westernization

The rest must follow the West’, some individuals love to argue.

For many in our part of the world, development entails the application of Western ideas and ideals. But a certain class of development practitioners think otherwise. For them, borrowed ideas cannot solve indigenous problems.

The argument is simple. Just as one size doesn’t fit all, one political or economic variable doesn’t fit into all equations. The overemphasis on Western ideals oversimplifies complex problems. Whether it is the application of liberal democracy or capitalism, Westernisation does not guarantee the same GDP rates or per capita income as found in these states. It also does not guarantee the same health and educational standards. Two principal factors underscore the failure of Western ideals in non-Western settings.

The first one is intrinsic.

Every state has its own set of cultural values, social ethos and ideological underpinnings that shape the broader contours of societal interactions and socio-political developments. In this way, every country is unique and different from others. What is good for one country may not be feasible for another. This is an area that Western pundits and protagonists of Western political and economic philosophy often fail to understand.

One of the reasons for the failure of these ideals in the South has to do with the social structure of these countries. Tribal instincts and class differences are quite pronounced in many non-Western countries. Consider Afghanistan for example – a country mired by ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions. To ask for Western-style electoral democracy in these conditions is self-delusionary. For functional democracy, Afghanistan first needs to find an end to its ethno-tribal fissures and cultivate a strong sense of nationalism among its citizens. Without doing so, democracy will remain dysfunctional as it does today – existing only in name and not in reality.

Yet, many in the North easily overlook these peculiarities. Their firm belief in the righteousness of Western ideals, coupled with a lack of knowledge about local settings, leads them to propose actions that instead of providing solutions often end up creating more complications.

The second factor is of an extrinsic nature and involves the vested interests of foreign countries.

There is a genuine desire among many developing countries to emulate the rate of growth and development achieved by the West. To achieve the same results, governments often hire foreign consultants or consultancy firms to chalk out policies and strategies for their people to attain the same lifestyles as their Western counterparts. However, despite paying hefty sums to these consultants, many states have failed to witness any marked improvement in the living conditions of their people. In fact, some of them became worse off.

This is essentially because these so-called experts make them chase a mirage. Their proposals for social and economic transformation are a farce. The PowerPoint presentations based on concocted projections and statistics are only meant to paint a rosy picture and stir wild and unrealistic aspirations. In the end, the consultants depart with a bag of exorbitant fees and leave behind a tale of misery and deceit. Their host governments lack the knowledge and expertise to call their bluff, and only long after they are gone do they come face to face with reality. By then, it is too late and the damage is done.

Investing in indigenous methods can help mitigate these challenges. Solutions that conform to the religious and cultural norms of a society will have wider social acceptance. Hence, they will also be more enduring than a system imported from abroad and forced upon people. Likewise, cultivating local experts is essential to shed dependence on foreign consultants who neither have adequate knowledge of local settings nor the genuine desire for improving livelihoods of the locals.

Nonetheless, this article is not meant to be a general charge-sheet against all things foreign or Western. In fact, there is still plenty to learn from the West’s development experience. There is also no denying the fact that many Westerners have made invaluable contributions to global peace and prosperity.

Yet, loathing one’s own cultural traditions and values in awe of the West isn’t an advisable approach. This does not lead a nation to the path of growth and prosperity. It only makes us ethnocentric victims of an inferiority complex.

So, instead of looking at the West for solutions to each and every one of our problems, we need to think of alternative methods that have roots in our own traditions and are backed by knowledge of local settings. Such solutions will be more effective in addressing development issues in our areas and improving the standard of living of our populace. Development should be an indigenous process, not an import from abroad.

Javaria Nisar is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. She can be reached at [email protected].

Design Credit: Mysha Dua Salman

Images: Online sources


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »