Intolerance or whims on the part of the owner/management had to be curbed, abandoned or modified to keep costs low and generate profits. This led people in the industrial era to be tolerant, patient and accommodating. These are the major psychological ingredients upon which the modern political democratic edifice is built

As opposed to the epoch of feudalism, when man was dependent upon the vagaries of weather or the whims of the landowner, man’s survival in the industrial epoch became tied to cooperating with others working in the industry.

He saw that his economic survival was possible only if he performed his own limited functions in cooperation with others. Goods would be produced, and he would be paid, only if he cooperated with others to complete the task. If he did not cooperate, he would starve because the goods would not be produced and wages would not be paid. This interdependence gave rise to a sense of common fate and cultivated an attitude of tolerance of others and self discipline to cooperate with others.

His cooperative, accommodating and tolerant attitudes were thus generated, cemented and strengthened in the industrialized epoch. From the group’s perspective, it was apparent that their survival was possible only in cooperation and adoption of commonality of action; the resulting interdependence was perceived to be the operative variable for the group’s survival. Task and outcome interdependence therefore strengthened “democratic” values and norms in this epoch.

When man saw that he was dependent upon others for his economic survival, his psyche changed profoundly. He now adopted different ways of cognition and affection. All these changes were the necessary ingredients of a democratic mind-set and its attendant behavioral paradigm.

In the feudal epoch, the landowner was the lord and master of the landless tiller. If he got angry or upset with his serf, he would order the latter separated from the source of his survival: the land. Thus the labour adopted a mindset of complete subservience to the landowner, ready to please the lord and master. That made the landlord intolerant of any disagreement or dissent.

But in the industrial epoch the labourer’s survival did not depend upon pleasing the master, the industry owner or management, but on finishing the assigned task. He was now “free” from the whims of the landowner, as long as he completed the task. His subservient mind-set and dependent attitude disappeared.

The other dimension of this newly emerged paradigm was that the owner/management was less concerned with receiving personal obedience from the labour and more concerned that the task was completed. The owner/management learnt to ignore disobedience and be tolerant and accommodating of dissent, divergent views, norms and beliefs of the labour, as long as the labour produced the goods and delivered the services.

Accommodation and toleration were two psychological traits that both the labour and the owner/management had to learn, inculcate and adopt. These attitudes became the psychological hallmarks of the industrial age. These were, and are, also the basic ingredients of the political system we call democracy.

Another variable added its weight to the new equation. As intolerance and non-cooperation threatened the very survival and existence of the labour/worker and hindered production, so could intolerance and non-cooperation cost money to the industry’s owner/management. The owner/management could not “fire” or separate an “insolent”, disobedient and dissenting labour, because this translated into real costs — severance costs, lost man-hours, rehiring and retraining costs. Firing labour reduced profits.

Intolerance or whims on the part of the owner/management had to be curbed, abandoned or modified, and toleration and patience adopted to keep costs low and generate profits. This led people in the industrial era to be tolerant, patient and accommodating rather than whimsical and tyrannical. These are the major psychological ingredients upon which the modern political democratic edifice is built. We can’t expect these psychological traits to germinate, sprout, and grow unless contingent conditions are provided by industrialization.

A lot of people have reflected upon, written and talked about the contemporary political scenarios of sustained democracy in India, and lack of it in Pakistan. Here is a psychological viewpoint. The region that now comprises India, that is, after the partition of 1947, was more industrialized than the region that is now Pakistan. The Indian National Congress that was the political arm of the struggle of independence of the people largely represented the views and aspirations of the Indian industrialists.

That was one reason why the Indian National Congress was committed to introducing massive land reforms after independence, and facilitating and hastening industrialization. That was also the reason why the Indian National Congress carried out its avowed agenda after independence and put the country on the path to rapid industrialization. In the 1950s, and the 1960s, we saw the abolition of feudalism in India and the laying of the groundwork of the industrialization of the country. These steps moved society away from agrarian feudalism and towards industrialization, sowing the psychological seeds of the democratic mindset in people. This later sprouted and grew into the strong tree of democracy in modern India.

No force has been able to uproot the tree of democracy planted in industrialized India. The roots of democracy have become so strong that not even the political leader whose father was one of the main leaders of the struggle for independence and who was the prime minister when the Indian army won a war in 1971 could adopt an undemocratic, dictatorial posture. When she tried to stifle the democratic voice of the people by proclaiming emergency laws in the country she and her party were voted out.

Later when she and her party modified their approach, and adopted more tolerant, accommodating, magnanimous, cooperative and hospitable attitudes and norms they were again voted in.

Industrialisation of India is obviously the root cause of why the spirit of democracy prevails in the country and why no one has been able to derail it. It is therefore not mere chance that the president of the country is a Muslim, the leader of the house a Sikh, the leader of opposition a fundamentalist Hindu, and the leader of the ruling party a Catholic Christian.

This is the manifestation of the tolerant spirit brought forth by industrialization that is also manifest in the democratic political edifice of the country. Can we, in Pakistan, dream of such political tolerance under the given feudal, tribal infrastructure? Not without abolishing feudalism and introducing industrialized infrastructure, and not without setting the country on the path to industrialization.

plz pray,
Sardarzada