Colonial and Post-Colonial Frameworks in Modern Bhārat:

Implications for State, Society, and Citizens

Insight summary: Post-colonial influence operates through laws, policy, media, education, and ideological narratives rather than direct rule. Indic thought emphasises that sovereignty depends on awareness, internal coherence, and disciplined interpretation of these external shaping structures.

Detailed Analysis: Building on previous blog on World Systems Theory (WST) and the broader historical continuum from 

Empire → Imperialism → Colonialism → Neo-Colonialism

it becomes important to understand that what we term “influence” has not disappeared in form, but has rather transformed in architecture. It has shifted from visible governance to invisible structuring, from physical control to epistemic shaping, and from territorial occupation to cognitive conditioning of what is regarded as “valid knowledge”, “progress”, and “modernity”.

In the colonial phase of Bhārat, the structure was explicit. Governance, administration, economy, law, and education were externally designed and imposed. Bhārat functioned within a peripheral framework, supplying raw materials, labour, and civilisational wealth whilst importing institutional systems and manufactured goods. However, what is often overlooked is that this was not merely economic extraction—it was also a restructuring of perception itself, whereby categories such as “advanced” and “backward”, “rational” and “traditional” e externally defined and gradually internalised, aligning with a fundamental Bhāratīya insight:

अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः । - ajñānenāvṛtaṃ jñānaṃ tena muhyanti jantavaḥ |

When knowledge is veiled by ignorance, beings fall into confusion.

Here, “ignorance” does not simply denote absence of information, but rather distortion of interpretive frameworks themselves. In other words, influence operates most effectively when it shapes the cognitive faculties of the brain and therefore our thoughts.

From Physical Control to Influence

From a broader Bhāratīya lens, the transition into the post-colonial phase represents not the end of influence, but its transformation. Political sovereignty was attained in 1947, yet inherited frameworks of governance, law, education, and institutional design continues till date in modern India staying within but slightly modified colonial templates. Within World Systems Theory, Bhārat gradually occupies a semi-peripheral position—neither fully dependent nor fully independent —participating actively in global trade, technology, and production systems. The inherent question is not participation, but the architecture of participation.

The global order itself—financial systems, laws, trades, influences, technological standards, institutional norms, and knowledge-validation frameworks—remains largely shaped by core economies. Thus, engagement is not external to the system; it occurs within pre-defined structures of legitimacy. A Kauṭilyan understanding of inherent strength states:

मूलं राज्यस्य राजानः इन्द्रियजयः स्मृतः । mūlaṃ rājyasya rājānaḥ indriyajayaḥ smṛtaḥ |

The foundation of a state is self-mastery and disciplined cognition.

The meaning is clear: sovereignty is not merely territorial or institutional—it is also cognitive and interpretive abilities of the country, its power structures and all its citizens. A state that cannot define its interpretive framework is inevitably made to operates within frameworks defined by others.

Neo-Colonial Influences:

In the contemporary thought often described as neo-colonial influence, the mechanism of shaping extends beyond economics and geopolitics into multi-layered systems of reality.

In geopolitics, Bhārat’s engagement with frameworks such as the Quad, its positioning in the Russia–Ukraine geopolitical axis, and participation in global platforms such as the G20 Presidency (2023), reflect how decision-making is increasingly embedded within broader strategic architectures rather than isolated national action. This, however, is not inherently negative, as engagement with global systems also presents opportunities for strategic balancing, economic growth, technological advancement, and expansion of Bhārat’s influence within the emerging multipolar order.

In trade and economic policy, initiatives such as Make in India, Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, withdrawal from RCEP (2019), and negotiations such as the India–EU Free Trade Agreement illustrate the continuous negotiation between domestic developmental priorities and global economic structures. This reflects a classical Kauṭilyan principle of relational statecraft:

अरिः मित्रं मध्यस्थ उदासीनः च । ariḥ mitraṃ madhyamaḥ udāsīnaḥ ca |

The world is structured not in absolutes of friend and enemy, but in shifting relational categories.

In such a framework, influence is not imposed once—it is continuously negotiated across layers of dependence, opportunity, and strategic alignment.

