Chapter five

CHAPTER 5

INDIAN SOCIOLOGISTS

As you saw in the opening chapter of play in India. In this chapter, you are
your first book, Introducing Sociology, going to be introduced to some of the
the discipline is a relatively young one founding figures of Indian sociology.
even in the European context, having These scholars have helped to shape
been established only about a century the discipline and adapt it to our
ago. In India, interest in sociological historical and social context.
ways of thinking is a little more than a The specificity of the Indian context
century old, but formal university raised many questions. First of all, if
teaching of sociology only began in western sociology emerged as an
1919 at the University of Bombay. In attempt to make sense of modernity,
the 1920s, two other universities — what would its role be in a country like
those at Calcutta and Lucknow — also India? India, too, was of course
began programmes of teaching and experiencing the changes brought
research in sociology and anthropology. about by modernity but with an
Today, every major university has a important difference — it was a colony.
department of sociology, social The first experience of modernity in
anthropology or anthropology, and India was closely intertwined with the
often more than one of these disciplines experience of colonial subjugation.
is represented. Secondly, if social anthropology in the
Now-a-days sociology tends to be west arose out of the curiosity felt by
taken for granted in India, like most European society about primitive
established things. But this was not cultures, what role could it have in
always so. In the early days, it was India, which was an ancient and
not clear at all what an Indian sociology advanced civilisation, but which also
would look like, and indeed, whether had ‘primitive’ societies within it?
India really needed something like Finally, what useful role could sociology
sociology. In the first quarter of the have in a sovereign, independent India,
20th century, those who became a nation about to begin its adventure
interested in the discipline had to with planned development and
decide for themselves what role it could democracy?

84 UNDERSTANDING SOCIETY

The pioneers of Indian sociology academician. He was invited to lecture
not only had to find their own answers at the University of Madras, and was
to questions like these, they also had appointed as Reader at the University
to for mulate new questions for of Calcutta, where he helped set up the
themselves. It was only through the first post-graduate anthropology
experience of ‘doing’ sociology in an department in India. He remained at
Indian context that the questions took the University of Calcutta from 1917
shape — they were not available to 1932. Though he had no formal
‘readymade’. As is often the case, in qualifications in anthropology, he was
the beginning Indians became elected President of the Ethnology
sociologists and anthropologists section of the Indian Science Congress.
mostly by accident. For example, one He was awarded an honorary doctorate
of the earliest and best known by a German university during his
pioneers of social anthropology in lecture tour of European universities.
India, L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer He was also conferred the titles of Rao
(1861-1937), began his career as a Bahadur and Dewan Bahadur by
clerk, moved on to become a school Cochin state.
teacher and later a college teacher in The lawyer Sarat Chandra Roy
Cochin state in present day Kerala. In (1871-1942) was another ‘accidental
1902, he was asked by the Dewan of anthropologist’ and pioneer of the
Cochin to assist with an ethnographic discipline in India. Before taking his
survey of the state. The British law degree in Calcutta’s Ripon College,
government wanted similar surveys Roy had done graduate and post-
done in all the princely states as well graduate degrees in English. Soon after
as the presidency areas directly under he had begun practising law, he
its control. Ananthakrishna Iyer did decided to go to Ranchi in 1898 to take
this work on a purely voluntary basis, up a job as an English teacher at a
working as a college teacher in the Christian missionary school. This
Maharajah’s College at Ernakulam decision was to change his life, for he
during the week, and functioning as remained in Ranchi for the next forty-
the unpaid Superintendent of four years and became the leading
Ethnography in the weekends. His authority on the culture and society of
work was much appreciated by British the tribal peoples of the Chhotanagpur
anthropologists and administrators of region (present day Jharkhand). Roy’s
the time, and later he was also invited interest in anthropological matters
to help with a similar ethnographic began when he gave up his school job
survey in Mysore state. and began practising law at the Ranchi
Ananthakrishna Iyer was probably courts, eventually being appointed as
the first self-taught anthropologist to official interpreter in the court.
receive national and international Roy became deeply interested in
recognition as a scholar and an tribal society as a byproduct of his

