“A Systemic Analysis of Social Problems in India – Part 2: Post Independence”, Brhat, May 12, 2026
“This is the second essay in a series that seeks to examine our history through the lens of systems, so that we may develop an original narrative – one that is neither borrowed nor received, and one that is not beholden to colonial priors.
In the first essay, we traced the trajectory from the early eighteenth century to 1947 by examining systemic questions. How should we understand, in a holistic way, the changes that took place in Indian society, particularly within Hindu society? Did some groups suddenly turn malicious? Were some groups co-opted, or did they begin co-opting others for the sake of incentives and benefits? Was it merely a historical accident? Or was it due to some fundamental weakness in theology? All these narratives are present around us. The effort, however, was to look at the issue afresh through the lens of administration, systems, and what happens when systemic change and the centralization of power take over.
The Legacy of Systemic Subjugation
In the first part of this article series, we discussed the main components of systemic subjugation. One was the British urban system and how it replaced the civilizational continuity that spanned vana, grāma, nagara, and pattana (port town). We examined what this meant for different groups, how the breakdown occurred, how discontinuities emerged between the urban and the tribal, between those within the village and those outside it, and what this meant for access to resources. We also discussed the institutional impact of feudalization and how it took a particular form in our subcontinent. Although there were feudal trends before British rule, they were essentially political in nature, with intermediary layers of power incentivized to collect taxes as part of the Maratha reclamation of de-facto power and control. What happened under British rule was a formalization of serfdom and social feudalism, with legal binding of labor to land, inherited debts, loss of liberty to profession for the serfs, etc. We also considered the destruction of traivarṇika functions – knowledge functions, power structures, and mechanisms of wealth generation within society. Then there was the centralization of power and its phased decentralization after the Crown rule, and the manner in which power was incentivized and distributed to subversive elements. Institutional capture was thus completed. Even when power was devolved, it was devolved to people whose incentive structures remained aligned with centralization. This also led to the loss of liberty and dignity for both society and individuals. The story, therefore, should be seen as one of the systemic stripping away of dignity, access, and mutual harmony, and of the way power entrenches itself through institutions, until de jure arrangements become de facto realities in Indian society……”
Read full article at brhat.in
