(a) Do modernization and secularization necessarily go together? Give your views. (20 marks) (b) How do you understand the…

(a) Modernisation and Secularisation

Concepts:

• Modernisation: the shift to industrial, urban, literate, bureaucratic and scientifically-oriented society;
• Secularisation: "the process whereby religious thinking, practice and institutions lose social significance" (Bryan Wilson, 1966). Karel Dobbelaere separates three levels: societal (differentiation of institutions), organisational (change within religious bodies) and individual (belief and practice).

The case that they go together (classical secularisation thesis):

• Weber: rationalisation leads to the "disenchantment of the world";
• Durkheim: the functions of religion pass to other institutions as society differentiates;
• Peter Berger (The Sacred Canopy, 1967): pluralism undermines the taken-for-granted authority of any one faith;
• Europe: falling church attendance and religious authority, with Grace Davie's "believing without belonging" (1994);
• Norris and Inglehart (Sacred and Secular, 2004): as existential security rises, religiosity falls.

The case that they need not go together:

• Berger's own reversal (The Desecularization of the World, 1999): the world is "as furiously religious as ever", with Europe the exception;
• José Casanova (Public Religions in the Modern World, 1994): of the three meanings of secularisation, institutional differentiation holds, but decline and privatisation do not; religion re-enters the public sphere (deprivatisation);
• The United States is highly modern and highly religious;
• Multiple modernities (S.N. Eisenstadt, 2000): societies modernise along different cultural paths;
• Charles Taylor (A Secular Age, 2007): modern secularity means belief becomes one option among others, not that belief disappears;
• Religion uses modernity: televangelism, online darshan, global gurus and religious-political mobilisation.

India:

• M.N. Srinivas saw secularisation (weakening of purity–pollution ideas, rational explanation) alongside Sanskritisation and Westernisation;
• yet the Pew Research Center (2021) found that 97% of Indians say they believe in God, and pilgrimages and festivals have grown with roads, incomes and media;
• State secularism vs societal secularisation: the Constitution establishes a secular state (Articles 25–28), while society remains deeply religious. T.N. Madan (1987) and Ashis Nandy (1988) argued that Western-style secularism does not fit a society of believers, and Nandy looked instead to tolerance within faith traditions.
• View: modernisation brings differentiation of religion from the state, the economy and science, but not necessarily decline. Religion is transformed: it becomes more individual, more mediated and sometimes more political. The relationship is contingent, not necessary.

(b) The Mushrooming of Sects and Cults

Concepts:

• Church–sect typology: Ernst Troeltsch (1912) contrasted the inclusive, world-accepting church with the exclusive, protesting sect that breaks away from it seeking purity. H. Richard Niebuhr (1929) added the denomination, into which sects often settle over generations;
• Cult: a new religious group with novel beliefs, not a breakaway from an established tradition, often loosely organised around a charismatic leader (Stark and Bainbridge, 1985);
• Today they are studied as New Religious Movements (NRMs). Roy Wallis (1984) classified them as world-rejecting, world-affirming (offering success and well-being) and world-accommodating.
• Indian examples: ISKCON; the Art of Living and Isha Foundation (world-affirming, meditation and well-being); Radha Soami Satsang; Brahma Kumaris; the deras of Punjab (Dera Sachkhand Ballan, Dera Sacha Sauda); and Christian Pentecostal groups.

Factors responsible:

• Anomie and uprooting: urbanisation and migration loosen kin and village ties, and sects offer community, rules and belonging (Durkheim);
• Deprivation and dignity: sects arise among the disprivileged (Weber). In Punjab, Dalits turned to deras that offer equality denied by caste in mainstream institutions (Ronki Ram);
• Middle-class anxieties: stress, competition and loneliness make therapeutic, world-affirming spirituality attractive, part of what Heelas and Woodhead (2005) call a "spiritual revolution";
• Decline of established authority: where traditional institutions lose hold, seekers "shop" for meaning, and Bryan Wilson saw sect growth as a sign of secularisation;
• Religious market: Stark and Finke's religious economy model says competition and freedom produce many suppliers; Meera Nanda (The God Market, 2009) describes a state–temple–corporate complex after liberalisation;
• Media and globalisation: television, YouTube and social media turn gurus into brands with global followings;
• Charisma: Weber's charismatic leaders attract followers in times of uncertainty;
• Political patronage: vote-bank links give some sects influence.
• Concerns: personality cults can enable exploitation and crime, as the criminal convictions of some self-styled godmen (2017–18) showed; blind faith and pressure on members.
• Conclusion: the growth of sects and cults shows religion being re-organised in modern society rather than disappearing. It reflects needs for meaning, community and dignity that modern institutions leave unmet.

(c) Power and Social Hierarchies

Power: the capacity to realise one's will over others, even against resistance (Weber). Hierarchies are built and maintained through several dimensions of power:

• Economic: ownership of land, capital and jobs (Marx). In India, the dominant caste (M.N. Srinivas) combines numerical strength, land, and political and ritual status;
• Political: control of the state, law and coercion; C. Wright Mills's power elite. Weber's class, status and party show these can diverge;
• Three faces of power (Steven Lukes, 1974):
• decision-making: winning open conflicts;
• non-decision-making: keeping issues off the agenda (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962);
• shaping wants: the powerless come to accept their position;
• Ideological and cultural: Gramsci's hegemony produces consent; Bourdieu's symbolic violence makes domination look natural (for example, ideas of purity and pollution in the caste order, as analysed by Dumont);
• Knowledge and discipline: Foucault's disciplinary power works through classification, surveillance and expert knowledge, such as colonial census categories of caste and tribe;
• Graded and intersecting: Ambedkar's graded inequality gives each caste someone below it, dividing the oppressed; gender, caste and class intersect (Crenshaw's intersectionality).
• Maintenance and resistance: hierarchies persist through law, violence, socialisation, endogamy and control of resources. They are also challenged by everyday resistance (James C. Scott), social movements, reservations and Dalit assertion (Dipankar Gupta shows caste hierarchies are contested, not accepted).
• Conclusion: hierarchies last when force, resources and legitimacy reinforce each other; they change when any of these is challenged.