INDIAN SOCIOLOGISTS 85

professional need to interpret tribal been born in the second decade of the
customs and laws to the court. He 20th century. Although they were all
travelled extensively among tribal deeply influenced by western traditions
communities and did intensive of sociology, they were also able to offer
fieldwork among them. All of this was some initial answers to the question
done on an ‘amateur’ basis, but Roy’s that the pioneers could only begin to
diligence and keen eye for detail ask : what shape should a specifically
resulted in valuable monographs and Indian sociology take?
research articles. During his entire G.S. Ghurye can be considered the
career, Roy published more than one founder of institutionalised sociology
hundred articles in leading Indian and in India. He headed India’s very first
British academic journals in addition post-graduate teaching department of
to his famous monographs on the Sociology at Bombay University for
Oraon, the Mundas and the Kharias. thirty-five years. He guided a large
Roy soon became very well known number of research scholars, many of
amongst anthropologists in India and whom went on to occupy prominent
Britain and was recognised as an positions in the discipline. He also
authority on Chhotanagpur. He founded the Indian Sociological
founded the journal Man in India in Society as well as its jour nal
1922, the earliest journal of its kind in Sociological Bulletin. His academic
India that is still published. writings were not only prolific, but very
Both Ananthakrishna Iyer and wide-ranging in the subjects they
Sarat Chandra Roy were true pioneers. covered. At a time when financial and
In the early 1900s, they began institutional support for university
practising a discipline that did not yet research was very limited, Ghurye
exist in India, and which had no managed to nurture sociology as an
institutions to promote it. Both Iyer increasingly Indian discipline. Ghurye’s
and Roy were born, lived and died in Bombay University department was the
an India that was ruled by the British. first to successfully implement two of
The four Indian sociologists you are the features which were later
going to be introduced in this chapter enthusiastically endorsed by his
were born one generation later than successors in the discipline. These
Iyer and Roy. They came of age in the were the active combining of teaching
colonial era, but their careers and research within the same
continued into the era of independence, institution, and the merger of social
and they helped to shape the first anthropology and sociology into a
formal institutions that established composite discipline.
Indian sociology. G.S. Ghurye and D.P. Best known, perhaps, for his
Mukerji were born in the 1890s while writings on caste and race, Ghurye also
A.R. Desai and M.N. Srinivas were wrote on a broad range of other themes
about fifteen years younger, having including tribes; kinship, family and


Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1893-1983)
G. S. Ghurye was born on 12 December 1893 in Malvan,
a town in the Konkan coastal region of western India. His
family owned a trading business which had once been
prosperous, but was in decline.
1913: Joined Elphinstone College in Bombay with
Sanskrit Honours for the B.A. degree which he
completed in 1916. Received the M.A. degree in
Sanskrit and English from the same college in 1918.
1919: Selected for a scholarship by the University of
Bombay for training abroad in sociology. Initially went to the London
School of Economics to study with L.T. Hobhouse, a prominent sociologist
of the time. Later went to Cambridge to study with W.H.R. Rivers, and
was deeply influenced by his diffusionist perspective.
1923: Ph.D. submitted under A.C. Haddon after River’s sudden death in 1922.
Returned to Bombay in May. Caste and Race in India, the manuscript
based on the doctoral dissertation, was accepted for publication in a major
book series at Cambridge.
1924: After brief stay in Calcutta, was appointed Reader and Head of the
Department of Sociology at Bombay University in June. He remained as
Head of the Department at Bombay University for the next 35 years.
1936: Ph.D. Programme was launched at the Bombay Department; the first Ph.D.
in Sociology at an Indian university was awarded to G.R. Pradhan under
Ghurye’s supervision. The M.A. course was revised and made a full-fledged
8-course programme in 1945.
1951: Ghurye established the Indian Sociological Society and became its founding
President. The journal of the Indian Sociological Society, Sociological Bulletin
was launched in 1952.
1959: Ghurye retired from the University, but continued to be active in academic
life, particularly in terms of publication — 17 of his 30 books were written
after retirement.
G.S. Ghurye died in 1983, at the age of 90.

marriage; culture, civilisation and the on Hindu religion and thought,
historic role of cities; religion; and the nationalism, and the cultural aspects
sociology of conflict and integration. of Hindu identity.
Among the intellectual and contextual One of the major themes that
concerns which influenced Ghurye, the Ghurye worked on was that of ‘tribal’
most prominent are perhaps or ‘aboriginal’ cultures. In fact, it was
diffusionism, Orientalist scholarship his writings on this subject, and


specially his debate with Verrier Elwin of tribal cultures to show that they had
which first made him known outside been involved in constant interactions
sociology and the academic world. In with Hinduism over a long period.
the 1930s and 1940s there was much They were thus simply further behind
debate on the place of tribal societies in the same process of assimilation
within India and how the state should that all Indian communities had gone
respond to them. Many British through. This particular argument —
administrator-anthropologists were namely, that Indian tribals were
specially interested in the tribes of hardly ever isolated primitive
India and believed them to be primitive communities of the type that was
peoples with a distinctive culture far written about in the classical
from mainstream Hinduism. They also anthropological texts — was not really
believed that the innocent and simple disputed. The differences were in how
tribals would suffer exploitation and the impact of mainstream culture was
cultural degradation through contact evaluated. The ‘protectionists’ believed
with Hindu culture and society. For that assimilation would result in the
this reason, they felt that the state severe exploitation and cultural
had a duty to protect the tribes and extinction of the tribals. Ghurye and
to help them sustain their way of life the nationalists, on the other hand,
and culture, which were facing argued that these ill-effects were not
constant pressure to assimilate with specific to tribal cultures, but were
mainstream Hindu culture. However, common to all the backward and
nationalist Indians were equally downtrodden sections of Indian
passionate about their belief in the society. These were the inevitable
unity of India and the need for difficulties on the road to development.
moder nising Indian society and
culture. They believed that attempts Activity 1
to preserve tribal culture wer e
misguided and resulted in maintaining Today we still seem to be involved in
tribals in a backward state as similar debates. Discuss the different
sides to the question from a
‘museums’ of primitive culture. As
contemporary perspective. For
with many features of Hinduism itself example, many tribal movements
which they felt to be backward and in assert their distinctive cultural and
need of reform, they felt that tribes, political identity — in fact, the states
too, needed to develop. Ghurye of Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh
became the best-known exponent of were for med in response to
the nationalist view and insisted on such movements. There is also a
characterising the tribes of India as major contr oversy around the
‘backward Hindus’ rather than disproportionate burden that tribal
communities have been forced to
distinct cultural groups. He cited
bear for the sake of developmental
detailed evidence from a wide variety


projects like big dams, mines and
different caste groups seemed to
factories. How many such conflicts belong to distinct racial types. In
do you know about? Find out what general, the higher castes
the issues are in these conflicts. approximated Indo-Aryan racial traits,
What do you and your classmates while the lower castes seemed to
feel should be done about these belong to non-Aryan aboriginal,
problems? Mongoloid or other racial groups. On
the basis of differences between
groups in ter ms of average
Ghurye on Caste and Race measurements for length of nose, size
G.S. Ghurye’s academic reputation of cranium etc., Risley and others
was built on the basis of his doctoral suggested that the lower castes were
dissertation at Cambridge, which was the original aboriginal inhabitants of
later published as Caste and Race in India. They had been subjugated by
India (1932). Ghurye’s work attracted an Aryan people who had come from
attention because it addressed the elsewhere and settled in India.
major concerns of Indian anthropology Ghurye did not disagree with the
at the time. In this book, Ghurye basic argument put forward by Risley but
provides a detailed critique of the then believed it to be only partially correct.
dominant theories about the He pointed out the problem with using
relationship between race and caste. averages alone without considering the
Herbert Risley, a British colonial variation in the distribution of a
official who was deeply interested in particular measurement for a given
anthropological matters, was the main community. Ghurye believed that
proponent of the dominant view. This Risley’s thesis of the upper castes being
view held that human beings can be Aryan and the lower castes being
divided into distinct and separate non-Aryan was broadly true only for
races on the basis of their physical northern India. In other parts of India,
characteristics such as the the inter -group differences in the
circumference of the skull, the length anthropometric measurements were
of the nose, or the volume (size) of the not very large or systematic. This
cranium or the part of the skull where suggested that, in most of India except
the brain is located. the Indo-Gangetic plain, different
Risley and others believed that racial groups had been mixing with
India was a unique ‘laboratory’ for each other for a very long time. Thus,
studying the evolution of racial types ‘racial purity’ had been preserved due
because caste strictly prohibits inter- to the prohibition on inter-marriage
marriage among different groups, and only in ‘Hindustan proper’ (north
had done so for centuries. Risley’s India). In the rest of the country, the
main argument was that caste must practice of endogamy (marrying only
have originated in race because within a particular caste group) may


have been introduced into groups that (iii) The institution of caste necessarily
were already racially varied. involves restrictions on social
Today, the racial theory of caste is interaction, specially the sharing
no longer believed, but in the first half of food. There are elaborate rules
of the 20th century it was still prescribing what kind of food may
considered to be true. There are be shared between which groups.
conflicting opinions among historians These rules are governed by ideas
about the Aryans and their arrival in of purity and pollution. The same
the subcontinent. However, at the also applies to social interaction,
time that Ghurye was writing these most dramatically in the
were among the concerns of the institution of untouchability,
discipline, which is why his writings where even the touch of people of
attracted attention. particular castes is thought to be
Ghurye is also known for offering polluting.
a comprehensive definition of caste. (iv) Following from the principles of
His definition emphasises six features. hierarchy and restricted social
(i) Caste is an institution based on interaction, caste also involves
segmental division. This means differential rights and duties for
that caste society is divided into a different castes. These rights and
number of closed, mutually exclusive duties pertain not only to religious
segments or compartments. Each practices but extend to the secular
caste is one such compartment. world. As ethnographic accounts
It is closed because caste is of everyday life in caste society
decided by birth — the children have shown, interactions between
born to parents of a particular people of different castes are
caste will always belong to that governed by these rules.
caste. On the other hand, there is (v) Caste restricts the choice of
no way other than birth of occupation, which, like caste itself,
acquiring caste membership. In is decided by birth and is
short, a person’s caste is decided hereditary. At the level of society,
by birth at birth; it can neither be caste functions as a rigid form of
avoided nor changed. the division of labour with specific
(ii) Caste society is based on occupations being allocated to
hierarchical division. Each caste is specific castes.
strictly unequal to every other (vi) Caste involves strict restrictions
caste, that is, every caste is either on marriage. Caste ‘endogamy’,
higher or lower than every other or marriage only within the caste,
one. In theory (though not in is often accompanied by rules
practice), no two castes are ever about ‘exogamy’, or whom one
equal. may not marry. This combination


