Breaking down the question
The pairing — Ethnicity and Development — asks for an analytical note on the relationship between ethnic identity and the processes of modern development. The examiner is not testing a definition of either term in isolation but the connection between them: how development affects ethnicity, and how ethnicity in turn shapes and sometimes obstructs development.
Ethnicity refers to a sense of collective identity based on shared descent, language, religion, culture or a common history, whether real or believed. Development refers to the modernising processes of economic growth, industrialisation, urbanisation and state-building. A strong note treats their relationship as two-directional and contested, rejecting the once-common assumption that development would simply dissolve ethnic ties.
How to approach it
Begin by defining both terms and stating the classical modernisation expectation — that development would erode primordial loyalties and produce a homogeneous, national identity. Then show why this expectation failed, drawing on the observation that development has often intensified rather than dissolved ethnic identity. Organise the body around the two directions of influence and around competing theoretical perspectives.
Use both Indian and comparative illustrations, and end with a balanced judgement on whether ethnicity is an obstacle to or a resource for development. The broader theoretical context of these modernising processes is set out in our notes on theories of social change.
Model answer
Ethnicity denotes a shared sense of collective identity rooted in common descent, language, religion, region, culture or historical memory, whether these bonds are objectively given or subjectively believed. Development denotes the interlinked processes of economic growth, industrialisation, urbanisation, spread of education and expansion of the modern state. The relationship between the two has proved far more complex than early theorists supposed, and understanding it is central to the sociology of social change in modern society.
Classical modernisation theory assumed that development and ethnicity stood in inverse relation. As societies modernised — as markets, cities, mass education and bureaucratic states advanced — the primordial ties of tribe, caste, region and religion were expected to weaken, giving way to universalistic, achievement-based and national identities. Ethnic attachments were seen as remnants of tradition, destined to fade before the solvent of progress. The historical record has largely contradicted this expectation. Far from dissolving ethnic identity, development has frequently sharpened and politicised it.
Several mechanisms explain why. Development is typically uneven: its benefits — jobs, education, capital, public investment — are distributed unequally across regions and communities. Groups that feel excluded from the fruits of growth, or that fear domination by more advantaged communities, come to experience relative deprivation and mobilise around their ethnic identity to press claims on the state. Modernisation also supplies the very instruments of mobilisation — print, education, mass communication, competitive electoral politics — which allow ethnic elites to articulate grievances and organise their communities. Fredrik Barth showed that ethnic boundaries are not fixed survivals but are actively constructed and maintained, often precisely through competition over resources. Paul Brass argued that ethnic identity is frequently instrumental, shaped and deployed by elites in the struggle for power and material advantage, while Clifford Geertz emphasised the enduring emotional force of primordial attachments that development stirs rather than settles.
Ethnicity in turn shapes development, and its effects cut both ways. On the negative side, politicised ethnicity can obstruct development: ethnic conflict, secessionist movements, communal violence and identity-based competition divert resources, deter investment and weaken the social cohesion on which growth depends. Where the state is captured by one community, others may be denied a fair share, deepening inequality and instability. On the positive side, ethnicity can be a resource. Ethnic networks provide trust, credit and reciprocity that sustain enterprise; a secure cultural identity can give communities the confidence to participate in modern life; and recognition of ethnic claims through federalism, reservations and pluralist accommodation can make development more inclusive and legitimate.
India offers a rich illustration. Development and democratic politics have not erased ethnic, linguistic, tribal and religious identities but have given them new political salience — in the reorganisation of states on linguistic lines, in the assertion of regional and tribal movements against displacement by development projects, and in demands for autonomy and recognition. Uneven development in tribal and peripheral regions has fuelled movements that combine ethnic identity with grievances over land, resources and dignity.
In conclusion, ethnicity and development are bound in a reciprocal and contested relationship. Development neither destroys ethnicity nor is simply destroyed by it; rather, the two continually reshape each other. Whether ethnicity becomes an obstacle or an asset depends on how far development is inclusive and how far the state accommodates diversity. A pluralist, equitable path of development that recognises ethnic identity while dispersing opportunity fairly is most likely to turn the tension between them into a source of strength.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner is looking for an argument, not two separate paragraphs on ethnicity and on development. High marks go to notes that confront the failure of the modernisation prediction, explain the mechanisms — uneven development, relative deprivation, elite mobilisation — by which development intensifies ethnicity, and treat the relationship as two-directional, with ethnicity acting as both obstacle and resource.
The recurring weakness is a one-sided treatment that presents ethnicity only as a barrier to progress. Candidates who cite Barth, Brass or Geertz, who ground the argument in Indian examples such as linguistic states and tribal movements, and who close with a balanced judgement about inclusive development and pluralist accommodation demonstrate the analytical control that earns full marks.