Nice one! My view on this is that the concept of “modernization means westernization” came into being as a seed sowed by the Brits and the Americans in the so called “backward” continents an countries. Flagged by the media then they became inseperable. Recently someone forwarded me an email with a scanned copy of a 1940s document of the Brits which said that ..”in order to destroy India we need to destroy her culture” – and they have systematically been doing this since then. Creation of hatred for whats your own and development of fascination for what is western….thus destabilizing our roots and heritage completely. And even after freedom this continues through their sponsors – the Indian media which in fact is no longer Indian in most cases.

Take even the example of Bollywood. Notice how in most movies they will show a temple in the context of a weak, economically backward, suffering individual whereas a Church will be shown in context of “modern” , “youthful” college crowd. Notice how it starts from a simple birthday celebration with cakes and candles to out clothes, our daily language… How many people today speak unadulterated vernacular languages? But you can count on many that would speak unadulterated English – better than even the English! Our way of life has been manipulated by MNCs and Media and both of these are sponsored agents of the West. Hence this close association of “modernism” and “westernism”!

I’m talking about intersection points of cultures.. Modernity should be an intersection set of contemporary cultures… there can be many elements of a culture that are not included in the ‘modern’ culture.

Are you saying that we can’t make any judgments comparing cultures? Are you sure? Would you say sub-saharan African tribal cultures are ‘modest’?

Would you say that Islamic culture is ‘as good’ as Western culture?

Think hard.

How can somebody consider contemporariness akin to Western culture? Therein the bile is exposed. It is a generic term and all cultures have equal right. If we imagine a Venn diagram, modernity should only be the intersection points of all cultures. West can only be considered to be a part of it.

Just my two cents..

Let us just say Modernization first came about in the West. Then the rest came to be modernized, or are in the process of being modernized, in two ways:

1. Elements of modern culture spread from the West to the rest through several channels, colonialism for example.

2. Elements of modern culture are independently invented by different cultures. Let’s take India: political inventions like zero hour, scientific and technological achievements like the discovery of water on the moon by Chandrayaan (well… whatever our contribution), advances in medicine (like Jaipur foot), nanotechnology, biotechnology – just a few examples.

Therefore, in non-Western cultures, Modernization is a two-pronged process.

In Western cultures, Modernization continues to occur. A majority of it is of Western origin. However, a minor but increasing contribution comes from non-Western cultures. Take for example the importance of stem cells research in South Korea to Western researchers in the same field, or joint collaboration by ISRO and NASA in conducting a bi-static radar experiment over the moon.

We can see Modernization is a very complex process. Western analysts must avoid oversimplifying Modernization as blind copying of Western culture. On the other hand, analysts from non-Western cultures must acknowledge the contribution of the West to Modernization.

Is it not applicable to many other things about india, including its spiritual philosophy, which is about transcending identification with nama-rupa. Indian music, dance, sculpture, science, philosophy, all products of bharatiya samskriti, reflects this underpinning facet of bharatiyata, of considering person as part of the universe- universalizing the person while the westerm mind tends to personalize the universe.

This fundamental aspect- of how a person is a product, moulded during his upbringing by his parents, guru, and later by the wider world, -inspires the place of respect given to parents, guru, anscestors, in fact the entire universe, in bharatiya parampara .

This leads to two questions –
1. Is such a (impersonalizing) bharatiya samskriti compatabile with the personalizing western outlook ?

2. When we seek to find solutions to ills that besets society, should we consider them only in the framework provided by westerm worldview- that of personalizing the problem, identifying one person as the cause and denouncing him/her ?
Or should we consider the problems with a bharatiya darshana- understanding the problem as having wider causes for its genesis, as a product of various influences acting in sequence leading up to the result, recognizing a purpose to it as well, and its solution being to consider all such influencing aspects also.

The answer to the first question has significant impact on the second.
And both may have wide import for india and its future. and also for the world itself.

dhanyavaad

a. The modernization of Japan which was accompanied by it’s westernization (which Dr. Pipes considers essential and praises) has taken it’s toll. The modern Japanese youth, with all it’s punk culture and trash pop craze, hardly have a connection with their ancient culture. The nobility of it’s Samurai tradition is all but lost and what they’ve been replaced by it’s harried and weary salaryman. I believe one of their writers (Yukio Mishima) even committed Seppuku (ritual suicide) over this issue (you may have to check details).

b. Any judgement on the superiority and inferiority of music (or of any cultural art form) can’t be final. That being said, I think one has to see what level of consciousness the music is trying to bring to the listener. Is it trying to drag you down to sensuality and making you feel good about it (like majority of the Ghazals) or is it trying to uplift you into something large, grand, wide.