvian state in an attempt to make India \u201cmodern.\u201d However, in the last two to three decades, Gandhian ideas and methods have resurfaced in the intellectual circle as an alternative to the excesses of modern capitalism and environmental degradation. We will discuss this below but let us focus on the two elements of tradition \u2013 religion and caste \u2013 which served modern functions in Gandhi\u2019s thought and practice.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Gandhi lived not only as a deeply religious person but consciously merged religion with politics as a strategic move for mass mobilization against colonial rule. Gandhi\u2019s secular aura was not devoid of religion; rather his interpretation of the religious text taught him the value of humanity, the importance of non-violence and Satyagraha (truth-force) which he used instrumentally not only to fight British rule but also to quell communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims. In other words, Gandhi used traditional elements, that is, a combination of religion and politics, and asceticism to shake the foundation of imperialism. Gandhi\u2019s strategy against the imperial force was completely different than the proposed modern secular revolutionary strategy of Marx and Lenin. Gandhi\u2019s ultimate goal was to build Ram Rajya with Bhagvad Gita<\/em> being the spiritual mooring of that society. Perhaps, it is this logic in Gandhi that wished to retain some elements of a traditional caste system, of course, without untouchability. Gandhi\u2019s effort to eradicate untouchability and his dedication to solemnize inter-caste marriage is beyond question but it is also true that he never explicitly rejected his beliefs in the traditional varna<\/em> system. Gandhi\u2019s views on tradition and modernity did not go uncontested and his contemporary, Ambedkar, challenged Gandhi\u2019s views on religion (Hinduism), caste, and the ideal of village society, and became Gandhi\u2019s biggest critic.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Unlike Gandhi, Ambedkar\u2019s social and political framework relies on the European Enlightenment project in which triumph of reason separated modern from traditional India. For Ambedkar, modern reason and traditional morality were two mutually exclusive domains in which traditional ways of life need to be rejected if it is not compatible with reason. Historically, for Ambedkar, the modern age of reason is advancement over the traditional age filled with myths and superstition, and therefore he accuses Gandhi of taking Indian society back into the dark ages of tradition. Contrary to Gandhi, Ambedkar believed in an enlightened India which would practically embrace European Enlightenment thought, liberalism and the idea of progress. It is in this spirit he writes that Gandhi\u2019s ideal village was \u201ca sink of localism, a den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism\u201d and enlightened India should aspire for urbanism, modernism, and industrialism. Similarly, if Gandhi endorsed caste system in some form; Ambedkar called for a complete annihilation of it. In his seminal text <\/span>Annihilation of Caste<\/em>, he put forward a radical criticism of the dominance of Brahmanism and the influence of Hindu shastras on traditional society that consciously and historically relegated \u201cuntouchables\u201d to a socially inferior position. In this sense, according to Ambedkar, caste inequality need not be rationalized just because Hindu shastras mentioned it. Though he rejected Hinduism, Ambedkar was ambivalent about religion. One the one hand, he showed a skeptical attitude towards superstition and myths attached to religion, on the other, he affirmed the significance of religion \u2013 in a Durkheimean sense \u2013as a means of social solidarity and as a way to evaluate the importance of reason.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Though Gandhi had immense personal and political influence on Nehru, like Ambedkar, he was not completely persuaded by Gandhi\u2019s negative assessment of modernity. A self-proclaimed agonistic and secular socialist, Nehru was devoted to developing India in line with modern democracies, where industries, dams, scientific temperament, and technological advancement would prevail against a Gandhian social and economic vision. Nehru assumed that the path of economic modernization would lead to an inevitable weakening of the traditional holds of religion and caste. Though Nehru assessed the irrelevance of religion and caste from a modernist lens, it is difficult to conclude that he was a modernist in a true western sense. Rather, he had one foot grounded firmly in the ideas and methods of western modernity, whereas his other foot searched for moral and ethical stability in Indian traditional values. In <\/span>Discovery of India<\/em>, he concluded that modern western industrial society had valued excessive individualism over social and moral values. Therefore, according to Nehru, it would be imperative for India to expand the concept of modernity to include moral as well as material elements in the framework of economic modernization. Politically, Nehru appropriated the modern state and democratic framework from the West in anticipation that pluralism and secularism could explore its true meanings in the nation-state (India) threatened by the homogenizing forces of Hindu ideologues of that time. In this sense, Nehruvian modernity carved the \u201cidea of India\u201d which was diverse and modern in its own way.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

