Past and present are like an analogue to the way pain resists language. In other words past is something that refuses to severe its connection with the present. Identity has reduced to be an ambiguous entity.".
With the help of the above words I would present an argument on the question that I am concerned with. The question arises why at all are these terms important in such a context. Without dishing out interesting details consider the following: -.
What is "absolutism" in terms of traditions?.
Why some people feel that living in the tradition is "safe"?.
What is the social product that emerges out of the interaction of the forces of social inertia and a sudden impulse of change? While thinking on this terms let us get accustomed to what we are dealing with.
Considering the fact that modernity is a phase of thought or the "spirit of enlightenment rationalism" how does one represent the outcome of the interaction of such a transient agent of history with the cultural monolith (read as tradition) of the country concerned -India. Using the term monolith is inappropriate here since the object of the talk tradition is not a monolithic social structure but it is something that consistently invades the public and the private life spheres of the mass. It operates in the same way that pain afflicts human body. One can feel the pain but never spell it out. This is perhaps because the barriers of the language cannot convey the feeling of pain. The grammar of such a language that can describe pain will contain nothing. In the same way the tradition acts as the constant source of the presence of the past that the present can never ignore. However people have taken into other routes. One is the simple act of starting from the scratch. Talk as if the past as if it was a like a movie leaving behind only powerful memories but nothing of the sort to immobilise you.
Such escapades can result in more disharmonies, agreeing on the basic premises that the terms tradition and modernity are two antagonistic terms.