Why Nations, Institutions and Systems Prefer to Collapse than Reform

The inevitable collapse of established empires, nations, institutions, corporations and other systems is a very consistent phenomenon seen throughout human history and in every part of the world. While there are many explanations for this phenomenon, most rely on explanations based in morality, historical cycles or something metaphysical. There is however a more rational, if somewhat pessimistic and cynical, explanation for why all large human systems will tend to fail. It comes down to the real reason why established systems would rather collapse than attempt any serious reform or change to save itself. To understand what I am talking about, let us talk about the example which first made me consider this possibility- many years ago.

It is well known history that the East India company colonized most of India between the 1760-1820s, which raises the interesting question of how a numerically far inferior and technologically equivalent entity could conquer a series of much larger kingdoms in a far away land. It is important to reiterate that present-day India was colonized before the industrial revolution started in UK or any other European country. Also, Indians were quite familiar with all newer weapon technologies originating from the West and many Indian kings had very substantial amounts of money to hire European mercenaries and experts in artillery etc- and many did so.

My point is that most major Indian kingdoms, even without the industrial revolution, had the human and financial resources to easily match type and quantity of weapons which the East India company could ever deploy against them- and yet they failed. But why? Here is an important clue- the vast majority of men employed in the military arm of East India company were Indian. Which brings us to an important if somewhat tasteless question- why was it so easy for the East India company to recruit so much local talent? This seemingly perplexing behavior becomes much easier to understand once you start reading about how the majority of kingdoms in India paid, equipped and took care of their soldiers. To put it bluntly, they did not.

Almost no kingdom in India, Muslim or Hindu, ever maintained a standing army of soldiers who were paid and equipped by the prevailing systems of governance. Instead, the average soldier had to provide their own weapons, provisions, uniforms (if they existed), underwent almost no proper training and could not expect a steady income or pension. There was also no standard of military leadership or cohesion among the ranks. It should be noted that the Mughal and Maratha Empire, at their peak, were able to do a reasonably decent job in these categories- but that state of affairs did not last. It is therefore somewhat of a minor miracle that Indian kingdoms could deploy an army of any size or effectiveness against the British or any other external aggressor.

In contrast, the East India company did pay its soldiers a proper and dependable salary and pension. They also provided quality standardized weapons, uniforms, food and other provisions etc to their employees. Yes.. I used the word ‘employee’, because that word best describes the relationship between Indian sepoys and the Company (and later the British empire. They also provided them with competent military leadership who owed their current position to merit than accident of birth alone. Hence, it is not surprising that the East India company, after building its reputation at a reputable employer, had no problem attracting local talent- including soldiers previously in the hire of local Indian kings. And this brings us the inevitable next question- why didn’t Indian kings attempt to copy something that worked so well?

Well.. a few of them, Tipu Sultan, Ranjit Singh and a couple of Maratha Peshwas did try.. in a pretty half-hearted way. This is also why they were the last ones left standing before the East Indian company took over India. But we are still left with the question about why no Indian kingdom could copy something which was so obvious, out in the open- especially when they had massive human and financial resources to do so. What stopped them? Well.. it comes down to the prevailing socio-economic system and institutional structure (if you can call it that) in India at that time. To put it bluntly, society in India at that time was deeply divided (along the lines of ‘Jati’), sclerotic and contemptuous of any knowledge or ideas from outside that region.

This profound intellectual sclerosis was especially severe among the ruling classes in India. One of the best indicators for this is the extent to which Indian kings in later years were dependent on European mercenaries and advisers in specific conflicts, but almost never attempted to integrate their military knowledge and expertise into the larger army and society. For example- Indian armies never tried to equip all their foot soldiers with standardized guns when they clearly had the resources and technology to do so. Nor did they ever try to setup military academies or officer training programs. Similarly Indian kings preferred large unwieldly artillery pieces when experience had shown the clear superiority of lighter and more numerous field artillery.

Rather than pay their professional soldiers, they spent most of their considerable tax revenues on expensive personal luxuries for themselves and their cronies. And it gets worse.. no Indian king of that era tried to set up technologies such as the printing press and shipbuilding in India, even though both were easily within the grasp and skill of contemporary craftsmen in that country. At this point you might start seeing a pattern- almost nobody with money or power in India wanted to reform the obviously rotten and failing system because doing so might have unpredictable effects on their current status in that system. They would rather ride the system into oblivion than attempt any serious reformation. Curiously, this pattern of behavior is universal.

Let us move on to China, or more precisely the century of humiliation, imposed upon it from around 1850-1950. Why did China of that era, also, never seriously try to copy the West- let alone beat it at its game? As it turns out- the reasons for their failure are almost identical to those seen in India at that time. While the history and underlying circumstances were somewhat different, we see the same patterns of behavior and general unwillingness to reform. And this was also the case in Japan, before 1853, and Korea.. well.. pretty much every established Asian country which fell victim to western colonialism. In each and every case, failure was driven by the unwillingness of social elite of those societies to undertake serious reform- for the same reason, namely that it might undermine their cushy status and livelihoods in the old status quo.

It is therefore not surprising to see that a similar pattern of elite behavior (failure) also caused the downfall of western colonial empires, WW1 and WW2. While many will see the collapse of British, French and other European colonial empires in post-WW2 era as divine justice, I cannot resist pointing out the irony of them becoming irrelevant from the very forces which let to their rise. Western colonialism became much less profitable after the second industrial revolution (1870s-1910s) and other powers not dependent on large empires (USA, Germany, Japan, Russia etc) simply overtook them. This, of course, let to the conditions which caused WW1, all those other wars between WW1 and WW2, culminating in WW2. Note that all those wars and countless human deaths could not rescue western colonialism.

The same is true for everything from large multinational corporations which seem indestructible to current empires and systems (American Empire and EU) which appear invulnerable. They all fail- from the top down.

What do you think? Comments?