Media, Narrative Systems and the Construction of Perception

Beyond economics and geopolitics, influence extends deeply into media ecosystems, cultural production, and digital platforms. Events such as the reporting of Sabarimala case, Anti-CAA & NRC controversies, Manipur situation (2023 onwards), global framing of developments in Kashmir after Article 370 (2019 onwards), and the international narrative surrounding Chandrayaan-3 (2023) demonstrate that global perception of Bhārat is not merely observational—it is structurally mediated.

Cinema, digital platforms, and algorithm-driven ecosystems & narratives further shape frameworks, subtly defining what is perceived as “modern”, “global”, and “desirable”. Here, the home-grown insight becomes critical and should be confidently presented: reality is not only what happens, but how it is interpreted. A very strong supporting verse in the Dharma tradition:

यथा दृष्टि तथा सृष्टि । yathā dṛṣṭi tathā sṛṣṭi |

“As is the vision, so is the world that is seen and/or created.” This expresses exactly the point on narrative: reality is not only external occurrence, but constructed through perception.

Internal Cohesion and the Translation of External Influence into Policy

Within this structure, influence does not operate externally alone—it is completed internally through reception, interpretation, and institutional response. Policy direction in Bhārat is therefore not purely externally determined nor purely internally autonomous; it is a dynamic interplay between domestic cohesion and external pressure. A strong internal structure—politically, institutionally, and ideologically—acts as a filtering mechanism, selectively absorbing, adapting, or resisting external influence based on internal priorities.

A fragmented structure, however, increases susceptibility to external validation frameworks, financial leverage systems, and institutional expectations. This reflects a deeper Kauṭilyan strategic principle:

उपायेन हि यत् कार्यं न तु साम्ना न दण्डतः । upāyena hi yat kāryaṃ na tu sāmnā na daṇḍataḥ |

What cannot be achieved by direct persuasion or force is achieved through layered strategy.

Influence therefore operates not in a single dimension, but across time, structure, and interpretation.

Dharma, Awareness and Civilisational Continuity

From a Dharma-centric perspective, the entire structure converges on a single principle: awareness is the foundation of autonomy within interconnected systems. As outlined in my first blog on Dharma, in the civilisational sense, it is not merely ritual or belief, but the principle that sustains coherence across the ethical, social, institutional, and cognitive dimensions of society. It is the underlying framework that holds multiplicity together without fragmentation.

Thus, in the modern context, the question is not whether Bhārat should engage with global systems, but how that engagement is interpreted and internalised. A society that understands structure retains agency and self-direction, whilst one that does not understand it absorbs influence unconsciously—often to its own detriment, and at times in ways that can weaken the very fabric of Dharma.

Concluding Indic Insight: From Participation to Consciousness

Ultimately, the objective is not isolation from global systems, but conscious participation within them. For Bhārat, as for any civilisation operating in a deeply interconnected world, the central challenge is not presence within global structures, but clarity within them. When awareness is strong, influence is filtered through discernment. When awareness is weak, influence becomes indistinguishable from self-definition.

Thus, the foundation of autonomy is not withdrawal, but civilisational understanding of how geopolitics, economics, media, institutions, and narratives operate as interconnected systems—guided by the Bhāratīya principle that stability arises from बुद्धि (buddhi) as clarity, discernment, and interpretive sovereignty.

More in next blog....

The Post-Colonial Hangover – World System Theory

Empire to Imperialism to Colonialism to Neo-Colonialism with an introduction to World System Theory:

To understand Colonialism, it is pertinent to understand certain definitions clearly (source Etymology.com):

1. Empire -‘territory subject to an emperor's rule’.

2. Imperial - pertaining to an empire, having a commanding quality.

3. Imperialism – Imperialism is a depraved choice of national life, imposed by self-seeking interests which appeal to the lusts of quantitative acquisitiveness and of forceful domination surviving in a nation from early centuries of animal struggle for existence. Its adoption as a policy implies a deliberate renunciation of that cultivation of the higher inner qualities which for a nation as for an individual constitutes the ascendency of reason over brute impulse. It is the besetting sin of all successful States, and its penalty is unalterable in the order of nature. [J.A. Hobson, "Imperialism: A Study," London, 1902].

