Social Inclusion as a Historical Process: Assimilation and Accommodation in Societies

When we talk about social inclusion today, we often think of modern government policies and welfare programs. But this is only part of the story. Long before contemporary inclusion initiatives, societies across the world developed their own mechanisms to absorb, assimilate, and accommodate new groups. Understanding this historical dimension helps us see that inclusion is not a 20th-century invention-it is a process deeply embedded in human civilization.

Social inclusion beyond modern policy frameworks 🔗

Contemporary discussions on social inclusion tend to focus on policy instruments: affirmative action, welfare schemes, anti-discrimination laws. While these are essential, they represent only one chapter in a much longer narrative. Historical societies, without formal policy frameworks, created their own pathways for integrating outsiders and managing social diversity.

This historical perspective reveals two distinct dimensions of inclusion. The first, which we can call horizontal inclusion, refers to the absorption of external groups into a society-often foreign communities, migrants, or conquering peoples who eventually became part of the social fabric. The second, vertical inclusion, addresses hierarchical inequalities within society itself-the complex challenge of addressing disparities between dominant and subordinate groups based on class, caste, or economic status.

Both dimensions require different approaches and present unique challenges. Historical examples from Indian civilization offer particularly rich insights into how these processes unfolded over centuries.

Horizontal inclusion: the Indian experience with foreign groups 🔗

Indian history provides a remarkable example of horizontal inclusion through its absorption of foreign groups over millennia. Central Asian groups like the Sakas and Hunas, who arrived as conquerors and outsiders, were gradually integrated into Indian society through a process that took generations.

In Sanskrit texts, outsiders were initially designated as Mlechchhas-a term referring to those whose speech was incomprehensible and who stood outside Vedic cultural norms. The term was used much like the Greek word “barbaros”, originally indicating unfamiliar speech patterns before extending to unfamiliar customs and behaviors.

The Saka integration 🔗

The Sakas, a Central Asian nomadic people, entered the Indian subcontinent around the early centuries of the Common Era. Initially viewed as complete outsiders, they gradually adopted local customs, Hindu religious practices, and even Sanskrit for their inscriptions. The Sakas became assimilated into Hindu society, adopting Hindu names and featuring Hindu deities on their coins.

Rudradaman I, one of the most renowned Saka rulers of the second century CE, exemplified this integration. His famous Junagadh Rock Inscription-the first major inscription composed in Sanskrit-commemorated his repair of an ancient lake and demonstrated the Sakas’ complete cultural adaptation to Indian traditions.

The Huna assimilation 🔗

The Hunas (Huns) arrived in India during the fifth century CE as fierce invaders who disrupted existing power structures. According to historian R.S. Sharma, a large number of foreigners were assimilated into Indian society, with each group of foreigners considered a kind of caste. Since foreigners largely came as conquerors, they were typically given the status of Kshatriya (warrior class).

After the central power of the Hunas collapsed between 563-567 CE, those who remained in India were finally absorbed into Indian society. The Hunas eventually came to be recognized as one of the thirty-six clans of the Rajputs-some Rajput families still bear the title “Hun” today.

Mechanisms of horizontal inclusion 🔗

This process of absorbing outsiders operated through several mechanisms: matrimonial alliances with local ruling families, adoption of Hindu-Brahmanical customs and rituals, patronage of Sanskrit learning and literature, and strategic assignment of status within the varna (social order) framework. Many Huns and Sakas converted to Hinduism and contributed to the preservation and propagation of Indian culture.

The transformation typically took one to two generations for ruling families. What made this horizontal inclusion distinctive was its flexibility-Indian society accommodated new groups without requiring the complete erasure of their identity, instead fitting them into existing social categories while allowing them to retain certain distinctive features.

Vertical inclusion: the challenge of internal hierarchy 🔗

While horizontal inclusion dealt with absorbing external groups, vertical inclusion addresses a more complex challenge: the hierarchical inequalities embedded within society itself. This involves confronting the economic and social structures that create and perpetuate disparity between classes.

Understanding vertical inequality requires examining the economic foundations of social hierarchy-the systems through which dominant groups extract surplus from subordinate populations. Indian historians have made significant contributions to analyzing these exploitative relationships.

Irfan Habib and the Mughal agrarian system 🔗

Irfan Habib’s landmark work on the Mughal agrarian system provides a comprehensive analysis of land revenue, administration, and social structure during the Mughal period. His research revealed the exploitative mechanisms underlying agrarian relations.

According to Habib, the Mughal state served not merely as the protective arm of the exploiting classes but was itself the principal instrument of exploitation. The land revenue demanded by the state, initially one-third of the total produce under Akbar, rose to half under Aurangzeb. The jagirdari system, with its frequent transfers of revenue assignments, created perverse incentives-jagirdars tried to extract maximum revenue without concern for long-term agricultural development or peasant welfare.

This analysis reveals how vertical inequality was not simply a matter of social attitudes but was structurally embedded in the political economy. The excessive burden on the peasantry led to rural migration, rebellion, and ultimately contributed to the agrarian crisis that weakened the empire’s foundations.

Bipan Chandra and colonial exploitation 🔗

Historian Bipan Chandra extended this analysis to the colonial period, developing the concept of a distinct “colonial mode of production.” He argued that colonialism dissolved pre-capitalist modes of production without replacing them with a genuine capitalist system. Many feudal elements persisted, but the overall structure was new-subordinating the Indian economy entirely to British interests.

The colonial structure in India had four basic features: complete but subordinate integration with the world capitalist system; a peculiar international division of labor forcing India to export raw materials while importing manufactured goods; an extremely low rate of savings and capital formation; and the crucial role of the colonial state in facilitating surplus extraction through the infamous “drain of wealth.”

Colonialism shattered traditional Indian agriculture without introducing dynamic new forces. Commercialization of agriculture served primarily to extract surplus from peasants rather than fostering capitalist development. By the 1940s, landlords controlled over 70 percent of the land, and together with moneylenders and the colonial state, appropriated more than half of total agricultural production.

Why understanding economic bases matters 🔗

The work of historians like Habib and Chandra demonstrates that vertical inclusion cannot be achieved simply through declarations of equality or social reform movements-though these are essential. It requires understanding and transforming the economic structures that generate and reproduce inequality.

The deep-rooted economic bases of inequality-whether in Mughal land revenue systems or colonial extraction mechanisms-created conditions where subordinate groups remained trapped regardless of formal legal status. Peasants might be nominally free, but the combination of high revenue demands, debt bondage, and lack of capital kept them in perpetual dependence.

Lessons for contemporary inclusion 🔗

What can this historical analysis teach us about social inclusion today? Several insights emerge from examining how societies have historically dealt with both horizontal and vertical dimensions of inclusion.

First, horizontal inclusion-absorbing new groups-often occurred organically over generations through cultural adaptation, strategic marriages, and gradual acceptance. Modern societies dealing with immigration and refugee integration might learn from the flexibility of historical models, which allowed newcomers to adapt while retaining aspects of their identity.

Second, vertical inclusion-addressing internal hierarchies-requires confronting economic structures, not just social attitudes. Policy interventions must address the material bases of inequality: land ownership patterns, access to capital, control over surplus production, and the role of state institutions in either perpetuating or challenging these arrangements.

Third, the two dimensions interact. Historically, foreign groups absorbed into Indian society often entered existing hierarchies at particular levels-conquerors as Kshatriyas, others at different positions. Modern inclusion efforts must be attentive to how newcomers are positioned within existing inequality structures.

Moving forward with historical awareness 🔗

Social inclusion is not a modern invention but a continuous historical process. Every society has developed mechanisms-formal and informal-for dealing with difference and inequality. Some of these mechanisms have been inclusive, others exclusive; some addressed horizontal differences while ignoring vertical inequalities, or vice versa.

The insights of historians who have analyzed these processes-from the absorption of Central Asian peoples into Indian society to the economic structures underlying colonial and pre-colonial exploitation-provide essential foundations for contemporary inclusion efforts. They remind us that genuine inclusion requires attention to both the accommodation of difference and the transformation of the economic structures that generate inequality.

What do you think? Can modern societies learn from historical processes of cultural assimilation, or are the challenges of inclusion in diverse democracies fundamentally different? How can understanding the economic bases of inequality help shape more effective inclusion policies?

References

1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/mlechchha
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mlechchha
3. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/saka-era/
4. https://tarunias.com/exams/upsc-notes/the-sakas-governance-culture-and-legacy-in-post-mauryan-india/
5. https://justicemirror.com/rajputization-process-mlechchhas-to-kshatriyas-huns-sakas/
6. https://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/gupta-empire/the-invasions-of-hunas-gupta-empire/6518
7. https://timesca.com/from-steppe-to-subcontinent-the-indianisation-of-the-huns-and-sakas-from-kazakhstan/
8. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-agrarian-system-of-mughal-india-1556-1707-third-edition-9780198077428
9. https://www.academia.edu/63089555/Agrarian_Crisis_and_Unrest_Peasant_Revolts_of_Jats_Satnamis_Sikhs_and_Marathas
10. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/82900/3/Theme-7.pdf
11. https://quizgecko.com/uploads/the-writings-of-bipan-chandra-the-making-of-modern-india-with-an-introduction-by-aditya-mukherjee-new-delhi-india-2012-orient-blackswan-O95FPZ
12. https://erenow.org/exams/indiasinceindependence/4.php
13. https://erenow.org/exams/indiasinceindependence/31.php