Susanne Rudolph (1930-2015): The world has lost one of the best interpreters of Indian politics

An outstanding scholar, she didn't lose faith in the pluralism and sagacity of the Indian people till the very end.

Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, who died on December 23 in Oakland, California, was one of the most extraordinary interpreters of politics and society in modern India. An incredible scholar with a long list of distinctions to her credit, including a Padma Bhushan in 2014, Susanne Rudolph forged a lifelong intellectual collaboration with her husband and co-author Lloyd I. Rudolph to produce a ground-breaking corpus of work on Indian politics over 60 years.

As one of their last doctoral students at the University of Chicago, I got to know the Rudolphs as outstanding scholars of the Indian political condition. While I was grappling with the ominous challenges to democracy in post-liberalisation India, exemplified by the paradox of democracy in Gujarat, it was Susanne Rudolph’s advice that helped me find my way.

Tradition and modernity

During Susanne Rudolph’s academic career at the University of Chicago, where she taught comparative politics for over three decades, she along with Lloyd Rudolph pioneered the field of Area Studies. The growth of Area Studies was partly fuelled by American foreign policy interests during the Cold War in understanding and influencing the newly independent non-western countries.

The 1960s were the heyday of “modernisation theory”, which saw the western path to modernity as the model that non-western countries would achieve or not achieve due to the presence or absence of a set of criteria. According to modernisation theorists, India, with its largely illiterate population and traditional caste-ridden society, was a doomed democracy, least likely to achieve the prize of modernity.

But Susanne and Lloyd Rudolph debunked the notion that tradition and modernity are mutually exclusive entities. In their celebrated book, The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India (1967), they launched an insightful critique of the assumptions of modernisation theory. They showed how Indians have reinvented the traditional system of caste as a modern political institution in response to the logics of electoral democracy, enabling (in a counter-intuitive way) marginalised groups to secure political representation.

When Area Studies fell out of vogue during the era of globalisation in the1990s, Susanne Rudolph lent her bold, if increasingly lonely, voice in support of the continued relevance and importance of what she called “situated knowledge”. In her presidential address to the American Political Science Association in 2005, she reminded her colleagues of the imperative of “recognising time, place and circumstance” in local settings for building grounded social science theory.

Preconceived theories

Susanne Rudolph was an exceptional mentor. Well after retiring from the University of Chicago, she continued to be a nurturing and crucial interlocutor, helping me with my doctoral query regarding the paradox of democracy in Gujarat: How have rapid urbanisation, an active civil society and economic growth in the state coincided with the systematic erosion of democracy on at least two counts?

First, increasing communal hostility has led to growing ghettoisation in cities such as Ahmedabad, which is justified by Hindus as necessary and part of “normal” civic life. Second, those who oppose aspects of the state’s governance and Hindutva politics are attacked as enemies of the state, narrowing the scope of public debate. Should the presence of non-democratic aspects evident on the ground in Gujarat then lead us to dismiss the presence of a civil society and democracy per se in the state?

Influenced by the great social scientist Max Weber, the Rudolphs developed an open-ended and empirically-grounded way of studying Indian democracy, without imposing preconceived theories developed in the West. In this approach, every study of a political phenomenon must begin with a flexible definition of what is being studied. After evidence is gathered about how things actually work on the ground, it is used to refine the original theory.

As per this Weberian approach, it was clear that the procedures of democracy such as routine elections appeared to be in place in Gujarat. Yet there was a palpable absence of the substance of democracy, such as meaningful opposition and dissenting views in public debates within Gujarati civil society. Given these facts, one would have to consider whether the procedures of liberal democracy and civil society were themselves complicit in the erosion of substantive democracy in the state.

Faith in pluralism

Some of the puzzling features of democracy in Gujarat resonated with the Rudolphs’ larger insight that there is no singular, linear path of modernisation. Contrary to the popular belief that the middle classes ensure a stable democracy, this class in Gujarat has vocally hailed unilateral and authoritarian decision-making as a model of “good governance”. The case of Gujarat appeared to undermine our faith in liberal democracy and pluralism in India, values deeply cherished by the Rudolphs.

I will always remember how Susanne remained doggedly committed to a profound sense of intellectual honesty and openness. Not one to fit all new political realities within older pet intellectual frameworks or ideological dogmas, she suggested that the ground realities in Gujarat resemble the contours of a “Potemkin Democracy”, where the procedural façade remains in place with nothing of substance to back it. Her mentorship helped me understand the Gujarat paradox not as a case study of the absence of democracy, but as an example of the profound vulnerability of democracy. The conditions under which the soul of democracy can be sabotaged through formal democratic procedures had to be studied.

The profound scholarly insights of Susanne Rudolph enabled her to interpret complex emergent political realities, some of which seemed to threaten the very foundations of Indian democracy. Even during our last meeting in March 2014 in Delhi, she remained optimistic, not losing faith in the enduring pluralism and sagacity of the “tradition-loving” Indian masses, especially their clever ability to chart unique democratic modernities on their own terms.

Mona G Mehta received her PhD in political science from the University of Chicago and is assistant professor of politics at the Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar.

We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.