J.A. Hobson view is that adoption of imperialism as a policy a nation is choosing to abandon the development of higher values like reason, morality, and compassion, which should guide a society’s actions. Instead, it focuses on force and domination. This approach is seen as a flaw of all powerful nations, and the consequences of pursuing imperialism are harsh, according to the natural order of things. It’s driven by selfish desires for power, control, and material wealth, which are rooted in the survival instincts of early human history, when people fought for basic survival. He was not wrong, take a moment to step back from your lives and judge for yourself. Having done it, we have no choice but to step right back into it because at this very moment there are no other alternatives.

4. Colony - company or body of people who migrate from their native country to cultivate and inhabit a new place while remaining subject to the mother country.

5. Colonialism - the system of colonial rule by an imperialist.

6. Neo-colonialism – A new form of passive colonialism and is defined as the exertion of influence or control over other nations, especially former dependencies, without direct military or political control. Neo-colonialism operates through numerous indirect controls of a former colony which was under direct military and political control. 

Any form of direct or indirect control by nations lead to several theories because one nation is stronger and the other weaker (dependent). To understand this structure I introduce World System Theory (WST) whereby semi-periphery and periphery nations are dependent on core nations even to validate their own cultural practices (quite evidently seen in India). It almost appears nowadays that the people of Bharat following a rich culture seek to validate their system of knowledge which is already has foundation on practical knowledge in many instances (I am not speaking here about superstitions) are critiqued therefore they seek validation by the West (Core nations - US, UK, Australia, Canada, (richer countries in Europe) Germany, France, to name a few). In the modern context, Core Nations (read below), export ideas into semi-periphery and periphery nations impacting societal (cultural) structural changes to imitate and align with the West - meaning, societies in East is irrelevant/obsolete and the West is superior/relevant.

World System Theory (WST):

Prior to evaluating colonialism further, it is important to note here the framework developed by Immanuel Wallerstein (Sociologist) in 1974. World-Systems Theory (WST) offers a comprehensive framework for understanding structure of world’s societies in the historical and modern context. It captures the global interplay of power, economy, politics, arts, religion and culture. By understanding this theory, themes such as colonialism, economic dependency, cultural hegemony, historical struggles to name a few become very clear. The system is relevant in the modern world as an indirect system of control by core nations by exporting, in our context, critical theories, using a group of elitist as platform to continue indirect control of society, education, culture, religion, science, arts, politics, to name a few (to be discussed in future blogs).

At its core, WST divides the world into three interdependent zones: the core, semi-periphery, and periphery, explaining how economic, political, military, technology, arts, educational, trade, religion, cultural (to name a few) dominances are structured and perpetuated.

Core, Periphery, and Semi-Periphery

1. Core Nations: These are economically dominant, industrialised nations with advanced technology, capital accumulation, and strong state institutions. Core nations control global production chains and reap disproportionate benefits from trade and labour.

Example: Europe during the colonial era represented the core, leveraging industrialisation and colonial markets to consolidate its dominance.

In the modern context as a result of globalisation, the Core Nations have shifted from direct influence to indirect influence in retaining dominance within cultural, trade, technology, educational (brain drain), political structures, media, to name a few. The home culture, in context, seeks validation by the West to accept its own knowledge built over the years - a classical example of colonisation of the mind due to critiquing theories to show their dominance over an age old tradition and culture. Whilst there are, as I have said before, innate issues to be resolved is another matter similar to in Europe or the USA where societies are not without problems.

2. Semi-Periphery Nations: These occupy an intermediary position, exhibiting characteristics of both core and periphery. Semi-periphery nations often act as buffers, mitigating tensions between the core and periphery. They may aspire to core status but remain reliant on core nations for manufacturing, technology and investment with a large gap between the rich and poor with a concept of dependancy theory. where resources (of all forms) flow from semi-periphery nations to core to keep the core nations wealthy, in power and dominance. It is linked to modernisation theory of promoting liberal democratic societies by dismantling traditional institutions and structures.

Example: Post-independence India transitioned into a semi-peripheral role, with economic liberalisation in the 1990s allowing for significant industrial and technological growth. However, reliance on Western markets and multinational corporations underscores its continued semi-peripheral status.