The terrain of modernity is fraught with disagreements as evident in the thoughts of Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Nehru. Their divergent viewpoints on what is modernity, what constitutes modernity in India, and where to locate tradition and indignity in overarching European modernity did greatly inform future debates. Let us further explore these discussions and debates surrounding modernity, the emergence and distribution of modern knowledge, and its relationship to power.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n4. Modernity and Knowledge-Power<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Since the late 1970s, scholars exploring the contours of European modernity have studied the relationship between modern knowledge and power and debated the legacy of European Enlightenment in the case of India. Such debates have taken place under the rubric of Eurocentrism, universalism and particularism, modern European knowledge and indigenous knowledge systems, scientific temper and humanistic temper. The consequence of debating the legacy of European\u00a0modernity has created further anxiety around modernizing of India, but at the same time, it has also helped to form a confident scholarship that aims for reflexivity and diversity in the field of knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n4.1 Modernity and Sociology in India<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Colonial modernity created disciplinary divisions of knowledge in which sociological theories and methods were developed to study modern - hence modernity \u2013 European societies, whereas anthropological perspectives and its methods were designed to study particular, pre-modern, colonial societies, in other words, societies waiting to be modern. This Eurocentric binary construction is closely tied to distribution of power \u2013 between the colonizer and colonized \u2013 which had implications on the way sociology and social anthropology developed in India. The implication can be seen in two arenas. First, the disciplinary boundary between sociology and anthropology remained fuzzy and more often than not the former found its representation in the latter. It is with this blurred disciplinary boundary that the colonial administration and trained anthropologists studied India to classify and categorize groups and communities under primordial identities of caste, tribe, kinship, and religion. Second, the disciplinary and epistemic practices of anthropology developed a framework that conceptualized various regional groups and communities in relation to Hindu Civilization and invariably equated India with Hinduism, and thereby produced \u201cIndian tradition\u201d as distinct from the West (Patel 2006). For example, G.S Ghurye, the father of Indian sociology, pursued the Indian\/Hindu civilizational questions through the Indological approach.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

After Independence, the colonial binary of modernity\/tradition was reframed and rearticulated in the then dominant model of American sociology: Modernization theory. This evolutionary stage theory emphasized studying erstwhile traditional and colonial societies which were behind and yet to be modern (in relation to American modernity).Thus, the existing and emerging institutions in newly independent India now had a goal of becoming modern, which led a new generation of sociologists\/social anthropologists to focus on examining the processes of industrialization, urbanization, and modernization of Indian tradition as a surest way to move towards modernity. The external theoretical and methodological model of modernization became a way to organize sociology in Indian universities that relied more on \u201cmirroring\u201d the West than \u201creflecting\u201d on the received model for knowledge building in sociology and related disciplines. During this period, sociologist\/social anthropologist M.N. Srinivas tried to develop an indigenous perspective based on ethnography and the insider\u2019s view. Srinivas kept the adaptive caste system central to his functionalist analysis for understanding a changing India. Nevertheless, his brand of sociology\/social anthropology focused exclusively on anthropological methods and traditional themes (caste, kinship, religion etc.) which had two consequences: (1) it hindered theoretical (such as class analysis) and methodological (such as quantitative method) development (Deshpande 2003) of the discipline and (2) it remained non-reflexive towards the project of modernity since the post-independence sociological and anthropological study kept its focus on understanding \u201ctradition\u201d which was constructed by colonial modernity in the first place (Patel 2006).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

For the present generation of sociologists the task is precisely this: how to go beyond this binary of modernity and tradition constructed by colonial power and practiced by national-indigenous sociology, and how to build diverse \u201cself-reflexive sociologies\u201d that fulfil the promise of \u201csociological imagination.\u201d In this context, the postcolonial critics such as Partha Chatterjee (1997) and Dipesh Chakrabarty (2000 and 2002) do provide a way to reframe and rearticulate social sciences in the era of globalization. The task is difficult, though not impossible. It is difficult because in the current era of globalization the restructuring of knowledge is taking place and like its predecessor - modernization theorists\u2013the Western scholars are busy reframing new trap of binaries. For example, Samuel Huntington\u2019s \u201cclash of civilizations\u201d thesis has reconstructed a new \u201cus\u201d(Modern\/Western\/Euro-American\/Secular) vs \u201cthem\u201d (Traditional\/Non-Western\/Religious) but his claims are fiercely contested by new generations of social scientists.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n4.2 Modern \u201cScientific Temper\u201d and People\u2019s Science<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nIn Discovery of India<\/em>, Nehru wrote, \u201cscientific temper\u2026\u2026.is the temper of a free man.\u201d\r\n\r\n \r\n

