The making of post-colonial states in South Asia

‘Soft State’: The concept of ‘soft state’ was put forward by Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal in his acclaimed book Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations (1968), spanning over 2,000 pages.

‘Overdeveloped State’: The second concept is an ‘over-developed’ state that Pakistani sociologist Hamza Alavi captured by looking specifically at the experiences of Pakistan and Bangladesh in an article he wrote in 1972.  

‘Enchantment of the State’: The third is political theorist Sudipta Kaviraj’s more recent efforts to explain what he feels is the ‘enchantment’ that has been created by the state in India. 

The three approaches are rooted in the specific historical experiences of South Asia and stand in contrast to the emergence of the modern state in Europe.

‘Soft’ vs ‘hard’ states

If Myrdal chose to characterise the state in South Asia as ‘soft’, he obviously had at the back of his mind the supposed nature of the ‘hard’ state of Europe. But what exactly does Myrdal mean by a soft state? Through ‘soft state’, he specifically referred to the state’s inability to carry out large-scale social transformations through extensive land reforms. 

Myrdal, who was a good friend of India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, believed that Nehru’s government failed to dismantle the dominance of the rural elites in the countryside. Instead, the state allowed their dominance to persist – a dominance that, after Nehru’s death and  India’s experience with the famous green revolution, became the basis for the emergence of the country’s much talked about “bullock capitalists”. 

Myrdal also used the concept of the soft state to suggest the inability of the state to promote modern values such as bureaucratic rationality. Instead, the soft state became captive to the the more regressive aspects of traditional society. In Myrdal’s view, there was an unruliness in such societies over which the state could not prevail. The state’s inability to extend its reach to the most distant corners of society undermined its potential to transform society through, say enforcement of laws.

These societies’ resistance and disobedience to state authority, rooted in anti-colonial movements, entrenched its unruliness, while corruption further compounded the state’s challenges. In contrast, Myrdal argued that the ‘hard’ state of Europe was able to spread and diffuse its modern values throughout their societies. This success, he believed, was to some extent made possible by the absolutism that characterised the emergence of the modern European state.

Over-developed State: Ties between metropolitan and indigenous bourgeoisie

In contrast to the rather effete ‘soft’ nature of the post-colonial state proffered by Myrdal, we have in Hamza Alavi’s understanding, the idea of the ‘over-developed’ state. It more actively intervenes and reconfigures society, especially the internal, native and indigenous elements. The over-developed character of the state arises from its connection to the external metropolitan colonial power at whose behest it has been created. 

Once created, an important function and role that it has to play is to dominate the indigenous elements of society, especially the indigenous bourgeoisie. In Alavi’s understanding, the over-developed state needs to be understood in terms of its curious relationship between an external metropolitan bourgeoisie from whom it was separated at the time of independence and an indigenous native bourgeoisie that is too weak to be able to exercise any control over it and as a consequence becomes easily subordinated to it. 

Alavi elaborated on the concept of the ‘over-developed’ state and presented his argument in a seminal 1972 essay published in the influential journal the New Left Review. In this essay, he made it clear that his arguments were deeply tied to the historical specificity of Pakistan and Bangladesh. This was also a time when Bangladesh, formerly East Pakistan, had seceded and become recently independent.

The ‘enchantment’ of the state

In contrast to the social democratic underpinnings of Myrdal’s ideas and the Marxist materialist basis behind Alavi’s thinking on the post-colonial state, we have the writings of political theorist Sudipta Kaviraj, who approaches the post-colonial state from an ideational perspective. Kaviraj focusses on the ‘ideational’ change that has occurred with modernity and given rise to what he calls the ‘enchantment’ of the Indian state. He traces what he feels is a long movement away from the state initially considered as an undesirable part of the ‘furniture of any society’ to becoming an indispensable ‘central moral force’. 

Writing more recently than Myrdal and Alavi, Kaviraj factors in liberalisation policies from the 1990s onwards. Even though these policies are often associated with neo-liberal agenda and the rolling back of the state’s role in social and economic spheres, Kaviraj argues that the enchantment with the state remains intact.

His analysis involves a deep dive into intellectual history to understand the evolution of thinking on the state in India by going back to ancient texts such as the Arthashastra and the Manusmriti. Kaviraj also seeks to understand the state by looking at Islamic conceptions that prevailed during medieval times, ultimately connecting these historical perspectives to the anti-colonial period and the state’s contemporary role.

To conclude, it is worthwhile to broaden the focus beyond South Asia and look at the developmental states of East Asia. East Asian economies, often viewed as models of economic success, highlight a different approach to state power. In East Asia, the states have played a pro-active role in driving development, often at the expense of freedom. This dynamic offers a comparative perspective and highlights diverse ways in which states navigate their roles in shaping societal and economic outcomes.

Post Read Questions

What gives the post-colonial state its distinct character?

What is the concept of the “soft state” as used by Gunnar Myrdal, and what does it signify?

Why is the concept of the over-developed state particularly tied to the historical specificity of Pakistan and Bangladesh?

How does Sudipta Kaviraj’s approach to the post-colonial state differ from the ideas of Gunnar Myrdal and Hamza Alavi?

What does Sudipta Kaviraj mean by the “enchantment” of the Indian state?

(Amir Ali is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.