The oversimplified view is that while the West insists on individualism, the East—especially countries like India—places more emphasis on family, community, and society. There is some truth in that. But giving full credit to this distinction—or blaming any one group, faith, or doctrine for the difference—is far more complex than it seems.
Not knowing much about the West, and in spite of my superficial layman’s reading on this subject, I can’t claim to understand “Western Individualism” in its full depth. However, I do have some idea of how individualism operates in the West. Personally, I see Western Individualism as a separate construct. Though it may appear as if it’s rooted in the idea of personal salvation (which is often projected as central to Muktivedic theology), I believe it’s actually the result of many different historical and cultural contributions—Christianity, yes, but also the Renaissance, the Reformation, Enlightenment rationalism, and modern liberal thought. That’s why I think there’s a difference between Western Individualism as a constructed ideal and individualism in the West as a lived experience. (More on that in the Appendix.)
However, the credit that Bronkhorst wants to give—or rather the way he blames the Brahmins for not allowing something like “Western Individualism” to develop in India—bit surprises me.
At the same time, I respect the fact that Bronkhorst is a Western scholar with personal experience of the West and deep academic knowledge of Hinduism—especially Brahmanism, which is the focus of his book. And yet, I wonder whether he might be stretching the influence or intentions of the Brahmins a bit too far. As if the entire Indian society, particularly in the post-Vedic period, was entirely under Brahminical control and still remains under that influence. That’s a questionable assumption. Any study that is limited to texts alone—without looking at how people actually lived their lives day to day—will miss the full picture. Reality can’t be captured in a single narrative, no matter how scholarly it may be.
This is especially true when we consider how deeply kinship structures have shaped social life in South Asia and other parts of the East.
Kinship and Individuality in the Dravidian and Asian Contexts
Strong social bonds and deep-rooted commitments to kinship relationships are central to many South Asian and East Asian cultures. We are all familiar with the importance of family ties in India and China, and the same holds true in countries like Japan (wa, or harmony), Korea, Vietnam, and Thailand. In China, xiao—filial piety—remains a foundational social virtue. These traditions deeply shape the individual’s place within society.1
Among the Dravidian communities—particularly the Tamils—kinship plays a role so significant that it often overrides individual preference, especially in the case of marriage. Even today, relationships are often made or broken based on kinship expectations. Among many caste groups, including Brahmins (who are often seen as cultural outsiders), cross-cousin marriage is not just familiar—it is, in some communities, a social imperative.
For example, a maternal uncle traditionally has the first right to marry his sister’s daughter, provided the age gap is not too large. Failing to honour this expectation can cause serious social consequences. In some communities, marrying outside the family—even if within the same caste—can result in excommunication and loss of inheritance. Legal intervention may not help, as kinship networks often have informal mechanisms and loopholes to prevent those who break the norm from claiming any share.
In certain kinship-based communities, marriage alliances between a brother’s son and his sister’s daughter (or vice versa) are not only customary but also carry significant emotional and cultural weight. In some cases, if a brother refuses to give his daughter in marriage to his sister’s son, he may be required to pay a large sum in compensation. I once saw a television program where, after such a marriage arrangement was broken, the sister—despite having received substantial compensation—beat her brother in public. This act, though symbolic and even ritualized, was her traditional right, a culturally sanctioned way of venting the emotional pain and frustration of a broken kinship bond.
Such displays reveal how deeply embedded and emotionally charged these relational expectations are in certain traditions. Once, while I was travelling a long distance by taxi, the driver—who belonged to a community with strong kinship traditions—shared a personal story. He said he had warned his son, who was studying in college in Chennai, not to fall in love with any other girl, as his marriage to his aunt’s daughter had been arranged when they were both children. “If he breaks this,” the driver said firmly, “we will excommunicate him without hesitation. I have no choice but to stand with my kinship group and follow our tradition.”
This vivid example illustrates how kinship-based collectivism not only shapes personal identity but can also structurally limit individual choice. In such a context, individuality is not just discouraged—it is actively constrained.
On a related note, in another article I wrote titled “Relationship and Release: viz. Mukti” [ https://dayanandbharati.in/relationship-and-release-viz-mukti/], I concluded with this thought:
The path of mukti is never a solitary trek. Forgiveness, transformation, and liberation are all shaped within the web of human relationships. In the Muktiveda, God is not a private deity to be accessed for personal benefit but a relational God who calls us to live in harmony with others. The story of the woman caught in adultery—and the deliberate absence of the man who shared her sin—highlights how fragile justice becomes when relationships are severed or manipulated.
In the end, the Lord did not just forgive a sinner. He restored a relationship, exposed injustice, and taught a truth deeper than doctrine:
Without right relationship, there can be no true mukti.