This idea of \u201cscientific temper\u201d and scientific rationality came under assault in 1980s when postcolonial critics such as Ashis Nandy launched a counter argument to claim that \u201cthe ultimate logic of scientific temper is the vulgar contempt for the common man it exudes.\u201d This counter-statement against the scientific temper called for a \u201chumanistic temper\u201d and this clash of tempers represented another disputed ground of European legacy of modernity in India. The contested question is: Should we simply appropriate modern Western science for India\u2019s development or should we have our own indigenous science and knowledge catering to local needs?<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In academic circles the argument by science studies and counter-argument by postcolonial studies is portrayed as \u201cscience wars\u201d (Nanda 1997), where significance of scientific reasoning and faith in tenets of Enlightenment has met its nemesis in the cultural critique of scientific temper. On the one hand, science studies imbued with scientific temper aims at disseminating scientific explanations and rationality among traditional people so that people can liberate themselves from the clutches of superstitions and irrationality, evaluate the significance of values, and use science to end injustice. On the other hand, postcolonial studies questions the objectivity, value neutrality, and progressive stance of Western science and technology which has historically been used to dominate the colonial world, justify racism (through scientific racism argued for the inferiority of colonial subjects), and to perpetrate violence on traditional-natural habitation of people in post-independence period. Thus, this position viewed science not only as one of the many ways of knowing but also wanted to recognize science as culture. Broaching Gandhi\u2019s anti-Western stance, the new perspective on science argued for a \u201cdecolonization of mind\u201d and proposed use of science and technology towards humanistic end. It is in this context, one can understand the emergence of indigenous\/people\u2019s science movements in India: Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSS), Patriotic People for Science and Technology (PPST), Kishore Bharti, Chipko Andolan, Jan Vikas Andolan, Narmada Bachao Andolan, National Alliance of People\u2019s Movement and so on. The famous social scientists\/personalities attached to these movements and alternative sciences are Ashis Nandy, Vandana Shiva, Medha Patkar, Claude Alvares, and Shiv Visvanathan who work to spread traditional science and knowledge at the grassroots level.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nOne can draw a few conclusions and raise some questions in the context of this relationship between modernity and science in India. One, as postcolonial studies suggests, when thinking about modern science and its impact on society one should pay attention to the role of society, culture, gender, class, and race in producing scientific activities. Two, the people\u2019s science movement and postcolonial critique of scientific temper is not against science per se<\/em>, but they are against the social, cultural, and political hegemony of science. Three, while posing against modern European science, is indigenous\/traditional science recreating the old binary? Perhaps, the answer lies in an honest, critical, and rigorous evaluation of received knowledge irrespective of the source of that knowledge. Four, do critiques of modern science and arguments for indigenous science mean one ends up supporting the cause and ethos of Hindu nationalists who glorify Hindu tradition\/science? Let\u2019s explore this question in the next section.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n5. Modernity and the Crisis of Secularism<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

One of the pillars of European modernity was the idea of secularism that grew in opposition to religious domination of pre-modern society. The modern European secular state claimed to guarantee religious freedom, maintain neutrality in religious affairs, and honour the separation of politics from religious institutions. In the context of India, vagueness attached to secularism is\u00a0profound; nonetheless, the Nehruvian state did profess religious freedom as one of the emblems of constitutional rights and did desire to form a separate domain for politics and religion. However, the Indian state\u2019s dubious role in post-independence communal violence, its suggested role in minority appeasement, its involvement in regulating and funding of religious institutions and the emergence of a new political force in the form of Hindu right \u2013BJP- has created an anti-secular environment since the1980s. Criticism against secularism was advanced academically as well as politically. In academia, Ashis Nandy opened a line of intellectual attack on secularism by putting forth his \u201canti-secular manifesto.\u201d Similarly, sociologist T. N. Madan also argued in favor of abandoning the secular project as he saw no difference between religious fundamentalists and secularists who were completely against the existence of religion in people\u2019s life. Politically, the Hindu Right \u2013 the Sangh Parivar \u2013 raised its voice against the idea of secularism which they interpreted as a pro-Muslim stand. Thus, Enlightenment ideology of secularism received strong criticism from both postcolonial scholars and cultural nationalists which made them strange bed-fellows, both arguing and aspiring for cultural authenticity and anti-secularism. In other words, the Left leaning secular scholars who believed in the value of Enlightenment rationalism and secularism argued that a critique of modernity by postcolonial scholars and forms of indignity they advocated make it difficult to differentiate between them and aspirations of Hindutva forces (Sarkar 1993 and Nanda 2004). Does this means that postcolonial scholars indirectly endorse and take what might be politically irresponsible positions?<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

