The Rise of Indian Cultural Studies: Negotiating Tradition, Modernity, and Globalization

on

 Paper: 205

Paper Name: Cultural Studies

Introduction 

The academic discipline of Cultural Studies emerged in the United Kingdom in the mid‑20th century, intertwined with the works of scholars such as Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall, concerned with everyday culture, ideology, and the interplay of power, media and identity. In India, however, Cultural Studies (henceforth ICS – Indian Cultural Studies) is more than a transplant of Western theory: it is an arena in which the broad categories of “tradition”, “modernity”, and “globalisation” collide and converge. As editors Rana Nayar, Pushpinder Syal and Akshaya Kumar argue, ICS is built upon the twin foundations of cultural pluralism and interdisciplinarity. 

This essay argues that ICS is a distinct intellectual field in which tradition is neither simply repudiated nor naively preserved, modernity is contested rather than embraced uncritically, and globalisation mediates culture not just in terms of homogenisation but also of hybridity and resistance. In exploring this argument I trace (1) the historical emergence of ICS, (2) how ICS negotiates tradition versus modernity, (3) how globalisation influences and is influenced by this negotiation, and (4) the critical tensions and contradictions facing ICS.

Historical Background: Emergence of Indian Cultural Studies 

Indian Cultural Studies did not begin simply by importing Western frameworks: rather, it emerged within the context of India’s colonial and post‑colonial intellectual history and through a complex negotiation of disciplines, institutions and cultural formations. According to Niranjana’s essay “The Desire for Cultural Studies”, ICS is rooted in an institutional and disciplinary crisis in India: the question of culture became central to nationalism, to the universities, and to rethinking knowledge production in the country.


The volume Cultural Studies in India, edited by Nayar et al., identifies how ICS draws upon multiple disciplines—literature, linguistics, history, political science, media & theatre studies, and anthropology—and focuses on themes such as caste, vernacular languages, folklore and indigenous peoples. This interdisciplinary and pluralist foundation signals one of the distinctive features of ICS: rather than simply following a Western path, it reflects the social, linguistic, and cultural multiplicities of Indian society.

One way to frame the genealogy is: colonial modernity introduced Western disciplines and hierarchies of knowledge; post‑colonial India inherited that structure but faced the challenge of tradition, vernacular, and subaltern voices; ICS emerges as a field that asks, 'What is culture in India?' Who speaks about it? How is modernity experienced locally? And importantly, how should we theorise culture in India on its own terms?

Thus ICS is not merely a critical toolset applied to Indian texts but also a reflexive project: it interrogates its own epistemological location, institutional formation, and methodological assumptions.

Tradition versus Modernity: A Negotiated Terrain:


Globalisation: Hybridity, Homogenisation and Cultural Resilience

Globalisation is another axis through which ICS studies culture in India. Contrary to a simplistic view of globalisation as cultural homogenisation (the spread of Western culture), ICS emphasises hybridity, glocalisation and cultural agency.

In the Indian context, globalisation brings media flows, diasporic networks, consumer culture, and transnational identities. ICS explores how Indian culture negotiates these flows, e.g., Bollywood’s global reach, the Indian diaspora’s reimagining of ‘home’, and vernacular traditions becoming global cultural products. Within the volume edited by Nayar et al., attention is paid to popular culture, vernacular media, and new identity formations in the global age. 

Analytically, ICS shows that globalisation is not simply an external force but material for cultural negotiation: tradition may be repackaged for global consumption (the handloom sari becomes luxury global fashion), new media may subsume vernacular forms but also enable marginal voices, and diaspora may both displace and empower regional identities. ICS thereby insists on cultural resilience—i.e., local cultures adapt, resist, and hybridise rather than passively vanish. 

However, ICS also remains critical: globalisation may impose Western‑led consumer regimes, create new cultural inequalities (global elite vs local communities), commodify tradition, and lead to cultural anxiety. ICS works to highlight these contradictions: for example, while diaspora opens new possibilities, it also involves negotiating identity fractures; while folk traditions gain global access, they may be aestheticised and stripped of local meaning.

