The Bicycle and Progressive Behaviour

The history of the bicycle offers a fascinating lens through which to understand technological innovation, social change, class, distinctions, mobility, and even human dignity. What began as an invention associated largely with the elite has evolved, through successive stages of technological refinement, into one of the most accessible, environmentally sustainable, and culturally significant means of transportation in the modern world. Yet the social meaning of the bicycle has not evolved uniformly. In some societies, cycling represents health, environmental consciousness, and progressive urban culture; in others, particularly in parts of South Asia, it is frequently associated with poverty and economic deprivation. This contrast raises a broader question: how does the same technology acquire entirely different social meanings in different societies?

This question was particularly brought to the fore at the recently held AAS-Asia, Lahore 2026, conference at LUMS, where nearly eighty panels presented research on diverse aspects of Asian societies, histories, and cultures. One particularly engaging panel, titled “Two Wheels, Many Asias: Bicycles, Power, and Everyday Modernities across Asia,” was chaired by Professor Harald Fischer-Tine. The panel offered an illuminating historical account of the bicycle, its technological evolution, its changing social significance, and its relationship with broader transformations in Asian societies.

Professor Fischer-Tine’s discussion traced the bicycle from its rather cumbersome early designs to the sophisticated and practical form familiar today. The earliest bicycles bore little resemblance to the modern bicycle: some featured an enormous front wheel, a comparatively small rear wheel, and an uncomfortable and precarious seating arrangement. Such designs now appear almost exclusively in historical exhibitions or circus performances. Yet these apparently primitive machines represented an important stage in the history of human mobility. Their subsequent transformation demonstrates how technological development is rarely instantaneous; rather, it is the product of continuous experimentation, adaptation, and social acceptance.

Interestingly, cycling was initially associated predominantly with the elite and affluent classes. It was an expensive novelty and, therefore, inaccessible to large sections of society. Over time, however, the bicycle ceased to be merely a luxury and became an important instrument of communication, mobility, and even military organisations. It was used by military personnel for transportation and manoeuvres and, in various contexts, became an effective means of carrying messages and facilitating postal communication. In this sense, the bicycle was not simply a recreational object; it was an instrument of modernity that expanded the capacity of individuals and institutions to move more efficiently across space.

The history of cycling also reflects changing gender relations. In its early European history, cycling was widely perceived as a predominantly masculine activity. Women’s participation in cycling developed later and was accompanied by broader debates concerning women’s mobility, social freedom, and appropriate public behaviour. The eventual acceptance of women as cyclists illustrates how technological practices can challenge established social conventions. What was initially regarded as a male domain gradually became an ordinary activity for both men and women.

The discussion also highlighted the evolution of the motorcycle, which, like the bicycle, acquired multiple functions beyond ordinary transportation. As Owen Jollie, mentioned motorcycles were employed in military contexts and were particularly useful in difficult and mountainous terrain. Their development demonstrates another important feature of technology: an invention may begin with one social purpose but subsequently acquire entirely different applications according to the needs of society.

The bicycle has also acquired an important place in contemporary debates concerning health and environmental sustainability. Cycling provides physical exercise while reducing dependence on fossil fuels, traffic congestion, and vehicular emissions. In countries such as the Netherlands, cycling is no longer regarded merely as a means of transportation or an exercise regimen; it has become an integral part of everyday culture and urban life. People of different ages and social classes routinely use bicycles for commuting, shopping, education, and recreation. The bicycle, therefore, is not necessarily a symbol of economic deprivation; it can equally represent an advanced and environmentally responsible urban lifestyle.

The contrast with South Asia is striking. In Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, cycling is often socially associated with the economically disadvantaged. For many people, a bicycle is not a lifestyle choice but an economic necessity. This distinction is significant because it reveals that the social status attached to a technology is not inherent in the technology itself. It is produced by economic structures, cultural perceptions, and patterns of social inequality. A bicycle used voluntarily by an affluent individual for fitness or environmental reasons may be celebrated as a progressive lifestyle choice, while the same bicycle used by a low-income worker for survival may be perceived as evidence of poverty. The machine is the same; the social meaning attached to it is radically different.