of rules about eligible and non- and Lucknow. Both began as
eligible groups helps reproduce combined departments of sociology
the caste system. and economics. While the Bombay
Ghurye’s definition helped to department in this period was led by
make the study of caste mor e G.S. Ghurye, the Lucknow department
systematic. His conceptual definition had three major figures, the famous
was based on what the classical texts ‘trinity’ of Radhakamal Mukerjee (the
prescribed. In actual practice, many founder), D.P. Mukerji, and D.N.
of these featur es of caste wer e Majumdar. Although all three were
changing, though all of them continue well known and widely respected, D.P.
to exist in some form. Ethnographic Mukerji was perhaps the most
fieldwork over the next several popular. In fact, D.P. Mukerji — or D.P.
decades helped to provide valuable as he was generally known — was
accounts of what was happening to among the most influential scholars
caste in independent India. of his generation not only in sociology
Between the 1920s and the 1950s, but in intellectual and public life
sociology in India was equated with beyond the academy. His influence
the two major departments at Bombay and popularity came not so much from

Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji (1894-1961)
D.P. Mukerji was born on 5 October 1894 in a middle
class Bengali brahmin family with a long tradition of
involvement in higher education. Undergraduate degree
in science and postgraduate degrees in History and
Economics from Calcutta University.
1924: Appointed Lecturer in the Department of
Economics and Sociology at Lucknow University
1938: 41 Served as Director of Information under the
first Congress-led government of the United
Provinces of British India (present day Uttar
Pradesh).
1947: Served as a Member of the U.P. Labour Enquiry Committee.
1949: Appointed Professor (by special order of the Vice Chancellor) at Lucknow
University.
1953: Appointed Professor of Economics at Aligarh Muslim University
1955: Presidential Address to the newly formed Indian Sociological Society
1956: Underwent major surgery for throat cancer in Switzerland Died on 5
December 1961.


his scholarly writings as from his in socialised persons.” (Mukherji
teaching, his speaking at academic 1955:2)
events, and his work in the media, Given the centrality of society in
including newspaper articles and India, it became the first duty of an
radio programmes. D.P. came to Indian sociologist to study and to
sociology via history and economics, know the social traditions of India. For
and retained an active interest in a D.P. this study of tradition was not
wide variety of subjects ranging across oriented only towards the past, but
literature, music, film, western and also included sensitivity to change.
Indian philosophy, Marxism, political Thus, tradition was a living tradition,
economy, and development planning. maintaining its links with the past, but
He was strongly influenced by also adapting to the present and thus
Marxism, though he had more faith evolving over time. As he wrote, “...it
in it as a method of social analysis is not enough for the Indian sociologist
than as a political programme for to be a sociologist. He must be an
action. D.P. wrote many books in Indian first, that is, he is to share in
English and Bengali. His Introduction the folk-ways, mores, customs and
to Indian Music is a pioneering work, traditions, for the purpose of
considered a classic in its genre. understanding his social system and
what lies beneath it and beyond it.”
D.P. Mukerji on Tradition and Change In keeping with this view, he believed
It was through his dissatisfaction that sociologists should learn and be
with Indian history and economics familiar with both ‘high’ and ‘low’
that D.P. turned to sociology. He felt languages and cultures — not only
very str ongly that the crucial Sanskrit, Persian or Arabic, but also
distinctive feature of India was its local dialects.
social system, and that, therefore, it D.P. argued that Indian culture
was important for each social science and society are not individualistic in
to be rooted in this context. The the western sense. The average Indian
decisive aspect of the Indian context individual’s pattern of desires is more
was the social aspect: history, politics or less rigidly fixed by his socio-
and economics in India were less cultural group pattern and he hardly
developed in comparison with the deviates from it. Thus, the Indian
west; however, the social dimensions social system is basically oriented
were ‘over-developed’. As D.P. wrote , towards group, sect, or caste-action,
“… my conviction grew that India had not ‘voluntaristic’ individual action.
had society, and very little else. In Although ‘voluntarism’ was beginning
fact, she had too much of it. Her to influence the urban middle classes,
history, her economics, and even her its appearance ought to be itself an
philosophy, I realised, had always interesting subject of study for the
centred in social groups, and at best, Indian sociologist. D.P. pointed out