Therefore, in the negotiation of globalisation, ICS operates at the intersection of power, culture and identity—exploring how Indian actors and traditions are neither simply victims nor simple agents, but complex negotiators in cultural change.

Critical Issues and Contradictions in Indian Cultural Studies

While ICS has made significant interventions, it also faces critical issues and internal contradictions that require attention:

  • Epistemological dependency: 

One critique of ICS is its continuing reliance on Western theoretical frameworks (Gramsci, Hall, Williams). While ICS adapts them, the challenge is to generate indigenous theory rooted in Indian epistemologies rather than as mere application. Nayar et al. note the question of “where cultural studies is to be located” in India—within English departments, sociology, or media studies?

  • Romanticisation of tradition: 

ICS must guard against idealising “tradition” as authentic and unproblematic. Indian tradition is itself riddled with power hierarchies (caste, gender, region). Hence, tradition must be critically interrogated, not simply celebrated.

  • Modernity and neoliberal consumerism: 

ICS analyses modernity critically, but sometimes the field may underplay how modernity (especially consumer capitalism) reshapes culture in negative ways (alienation, cultural commodification, and identity fragmentation). The “cultural costs of a globalised economy” are still major concerns.

  • Globalisation as uneven: 

While ICS emphasises hybridity and agency, it must also remember that globalisation produces winners and losers—elite global Indians vs rural vernacular communities, global diasporas vs in‑country marginalised groups.

  • Disciplinary and institutional constraints:

As Niranjana emphasises, the institutionalisation of Cultural Studies in India is uneven, bound by university structures, funding, and academic politics.

These tensions show that ICS remains a dynamic field, constantly negotiating between theory and practice, between interdisciplinary ambition and institutional reality, between local specificity and global flows

 Negotiation of Tradition, Modernity, and Globalization in Indian Cultural Studies
Dimension Tradition Modernity Globalization ICS Response / Negotiation
Cultural Practices Folk rituals, classical aesthetics, oral narratives Urbanization, technology, mass media Diaspora, global media flows, transnational identity ICS studies how folk forms are adapted in modern media and analyses cultural hybridity in diaspora
Temporal Aspect Cyclical, ritual-based, long historical continuity Linear, progress-oriented, technological speed Instant connectivity, global time ICS highlights temporal lag, adaptation, and cultural resilience
Identity Formation Local, community-specific, caste and regional markers Individualistic, professional, urban Hybrid, transnational, diasporic ICS examines multiplicity of identities and subaltern voices in negotiation with dominant culture
Power Dynamics Traditional hierarchies (caste, gender) Meritocracy, economic hierarchies Market-driven, Western cultural dominance ICS critiques unequal power structures and analyses commodification of culture
Media & Representation Oral storytelling, folk theatre, classical texts Cinema, television, urban literature Internet, global streaming platforms
ICS explores how tradition and modernity interact; global flows reshape local meanings

Conclusion

In sum, Indian Cultural Studies has emerged as a vibrant, critically reflexive field in which culture, tradition, modernity and globalisation are not fixed oppositions but sites of negotiation. Tradition is neither dismissed nor frozen; modernity is not simply adopted but contested; globalisation is not just homogenising but offers hybridity and challenge. ICS invites us to ask: what is Indian culture in a global age? Who gets to speak it? How do local traditions survive, transform and resist within modern and global frameworks?

For the future, ICS must deepen its rootedness in Indian epistemologies, continue to listen to subaltern voices, remain sensitive to internal cultural power relations (caste, gender, region), and engage with the uneven realities of globalisation and modernity. In doing so, ICS will continue to be not just a study of culture but a critical practice of culture in India.

References:

  • Vasudevan, Ravi S. “Film Studies, New Cultural History and Experience of Modernity.” Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 30, no. 44, 1995, pp. 2809–2814. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4403399. Accessed 7 Nov. 2025.



Comments

Post a Comment