Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Chapter 6 and 7

In this chapter Moore discusses the path to Indian democracy and how in hindsight achieving this democracy was very unlikely. During the Mogul and British rule in India the central government was largely superfluous and the local level of village community was the framework for all social activity. The presence of caste systems in society hindered any change through innovation and opposition by the creation of new sub castes hence any sort of opposition was very unlikely to emerge into a rebellion, as was the case in China. “Caste served, and still serves, to organize the life of the village community, the basic cell of Indian society and the fundamental unit into which it tended to disintegrate wherever a strong ruler was lacking” (Moore; pg 317)

The political and social system of the Mogul Era was agrarian bureaucracy, which weakened in the eighteenth century. One of the main reasons for the late growth of parliamentary democracy was due to the weakness of he national aristocracy.

Economic development was inhibited by the Moguls who would skim off the economic surplus and turn it into display, avoiding and attacks from aristocrats. Marxist and Indian nationalists argue that British imperialism crushed and distorted potential developments, however Moore argues, “neither capitalism nor parliamentary democracy could have emerged unaided from the seventeenth-century Indian society.” (Moore; pg 321)

Rebellions by Indian peasants were not as significant as those in China and Japan due to their docile nature. Indian peasants were mainly a source of revenue for the ruling classes, taxing a fixed proportion of the crop therefore the more the peasant grew the more he had to hand over to the ruling classes. Peasants were not motivated to work harder as they would not be able to keep any surplus. The head of the village controlled peace and order and the ruling class were not concerned so long as they were receiving revenue.

The caste system can be used to explain the docility of Indian peasants. According to caste system and the theory of reincarnation, obedience in this life would result in a life in a higher caste after being reborn. “Caste took care of everything, government may have seen especially predatory. The government was not necessary to keep order. “ (Moore; pg 339)

India had entered the process of becoming a modern industrial society in the mid 1960s. “That country had experienced neither a bourgeois revolution, nor a conservative revolution form above, nor so far a communist one.” (Moore; pg 411). Moore puts forward three conditions that were not met and so hindered the development of democracy. Firstly there was too strong of a power disrupting a health balance. At first the power of the crown was overwhelming after which the aristocracy had gained power. Secondly the lack of an “appropriate form of commercial agriculture” (Moore; pg430) allowed the peasants to be exploited by landlords and moneylenders. Thirdly, after the departure of the British, a necessary weakening of the landed aristocracy was important and preventing any sort of aristocratic-bourgeois coalition from forming against the peasants and the workers.