that the root meaning of the word challenged by the collective experience
tradition is to transmit. Its Sanskrit of groups and sects, as for example in
equivalents are either parampara, that the bhakti movement. D.P. emphasised
is, succession; or aitihya, which comes that this was true not only of Hindu
from the same root as itihas or history. but also of Muslim culture in India. In
Traditions are thus strongly rooted in Indian Islam, the Sufis have stressed
a past that is kept alive through the love and experience rather than holy
repeated recalling and retelling of texts, and have been important in
stories and myths. However, this link bringing about change. Thus, for D.P.,
with the past does not rule out change, the Indian context is not one where
but indicates a process of adaptation discursive reason (buddhi-vichar) is the
to it. Internal and external sources of dominant force for change; anubhava
change are always present in every and prem (experience and love) have
society. The most commonly cited been historically superior as agents of
internal source of change in western change.
societies is the economy, but this Conflict and rebellion in the Indian
source has not been as effective in context have tended to work through
India. Class conflict, D.P. believed, had collective experiences. But the
been “smoothed and covered by caste resilience of tradition ensures that the
traditions” in the Indian context, pressure of conflict produces change
where new class relations had not yet in the tradition without breaking it.
emerged very sharply. Based on this So we have repeated cycles of
understanding, he concluded that one dominant orthodoxy being challenged
of the first tasks for a dynamic Indian by popular revolts which succeed in
sociology would be to provide an transfor ming orthodoxy, but are
account of the internal, non-economic eventually reabsorbed into this
causes of change. transformed tradition. This process
D.P. believed that there were three of change — of rebellion contained
principles of change recognised in within the limits of an overarching
Indian traditions, namely; shruti, smriti tradition — is typical of a caste society,
and anubhava. Of these, the last — where the formation of classes and
anubhava or personal experience — is class consciousness has been
the revolutionary principle. However, in inhibited. D.P.’s views on tradition and
the Indian context personal experience change led him to criticise all
soon flowered into collective experience. instances of unthinking borrowing
This meant that the most important from western intellectual traditions,
principle of change in Indian society including in such contexts as
was generalised anubhava, or the development planning. Tradition was
collective experience of groups. The neither to be worshipped nor ignored,
high traditions were centred in smriti just as modernity was needed but not
and sruti, but they were periodically to be blindly adopted. D.P. was


simultaneously a proud but critical A.R. Desai is one of the rare Indian
inheritor of tradition, as well as an sociologists who was directly involved
admiring critic of the modernity that in politics as a formal member of
he acknowledged as having shaped his political parties. Desai was a life-long
own intellectual perspective. Marxist and became involved in Marxist
politics during his undergraduate days
Activity 2 at Baroda, though he later resigned his
membership of the Communist Party
Discuss what is meant by a ‘living of India. For most of his career he was
tradition’. According to D.P. Mukerji, associated with various kinds of non-
this is a tradition which maintains
mainstream Marxist political groups.
links with the past by retaining
something from it, and at the same Desai’s father was a middle level civil
time incorporates new things. A living servant in the Baroda state, but was
tradition thus includes some old also a well-known novelist, with
elements but also some new ones. sympathy for both socialism and
You can get a better and more Indian nationalism of the Gandhian
concrete sense of what this means if variety. Having lost his mother early
you try to find out from different in life, Desai was brought up by his
generations of people in your father and lived a migratory life
neighbourhood or family about what
because of the frequent transfers of
is changed and what is unchanged
about specific practices. Here is a list
his father to different posts in the
of subjects you can try; you could also Baroda state.
try other subjects of your own choice. After his undergraduate studies in
Games played by children of Baroda, Desai eventually joined the
your age group (boys/girls) Bombay department of sociology to
Ways in which a popular festival study under Ghurye. He wrote his
is celebrated doctoral dissertation on the social
Typical dress/clothing worn by aspects of Indian nationalism and was
women and men awarded the degree in 1946. His
… Plus other such subjects of
thesis was published in 1948 as The
your choice …
For each of these, you need to Social Background of Indian
find out: What aspects have Nationalism, which is probably his
remained unchanged since as far best known work. In this book, Desai
back as you know or can find out? offered a Marxist analysis of Indian
What aspects have changed? What nationalism, which gave prominence
was different and same about the to economic processes and divisions,
practice/event (i) 10 years ago; (ii) while taking account of the specific
20 years ago; (iii) 40 years ago; conditions of British colonialism.
(iv) 60 or more years ago
Although it had its critics, this book
Discuss your findings with the
proved to be very popular and went
whole class.
through numerous reprints. Among


Akshay Ramanlal Desai (1915-1994)
A. R. Desai was born in 1915. Early education in Baroda, then in Surat and Bombay.
1934-39: Member of Communist Party of India; involved with Trotskyite groups.
1946: Ph.D. submitted at Bombay under the supervision of G.S. Ghurye.
1948: Desai’s Ph.D. dissertation is published as the book: Social Background
of Indian Nationalism.
1951: Joins the faculty of the Department of Sociology at Bombay University
1953-1981: Member of Revolutionary Socialist Party.
1961: Rural Transition in India is published.
1967: Appointed Professor and Head of Department.
1975: State and Society in India: Essays in Dissent is published.
1976: Retired from Department of Sociology.
1979: Peasant Struggles in India is published.
1986: Agrarian Struggles in India after Independence is published.
Died on 12 November 1994.