As India aspired to become a semi-periphery nation, it was made to believe it had to let go of traditional systems, culture, art, poetry, economics, political views of its own and being subjugated by Europeans politically India adopted European structures of parliamentary system, constitution, and other institutions including retaining colonial symbols to retain their power of dominance over the Bharatiya.

Whereas modern India is being shifted towards material pursuits, the adhyaatmik (loosely translated as spiritual/the self - there is no direct translation for the sanskrit word aadyatmik in English) and moral obligations are left behind. Society is evolving and progressing materialistically, however, not in a balanced approach noting responsibilities to the environment, to fellow humans, the natural forces of the Earth, being grateful for where we are, to name a few.

3. Periphery Nations: These nations primarily provide raw materials, cheap labour, and markets for core nations. They are economically dependent and politically weaker, making them vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation.

Example: Colonial India was relegated to the periphery, supplying raw materials like cotton and indigo while importing finished goods from Britain. This economic dependency ensured limited industrial growth and suppressed local innovation.

India was a periphery because of weak government & institutions, large population, less industrialisation, targeted by East India company to exploit resources, to name a few.

Should India aim for Core Nation status?

It is important to note here, in my view, that as long as the Bharatiya spirit (Spirit of Dharma) is present, Indians become aware of European social studies, actively recognise how it erodes away the great pluralistic and integrated culture of Bharat, the aim of Indians should be use the positives that arise from these critiquing with a view to develop/re-shape society the Bharatiya way rather than adopting the European way. Whilst the best solution is to generate ideas internally from Bharat and export to the world as we have seen the India way of life is integrated, pluralistic and beneficial for all such as the world view for peaceful living – as the saying goes, Vasudaiva kutumbakam – The entire world is one family, however, if we are to import that the ideas are filtered and shaped for the Indian context and society recognising that law, politics, music, arts, poetry, economics, military, philosophy, culture, education, etc are not a consequence of colonisation. There were and are innate to India.

More to follow as we continue the path to unpack western theories with an intent to grasp a view of Modern Indian society (Where we are now and where do we want to go?), if you remember my first blog on identity - it is important to understand the context, what is happening to us prior to recognition and a drive to act using indegenous ideas to move society forward for the welfare of all....

This leads us towards colonialism and Neo-Colonialism to be explored further in the next blog....thanks for reading.

The views presented above (and all my blogs) are as a result of my understanding and knowledge of these theories, I am happy to receive your constructive feedback and amend as required.

The Post-Colonial Hangover – Introducing (Western) Critical Theories – Setting the Context

Early Western political, social, and philosophical theories, particularly those developed during the Renaissance and Enlightenment, emerged as a reaction against Christianity and the religious orthodoxy of the time. These periods saw a profound questioning of religious dogma and the so-called universal truths promoted by Christian theology. Thinkers began to challenge the dominance of religious doctrine, seeking to replace it with rational inquiry and scientific exploration.

A scientific approach often begins with a theory, and as Western intellectuals sought to refute and critique religious (Christian) dogma, they began to develop theoretical frameworks to understand society, politics, arts, and culture. These theories, deeply rooted in the Western historical and cultural context, were tailored to address specific challenges and crises within Europe. However, due to colonialism and post-colonial hangovers, these frameworks have found their way into India for both political gains and to undermine Hindu religion which is fundamentally distinct to Christianity.

As an example, to maintain the context, amongst other differences and whilst Christianity and all abrahamic faiths are belief systems (blind acceptance is required to become part of the faith), Hinduism begins and encourages 'doubt'. Mimamsa shastra commences with doubt (samshayam). It took 700 shlokas, as the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, even for The Blessed Lord Sri Krishna to convince Arjuna to pursue the path of Dharma. There are several samvāda (conversations/discussions with doubts raised) in the shastra such a Vidura-Dhridhrāshtra samvāda, Viśvamitra & The Chandala samvāda, Sulabha & Janaka samvāda, even the upanishads promote doubts and discussions such as Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya samvāda in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to name a few.