The postcolonial response to this accusation is this: Religion is an integral part of people\u2019s everyday life and the European legacy of separation between sacred and secular does not hold too strong a ground in India. However, the way academic secular discourse \u2013 particularly Indian Marxism \u2013 developed first under colonial power structures and later after independence continued to emphasize the separation of religious from political institutions. The secular modernist framework relegated question of religion, rituals, god, and superstitions as a relic of the past. In other words, the modernist secular academic discourse did not pay attention to questions related to religion because it did not quite fit into their framework of analysis. Such hostility in secular academic discourse towards religion has itself been a result of binary between sacred (tradition) and secular (modern), despite the strong empirical reality of modern Indians deeply religious life. Further on the question of being politically irresponsible and sympathetic to Hindutva anti-minority rhetoric, postcolonial scholars argue that studying religious attitude of the mass does not make one an automatic supporter of Hindutva fascist tendencies. Moreover, they argue that secular discourse fails analytically to separate religious faith and religious ideology and thus collapses \u201creligious faith\u201d practiced by subaltern mass into \u201creligious ideology\u201d \u2013 as practiced by the Sangh Parivar. They pose counter-questions to secular intellectuals: Can we educate people to become non-religious or should we see our modernity as distorted, inferior, and incomplete since aims of secularism remain unfulfilled? The truth is that contestation over meanings, substances, and institutions of modernity in India have raised more questions than definite and clear answers; however, one should remember that raising questions about modernity or Enlightenment rationalism is not to reject all aspects of that rationalism and fall into the abyss of irrationalism.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n6. Globalization of Modernity<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Is it an interconnected world of globalization that allows movement of capital, people, goods, and services slowly creating a homogenous experience of modernity? Or does modernity remain a diverse experience, appropriated by different populations, despite an all-encompassing globalization? One theoretical stance indeed argues that modernity\u2019s underlying rationalization process is slowly creating a world as a more homogeneous place; that the dimensions of rationalization such as efficiency, predictability, calculability, control and use of non-human\u00a0technology, are all making global modernity\u2019s experience far too similar (Ritzer1993). In this perspective, Max Weber\u2019s formal rationality, as a way of social, political, and economic organization, is coming to dominate most of the world already evident in the way fast-food restaurants, shopping malls, gated communities, packaged tours, and consumer culture are managed and operated in the globalized era. The other theoretical position takes an oppositional stance and interprets modernity as a Western category but also as an instance of varied global experience that exists everywhere. It asserts that in the era of globalization the ascendancy of mass media and mass migration has affected people\u2019s imagination about what to consume, when to consume, the extent to consume, or even a refusal to consume. At the same time it also provides them with means for \u201clocal production of modernity\u201d which is different from the Euro-American form of modernity. In other words, contemporary mass media and mass migration have slowly started to de-territorialize people leading to a complex and overlapping disjunction in various aspects of economic, political, and cultural life. In this situation, there exists tensions and contractions between local and global cultural processes which create a new \u201cpublic culture\u201d where experience of modernity can be contested, interrogated, negotiated, and appropriated differently (Appadurai 1995).<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n

7. Conclusion<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\r\n \r\n

Modernity since its inception has sought to universalize itself through the processes of colonialization, modernization, and globalization. India has been under the spell of modernity since colonial times and the two meanings associated with modernity \u2013 scientific and technological advancement and human liberation \u2013 have generated complex, varied, and often anxious responses in India. For example, Gandhi, Ambedkar and Nehru respectively opposed, supported, and institutionalized modernity in India. When the question of modernity reached academic corridors, some of the early Liberal and Marxist scholars either readily identified with the project of modernity: science, reason, development, and emancipation or emphasized the counter project of tradition: caste, tribe, kinship, religion. Such academic enterprises legitimized the binary of modernity and tradition and thus interpreted India either as \u201cyet to be modern,\u201d \u201can incomplete modernity\u201d or as a civilizational guru with a repository of valuable indigenous knowledge. All positions have its flaws and in a sense were the result of the structure of knowledge constructed during colonial times. At present, it is this binary, created by the colonial power that needs to be transcended. On the contested terrain of modernity, critical sociologists, and postcolonial scholars do provide us with a way to do that by imagining a critical, diverse and reflexive modernity.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
you can view video on Contested Modernity<\/strong><\/td>\r\n\"\"<\/a><\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n\r\nWeb links<\/strong>\r\n