the other themes that Desai worked interested A.R. Desai. As always, his
on were peasant movements and rural approach to this issue was from a
sociology, moder nisation, urban Marxist perspective. In an essay called
issues, political sociology, forms of the “The myth of the welfare state”, Desai
state and human rights. Because provides a detailed critique of this
Marxism was not very prominent or notion and points to it many
influential within Indian sociology, shortcomings. After considering the
A.R. Desai was perhaps better known prominent definitions available in the
outside the discipline than within it. sociological literature, Desai identifies
Although he received many honours the following unique features of the
and was elected President of the welfare state:
Indian Sociological Society, Desai
remained a somewhat unusual figure (i) A welfare state is a positive state.
in Indian sociology. This means that, unlike the ‘laissez
faire’ of classical liberal political
A.R. Desai on the State theory, the welfare state does not
seek to do only the minimum
The modern capitalist state was one necessary to maintain law and
of the significant themes that order. The welfare state is an


interventionist state and actively from the rich to the poor, and by
uses its considerable powers to preventing the concentration of
design and implement social policies wealth?
for the betterment of society. (iii) Does the welfare state transform
(ii) The welfare state is a democratic the economy in such a way that
state. Democracy was considered the capitalist profit motive is made
an essential condition for the subservient to the real needs of the
emergence of the welfare state. community?
Formal democratic institutions, iv) Does the welfare state ensure
specially multi-party elections, stable development free from the
were thought to be a defining cycle of economic booms and
feature of the welfare state. This depressions?
is why liberal thinkers excluded
(v) Does it provide employment for all?
socialist and communist states
from this definition. Using these criteria, Desai
(iii) A welfare state involves a mixed examines the performance of those
economy. A ‘mixed economy’ means states that are most often described as
an economy where both private welfare states, such as Britain, the USA
capitalist enterprises and state and much of Europe, and finds their
or publicly owned enterprises claims to be greatly exaggerated. Thus,
co-exist. A welfare state does not most modern capitalist states, even in
seek to eliminate the capitalist the most developed countries, fail to
market, nor does it prevent public provide minimum levels of economic
investment in industry and other and social security to all their citizens.
fields. By and large, the state They are unable to reduce economic
sector concentrates on basic goods inequality and often seem to encourage
and social infrastructure, while it. The so-called welfare states have also
private industry dominates the been unsuccessful at enabling stable
consumer goods sector. development free from market
fluctuations. The presence of excess
Desai then goes on to suggest some
economic capacity and high levels of
test criteria against which the
unemployment are yet another failure.
performance of the welfare state can
Based on these arguments, Desai
be measured. These are:
concludes that the notion of the welfare
(i) Does the welfare state ensure
state is something of a myth.
freedom from poverty, social
A.R. Desai also wrote on the
discrimination and security for all
Marxist theory of the state. In these
its citizens?
writings we can see that Desai does
(ii) Does the welfare state remove not take a one-sided view but openly
inequalities of income through criticises the shortcomings of
measures to redistribute income Communist states. He cites many


Marxist thinkers to emphasise the
lights, schools, sanitation, police
importance of democracy even under services, hospitals, bus, train and air
communism, arguing strongly that transport… Think of others that are
political liberties and the rule of law relevant in your context.)
must be upheld in all genuinely
socialist states. Probably the best known Indian
sociologist of the post-independence
Activity 3 era, M.N. Srinivas earned two doctoral
degrees, one from Bombay university
A.R. Desai criticises the welfare state
from a Marxist and socialist point of and one from Oxford. Srinivas was a
view — that is he would like the state student of Ghurye’s at Bombay.
to do more for its citizens than is Srinivas’ intellectual orientation was
being done by western capitalist transformed by the years he spent at
welfare states. There are also very the department of social anthropology
strong opposing viewpoints today in Oxford. British social anthropology
which say that the state should do was at that time the dominant force
less — it should leave most things to in western anthropology, and Srinivas
the free market. Discuss these
also shared in the excitement of being
viewpoints in class. Be sure to give
a fair hearing to both sides. at the ‘centre’ of the discipline.
Make a list of all the things that Srinivas’ doctoral dissertation was
are done by the state or government published as Religion and Society
in your neighbourhood, starting with among the Coorgs of South India. This
your school. Ask: people to find out book established Srinivas’ international
if this list has grown longer or shorter reputation with its detailed ethnographic
in recent years — is the state doing application of the structural — functional
more things now than before, or less? perspective dominant in British social
What do you feel would happen if the
anthropology. Srinivas was appointed
state were to stop doing these things?
to a newly created lectureship in Indian
Would you and your neighbourhood/
school be worse off, better off, or sociology at Oxford, but resigned in
remain unaf fected? Would rich, 1951 to return to India as the head of
middle class, and poor people have a newly created department of
the same opinion, or be affected in sociology at the Maharaja Sayajirao
the same way, if the state were to University at Baroda. In 1959, he
stop some of its activities? moved to Delhi to set up another
Make a list of state — provided department at the Delhi School of
services and facilities in your Economics, which soon became
neighbourhood, and see how opinions
known as one of the leading centres
might differ across class groups on
whether these should continue or be of sociology in India.
stopped. (For example: roads, water Srinivas often complained that
supply, electricity supply, street most of his energies were taken up in
institution building, leaving him with


Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas (1916-1999)
M.N. Srinivas was Born 16 November 1916. in an Iyengar
brahmin family in Mysore. It’s father was a landowner
and worked for the Mysore power and light department.
His early education was at Mysore University, and he
later went to Bombay to do an MA under G.S. Ghurye
1942: M.A. thesis on Marriage and Family Among the
Coorgs published as book.
1944: Ph.D. thesis (in 2 volumes) submitted to Bombay
University under the supervision of G.S. Ghurye.
1945: Leaves for Oxford; studies first under Radcliffe-
Brown and then under Evans-Pritchard.
1947: Awarded D.Phil. degree in Social Anthropology
from Oxford; returns to India.
1948: Appointed Lecturer in Indian Sociology at Oxford; spends 1948 doing
fieldwork in Rampura.
1951: Resigns from Oxford to take up Professorship at Maharaja Sayaji Rao
University in Baroda to found its sociology department.
1959: Takes up Professorship at the Delhi School of Economics to set up the
sociology department there.
1971: Leaves Delhi University to co-found the Institute of Social and Economic
Change at Bangalore.
Died 30 November 1999.

little time for his own research. Despite University of Chicago, which was then
these difficulties, Srinivas produced a a power ful centre in world
significant body of work on themes anthropology. Like G.S. Ghurye and
such as caste, modernisation and the Lucknow scholars, Srinivas
other processes of social change, succeeded in training a new
village society, and many other issues. generation of sociologists who were to
Srinivas helped to establish Indian become leaders of the discipline in the
sociology on the world map through following decades.
his inter national contacts and
associations. He had strong M.N. Srinivas on the Village
connections in British social The Indian village and village society
anthropology as well as American remained a life-long focus of interest
anthropology, particularly at the for Srinivas. Although he had made


short visits to villages to conduct wherever they go. For this reason,
surveys and interviews, it was not Dumont believed that it would be
until he did field work for a year at a misleading to give much importance
village near Mysore that he really to the village as a category. As against
acquired first hand knowledge of this view, Srinivas believed that the
village society. The experience of field village was a relevant social entity.
work proved to be decisive for his Historical evidence showed that
career and his intellectual path. villages had served as a unifying
Srinivas helped encourage and identity and that village unity was
coordinate a major collective effort at quite significant in rural social life.
producing detailed ethnographic Srinivas also criticised the British
accounts of village society during the administrator anthropologists who
1950s and 1960s. Along with other had put forward a picture of the Indian
scholars like S.C. Dube and D.N. village as unchanging, self-sufficient,
Majumdar, Srinivas was instrumental “little republics”. Using historical and
in making village studies the sociological evidence, Srinivas showed
dominant field in Indian sociology that the village had, in fact, experienced
during this time. considerable change. Moreover, villages
Srinivas’ writings on the village were never self-sufficient, and had been
were of two broad types. There was involved in various kinds of economic,
first of all ethnographic accounts of social and political relationships at the
fieldwork done in villages or regional level.
discussions of such accounts. A The village as a site of research
second kind of writing included offered many advantages to Indian
historical and conceptual discussions sociology. It provided an opportunity
about the Indian village as a unit of to illustrate the importance of
social analysis. In the latter kind of ethnographic research methods. It
writing, Srinivas was involved in a offered eye-witness accounts of the
debate about the usefulness of the rapid social change that was taking
village as a concept. Arguing against place in the Indian countryside as the
village studies, some social newly independent nation began a
anthropologists like Louis Dumont programme of planned development.
thought that social institutions like These vivid descriptions of village India
caste were more important than were greatly appreciated at the time
something like a village, which was as urban Indians as well as policy
after all only a collection of people makers were able to form impressions
living in a particular place. Villages of what was going on in the heartland
may live or die, and people may move of India. Village studies thus provided
from one village to another, but their a new role for a discipline like sociology
social institutions, like caste or in the context of an independent
religion, follow them and go with them nation. Rather than being restricted


to the study of ‘primitive’ peoples, it
could also be made relevant to a give for wanting to leave the city and
live in the village? If you don’t know
modernising society.
of any such people, why do you think
people don’t want to live in a village?
Activity 4 If you know of people living in a village
Suppose you had friends fr om who would like to live in a town or
another planet or civilisation who city, what reasons do they give for
were visiting the Earth for the first wanting to leave the village?
time and had never hear d of
something called a ‘village’. What are
the five clues you would give them Conclusion
to identify a village if they ever came
across one? These four Indian sociologists helped
Do this in small groups and then to give a distinctive character to the
compare the five clues given by discipline in the context of a newly
different groups. Which features independent modernising country.
appear most often? Do the most
They are offered here as examples of
common features help you to make
a sort of definition of a village? (To the diverse ways in which sociology
check whether your definition is a was ‘Indianised’. Thus, Ghurye began
good one, ask yourself the question: with the questions defined by western
Could there be a village where all or anthropologists, but brought to them
most features mentioned in your his intimate knowledge of classical
definition are absent?) texts and his sense of educated Indian
opinion. Coming from a very different
background, a thoroughly westernised
Activity 5
modern intellectual like D.P. Mukerji
In the 1950s, there was great interest rediscovered the importance of Indian
among urban Indians in the village tradition without being blind to its
studies that sociologists began doing
shortcomings. Like Mukerji, A.R.
at that time. Do you feel urban people
are interested in the village today? Desai was also strongly influenced by
How often are villages mentioned in Marxism and offered a critical view of
the T.V., in newspapers and films? If the Indian state at a time when such
you live in a city, does your family criticism was rare. Trained in the
still have contacts with relatives in the dominant centres of western social
village? Did it have such contacts in anthropology, M.N. Srinivas adapted
your parents’ generation or your his training to the Indian context and
grandparents’ generation? Do you
know of anybody from a city who has
helped design a new agenda for
moved to a village? Do you know of sociology in the late 20th century.
people who would like to go back? If It is a sign of the health and
you do, what reasons do these people str ength of a discipline when
succeeding generations learn from


and eventually go beyond their to constructive criticism in order to
predecessors. This has also been take the discipline further. The signs
happening in Indian sociology. of this pr ocess of lear ning and
Succeeding generations have critique are visible not only in this
subjected the work of these pioneers book but all over Indian sociology.