So when scholars present any one theme—as Bronkhorst does—we have to understand it within the context of the larger book, not outside of it. The same applies to this reflection of mine.
Bronkhorst’s Argument in Summary
This excerpt from Johannes Bronkhorst highlights the contrasting development of personal responsibility in India and the West. In early Indian thought, the doctrine of karma and rebirth gave the individual responsibility for their own fate. But Brahmanism, while accepting these doctrines, gradually reduced the emphasis on the individual in order to preserve caste and social hierarchy. According to Bronkhorst, this undermined the possibility of developing a concept of personal rights or equality in India.
In contrast, Bronkhorst notes that Christianity in the West emphasized the responsibility of each person before God—regardless of their group identity or social status. Over time, this led to a concept of individual rights and, eventually, movements toward social equality. While this process took centuries in Europe, Bronkhorst argues that in India such a path was “nipped in the bud” by the rise and success of Brahmanism.2
While this might be a compelling framework for some, I find it important to ask: can we really reduce the fate of “individualism” in India to one tradition or group, especially when individual and communal elements have always coexisted in Indian religious thought?
Afterthought
When I wrote this article, I was reminded of a thought-provoking book by Dr. Erna M. Hoch titled Hypocrite or Heretic: To Pretend or to Protest, published by The Christian Literature Society, Madras (1983), for The Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore. Inspired by this book—especially given that Dr. Hoch lived and served in India—I wrote three related pieces which I posted on my blog.
One of Hoch’s central insights is that in societies like India, individuals often find themselves forced to choose between “pretending” to conform to community expectations or “protesting” to remain true to personal faith and conscience—a dilemma especially acute for religious minorities and sincere seekers.
Although I was tempted to incorporate more of her insights here, I’ve refrained due to space constraints and my position as a layperson. Instead, I’m sharing the links below for those who may wish to explore them further:
- Individualism East versus West: Review Article
https://dayanandbharati.in/individualism-east-versus-west-review-article/ - Prodigal Song: Hoch’s Parable
https://dayanandbharati.in/prodigal-song-hochs-parable/ - Hoch’s Parable
https://dayanandbharati.in/hochs-parable/
Ashram, July 15, 2025
Notes
1 These two terms ‘wa’ and ‘xiao’ were assessed by ChatGPt
2 Full text from Bronkhorst:
Personal responsibility plays an important role in the discussion above. The doctrine of rebirth and karmic retribution makes the individual responsible for his fate. Brahmanism, in spite of resistance, ended up accepting the doctrine, but made efforts to take the sting out of it by reducing the individualistic element to the extent possible. In this way Brahmanism did the exact opposite of what Christianity did in the West, judging by Larry Siedentop’s recent Inventing the Individual (2014). Christianity taught that the fate of each person at the final judgment depended only on that person, not on the group to which she belonged or on her hereditary status in society. Here, as in the case of rebirth and karmic retribution, personal responsibility was central. The Christian emphasis on the responsibility of the individual contrasted with the family and clan-centered emphasis of Greek and Roman antiquity, but in the long run the Christian perspective gained the upper hand. In India the opposite happened. Here the long-term winner was Brahmanism, which to a large extent succeeded in suppressing the individual element that characterized the belief in rebirth and karmic retribution. It is true that the development from equality before God to a society with at least a semblance of equality took a very long time in Europe. The conviction that one’s future births are determined by one’s own actions and nothing else was no immediate guarantee for (p. 255) an egalitarian society. But a development in that direction, if ever there was one, appears to have been nipped in the bud by the rise of Brahmanism.— Johannes Bronkhorst, How The Brahmins WON: From Alexader to the Guptas, New Delhi, Manohar Publishers, 2025, pp. 255–56
Appendix: A Clarification on “Western Individualism” vs “Individualism in the West”
After writing this article, I received help from ChatGPT in clarifying two terms I had used without fully understanding them [accessed on July 15, 2025]:
Western Individualism refers to the historical and philosophical ideal of the individual, shaped by Christian theology (personal salvation, equality before God), Renaissance humanism, Reformation ethics, Enlightenment rationalism, and liberal democracy. It is a long-evolving intellectual construction.
Individualism in the West refers to the way people in Western societies actually live today: focusing on personal choice, autonomy, and self-expression. This may include aspects of Western Individualism but also includes consumer culture, secularism, and sometimes hyper-individualism detached from its original roots. (Inside Higher Ed).
A few scholars have touched on this distinction:
- Louis Dumont, a French anthropologist, contrasted western individualism with holistic traditions in his work Homo Hierarchicus and Essais sur l’individualisme (Wikipedia).
- Joseph Henrich, in The WEIRDest People in the World, highlights how Western Christian social norms weakened kinship structures, fostering individualistic psychology—what he terms Western Individualism (Rob K. Henderson).
Leave a Reply