Hindu cultural system encourages doubt, we were revealed by Sage Gautama The Nyāya shastra (the science of debating) even before the West accepted the Earth was not flat. Hindus, traditionally, find an answer to a societal problem (through doubts, debates and discussions from within) that is suited for our culture and that is already how the Hindu culture has evolved. 

In India, certain actors—often influenced by a fascination with Western ideologies—have adopted and applied these theories, often for personal or political gains. This has resulted in an attempt to impose Western theoretical models onto a cultural system that is different. The values and assumptions embedded in these theories, rooted in Christianity and Western cultural systems, do not align with the pluralistic and integrative framework of Hinduism or the socio-cultural dynamics of Indian society.

Unfortunately, many of these theorists or their followers, rather than developing frameworks tailored to the Indic ethos, have chosen to import and superimpose Western ideas, often without critical analysis of their applicability. It is, therefore, my duty to unpack and critically examine these theories, providing insights (in my view) that may benefit individuals seeking to understand and engage with Indian society from a more authentic perspective. Whilst there may be a few works that attempt similar analyses, they are relatively scarce, and the need for more such efforts is urgent.

The application of Western theories to Indian systems often fail to account for the complexities of India’s diverse and evolving landscape, encompassing politics, religion, culture, arts, and more. This article seeks to introduce several significant Western theories, briefly explore their historical contexts, and analyse how they have been applied in India, often to serve political agendas. It also examines how consumerism, mass media, and education play influential roles in shaping ‘Grand Narratives’, further entrenching these theories in Indian discourse.

Based on my research so far, it is becoming evident that the West found it necessary to break away from religious dogma, as it was often not grounded in scientific inquiry and, in many cases, contradicted reality. The shift was crucial for their progress and development. However, whilst no society is without flaws, certain importers of Western thought in India, influenced by Western critiques, have, in my view, uncritically imported these frameworks into the Indian context without considering cultural misalignment. This lack of independent thought is unfortunate and regrettable. India has always had great thinkers and reformers, such as Sri Ramanujar and Adi Shankarar, who have demonstrated how transformative change can be achieved from within the culture itself, fostering progress and growth without losing cultural essence.

My work has finally commenced, after a long break, as I intend to analyse the following theories that appear to impact not just the political landscape in modern India also society as a whole, culture, arts, education/intellect and practices:

1. Communism, Marxism and Cultural Marxism

2. Orientalism

3. Modernism

4. Post-Modernism

5. Formalism, Structuralism and post-Structuralism

6. Nihilism and Skepticism

7. Critical Race Theories not limited to Feminism (Western) and Wokeism

8. Use of consumerism and mass-media to progress their 'Grand Narratives'

9. Western Geopolitical dominance as a result and the educational system

The Pav-Bhaji Analogy: Now imagine you’re making Pav Bhaji, and after completing the dish, you feel it doesn’t quite meet your expectations. An expert in European cuisine, unfamiliar with Pav Bhaji, tastes it for the first time. Based on its appearance and texture, they compare it to Arrabbiata (Spicy tomato) sauce & its Italian spices, then critique it with Arrabbiata in mind, rather than evaluating it as Pav-Bhaji. If the Indian chefs begin to believe the Pav-Bhaji should taste like spicy Italian tomato sauce then we have a problem.

Think of each of the aforementioned theories as European/Western food or their ingredients being used to critique Indian cuisine.  This is precisely what happens when Western theories (ingredients), developed in entirely different contexts, are applied to critique (Eastern) Indian systems without accounting for their distinct and unique foundations. 

Why a Westerner, unfamiliar with Indian cuisine, is critiquing Pav-Bhaji is altogether another related very pertinent matter. Having said that, it is understandable when Europeans/Westerners, unfamiliar with Pav Bhaji, critique it expecting it to resemble Arrabbiata due to their lack of knowledge. However, what can be said about Indians who join in this critique, judging their own dish by the standards of something it was never meant to be?

May the gods provide me with intellect, insight, time and resources to pursue and complete this project defending the Universal Principles, ethics and culture also known as Sanātana Dharma (or what we generally now call 'Hinduism' but for our understanding can also be taken to include Jainism and Buddhism noting they are both indigenous to Bharat/Indian school of thought).

More to follow.....