This contradiction deserves serious reflection. If cycling is celebrated in Europe as a healthy, sustainable, and environmentally conscious mode of transportation, there is little reason why it should be regarded as a symbol of poverty in Subcontinent. Indeed, the growing interest of relatively affluent Pakistanis in cycling for health and environmental reasons is a positive development. It demonstrates that social attitudes towards transportation can change. What is required is not merely an increase in individual cycling but the development of an urban culture and infrastructure in which cycling is safe, respectable, convenient, and accessible to everyone.

Perhaps the most thought-provoking dimension of the panel, however, concerned the cycle-rickshaw and the human labour associated with it. Mr. Teuku Reza, from Jakarta, presented research concerning cycle-rickshaw pullers in parts of Jakarta and drew attention to the difficult circumstances of this community. The discussion moved beyond transportation to questions of occupational health, economic vulnerability, labour rights, and human dignity. The rickshaw may be a simple means of transportation for the passenger, but for the person physically pulling it, it may represent intense physical labour performed under economically vulnerable conditions.

This aspect of the discussion also invites reflection in the Pakistani constitutional context. Pakistan has historically taken steps away from certain forms of human-powered rickshaw labour, although comparable practices continue in parts of South Asia and elsewhere. The constitutional question is not simply whether such labour provides employment. The deeper question is whether a society committed to constitutional rights should tolerate forms of economic activity in which a person’s physical strength becomes the principal engine of transportation for another human being – a question of indignity.

Articles 9, 11 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan provide an important framework for considering this question. Article 9 protects life and liberty; Article 11 addresses slavery, forced labour and related forms of exploitation; and Article 14 declares the dignity of man to be inviolable. The precise application of these provisions to particular forms of rickshaw labour would, of course, depend upon the factual and legal circumstances. Nevertheless, the constitutional values embodied in these provisions require us to consider whether economic necessity is being allowed to compromise human dignity, occupational safety, and the fundamental conditions of a decent working life.

The distinction between cycling and cycle-rickshaw pulling is therefore more than a distinction between two forms of transportation. It represents two radically different relationships between human beings and technology. In one model, technology assists the individual: the cyclist uses the machine to enhance personal mobility. In the other, the human body itself becomes the machine that powers transportation for another person. The issue is not the dignity of the worker as a person—no honest occupation diminishes human worth—but the conditions under which the labour is performed and whether society provides workers with meaningful alternatives.

The comparison between the Netherlands and parts of South and Southeast Asia consequently raises an important question about the meaning of progress. Progress cannot be measured merely by the number of vehicles on the road or by the speed with which people travel. It must also be measured by the extent to which technology reduces human drudgery, protects health, preserves the environment, and enhances human dignity. A society that replaces the human body with technology where such replacement is reasonably possible may be demonstrating technological progress. Conversely, a society that continues to depend upon extreme physical labour because workers have no viable economic alternatives must confront the social inequalities underlying that dependence.

The story of the bicycle therefore goes far beyond two wheels. It is a story of technological innovation, class, gender, communication, military organisations, public health, environmental responsibility, labour, and human dignity. The bicycle began as an elite invention, became an instrument of communication and mobility, and eventually evolved into a symbol of sustainable modernity in many parts of the world. Yet in other societies, the bicycle and the cycle-rickshaw remain closely associated with poverty and physical labour.

The real challenge, therefore, is not merely to encourage people to ride bicycles. It is to create a society in which the bicycle is a choice rather than a compulsion, cycling is a culture rather than a class marker, and technology liberates human beings from unnecessary physical hardship rather than exploiting their physical vulnerability. That, ultimately, is the more meaningful measure of progressive behaviour.