GLOSSARY

Administrator–anthropologists: The term refers to British administrative
officials who were part of the British Indian government in the 19th and
early 20th centuries, and who took great interest in conducting
anthropological research, specially surveys and censuses. Some of them
became well known anthropologists after retirement. Prominent names
include: Edgar Thurston, William Crooke, Herbert Risley and J.H. Hutton.
Anthropometry: The branch of anthropology that studied human racial
types by measuring the human body, particularly the volume of the cranium
(skull), the circumference of the head, and the length of the nose.
Assimilation: A process by which one culture (usually the larger or more
dominant one) gradually absorbs another; the assimilated culture merges
into the assimilating culture, so that it is no longer alive or visible at the
end of the process.
Endogamy: A social institution that defines the boundary of a social or
kin group within which marriage relations are permissible; marriage outside
this defined groups are prohibited. The most common example is caste
endogamy, where marriage may only take place with a member of the
same caste.
Exogamy: A social institution that defines the boundary of a social or kin
group with which or within which marriage relations are prohibited;
marriages must be contracted outside these prohibited groups. Common
examples include prohibition of marriage with blood relatives (sapind
exogamy), members of the same lineage (sagotra exogamy), or residents of
the same village or region (village/region exogamy).
Laissez-faire: A French phrase (literally ‘let be’ or ‘leave alone’) that stands
for a political and economic doctrine that advocates minimum state
intervention in the economy and economic relations; usually associated
with belief in the regulative powers and efficiency of the free market.


EXERCISES

1. How did Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy come to practice
social anthropology?
2. What were the main arguments on either side of the debate about how
to relate to tribal communities?
3. Outline the positions of Herbert Risley and G.S. Ghurye on the
relationship between race and caste in India.
4. Summarise the social anthropological definition of caste.
5. What does D.P. Mukerji mean by a ‘living tradition’? Why did he insist
that Indian sociologists be rooted in this tradition?
6. What are the specificities of Indian culture and society, and how do
they affect the pattern of change?
7. What is a welfare state? Why is A.R. Desai critical of the claims made
on its behalf?
8. What arguments were given for and against the village as a subject of
sociological research by M.N. Srinivas and Louis Dumont?
9. What is the significance of village studies in the history of Indian
sociology? What role did M.N. Srinivas play in promoting village studies?

REFERENCES

DESAI, A.R. 1975. State and Society in India: Essays in Dissent. Popular
Prakashan, Bombay.
DESHPANDE, SATISH. ‘Fashioning a Postcolonial Discipline: M.N. Srinivas
and Indian Sociology’ in Uberoi, Sundar and Deshpande (eds) (in press).
GHURYE, G.S. 1969. Caste and Race in India, Fifth Edition, Popular
Prakashan, Bombay.
PRAMANICK, S.K. 1994. Sociology of G.S. Ghurye, Rawat Publications, Jaipur,
and New Delhi.
MUKERJI, D.P. 1946. Views and Counterviews. The Universal Publishers,
Lucknow.
MUKERJI , D.P. 1955. ‘Indian Tradition and Social Change’, Presidential
Address to the All India Sociological Conference at Dehradun,


Reproduced in T.K. Oommen and Partha N. Mukherji (eds) 1986.
Indian Sociology: Reflections and Introspections, Popular Prakashan,
Bombay.
MADAN, T.N. 1994. Pathways: Approaches to the Study of Society in India.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
PATEL, SUJATA. ‘Towards a Praxiological Understanding of Indian Society:
The Sociology of A.R. Desai’, in Uberoi, Sundar and Deshpande (eds)
(in press).
S RINIVAS , M.N. 1955. India’s Villages. Development Department,
Government of West Bengal. West Bengal Government Press, Calcutta.
SRINIVAS, M.N. 1987. ‘The Indian Village: Myth and Reality’ in the Dominant
Caste and other Essays. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
UBEROI, PATRICIA, NANDINI SUNDAR AND SATISH DESHPANDE (eds) (in press).
Disciplinary Biographies: Essays in the History of Indian Sociology and
Social Anthropology. Permanent Black, New Delhi.
UPADHYA, CAROL. ‘The Idea of Indian Society: G.S. Ghurye and the Making
of Indian Sociology’, in Uberoi, Sundar and Deshpande (eds) (in press).

Chapter five

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Chapter five

More from Alok Kumar

Recently uploaded

Chapter five