Indian SociologistsClass 11 Understanding Society NCERT Solutions
9 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 9
Q1Exercises
How did Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy come to practice social anthropology?
Solution
Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy came to practice social anthropology by accident rather than through formal training, as the discipline was not yet established in India during their time.
-
L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer (1861-1937): He began his career as a clerk and later became a college teacher. In 1902, the Dewan of Cochin asked him to assist with an ethnographic survey of the state. He conducted this work on a voluntary basis, and his efforts were highly appreciated by British anthropologists and administrators. This accidental entry led him to become a self-taught anthropologist of national and international repute.
-
Sarat Chandra Roy (1871-1942): He was a lawyer who moved to Ranchi to work as a teacher. He later began practicing law at the Ranchi courts and was appointed as an official interpreter. His professional need to interpret tribal customs and laws to the court sparked a deep interest in tribal society. He conducted extensive fieldwork as an 'amateur', which eventually established him as a leading authority on the tribal peoples of Chhotanagpur.
Q2Exercises
What were the main arguments on either side of the debate about how to relate to tribal communities?
Solution
During the 1930s and 1940s, there was a significant debate on the place of tribal societies in India. The two main opposing arguments were:
-
The 'Protectionist' View: This view was primarily held by British administrator-anthropologists. They believed that:
- Tribal communities were 'primitive' peoples with a unique culture distinct from mainstream Hinduism.
- Contact with Hindu society would lead to the exploitation and cultural degradation of the 'innocent and simple' tribals.
- Therefore, the state had a duty to protect these communities and help them preserve their distinct way of life and culture from the pressures of assimilation.
-
The 'Nationalist' View: This view was championed by nationalist Indians, with G.S. Ghurye as a prominent exponent. They argued that:
- Tribal communities were not distinct groups but 'backward Hindus' who were part of the larger Indian society and had been interacting with Hinduism for a long time.
- Attempts to preserve tribal culture were misguided, as it would keep them in a backward state, like 'museums' of primitive culture.
- Tribes, like other backward sections of Indian society, needed to develop and assimilate with the mainstream to achieve modernization and unity for the nation. The ill-effects of this process were seen as inevitable difficulties on the path to development.
Q3Exercises
Outline the positions of Herbert Risley and G.S. Ghurye on the relationship between race and caste in India.
Solution
Herbert Risley and G.S. Ghurye had differing, though related, positions on the relationship between race and caste in India. Both worked within the framework of the racial theory of caste, which was dominant in the early 20th century.
-
Herbert Risley's Position: Risley, a British colonial official, was the main proponent of the view that caste originated in race. His key arguments were:
- Human beings can be divided into distinct races based on physical characteristics (anthropometry) like skull size and nose length.
- He believed different caste groups belonged to distinct racial types.
- Specifically, he argued that the higher castes generally had Indo-Aryan racial traits, while the lower castes were of non-Aryan, aboriginal, or Mongoloid racial stock. This suggested that the lower castes were the original inhabitants subjugated by Aryan invaders.
-
G.S. Ghurye's Position: Ghurye did not completely reject Risley's theory but believed it was only partially correct and needed significant modification. His arguments were:
- He criticized Risley's method of using only averages for anthropometric measurements, ignoring the variations within a community.
- Ghurye argued that the correlation between caste and race (upper castes being Aryan, lower castes being non-Aryan) was broadly true only for northern India ('Hindustan proper').
- In other parts of India, he found that the physical differences between caste groups were not large or systematic. This suggested that extensive racial mixing had occurred over a long period. In these regions, he proposed that the practice of endogamy (marrying within the caste) was likely introduced into groups that were already racially diverse.
Q4Exercises
Summarise the social anthropological definition of caste.
Solution
Based on the work of G.S. Ghurye, the social anthropological definition of caste is a comprehensive one that emphasizes six key features. These features describe the institution as prescribed in classical texts:
-
Segmental Division: Society is divided into a number of closed, mutually exclusive segments or compartments called castes. Membership is determined by birth and cannot be changed.
-
Hierarchy: Castes are arranged in a strict hierarchy, where every caste is considered either higher or lower than every other caste. In theory, no two castes are equal.
-
Restrictions on Social Interaction: There are elaborate rules governing social interactions, especially the sharing of food, between different castes. These rules are based on ideas of purity and pollution, which are most dramatically expressed in the institution of untouchability.
-
Differential Rights and Duties: Different castes have unequal rights and duties, not just in religious matters but also in secular life. Everyday interactions are governed by these rules.
-
Restriction on Choice of Occupation: Occupations are traditionally fixed by birth and are hereditary. Caste functions as a rigid division of labour, with specific occupations allocated to specific castes.
-
Strict Restrictions on Marriage: Caste is strictly endogamous, meaning marriage is only permitted within one's own caste group. This is often accompanied by rules of exogamy (whom one cannot marry), which together help in the reproduction of the caste system.
Q5Exercises
What does D.P. Mukerji mean by a 'living tradition'? Why did he insist that Indian sociologists be rooted in this tradition?
Solution
By a 'living tradition', D.P. Mukerji refers to a tradition that is dynamic and evolving. It is not merely a relic of the past but something that maintains its links with the past while also adapting to the present by incorporating new elements. It is a continuous process that involves both retaining old aspects and accepting change over time.
Mukerji insisted that Indian sociologists be rooted in this tradition for several crucial reasons:
-
Centrality of Society in India: He believed that India's most distinctive feature was its social system, which was 'over-developed' compared to its politics or economics. Indian history, economics, and philosophy were all centered on social groups (like caste and sect) rather than individuals.
-
Contextual Understanding: To understand the Indian social system, a sociologist must first be an 'Indian'—that is, they must share in and understand the folkways, customs, and traditions of the people. A purely western sociological framework would be inadequate to grasp the nuances of Indian society.
-
Tradition as a Source of Change: For Mukerji, tradition was not static. It included internal principles of change. Therefore, studying tradition was not just about understanding the past but also about understanding the mechanisms of social change in the present. He believed that an Indian sociologist's first duty was to study these social traditions to understand both stability and change in India.
Q6Exercises
What are the specificities of Indian culture and society, and how do they affect the pattern of change?
Solution
According to D.P. Mukerji, the primary specificity of Indian culture and society is that it is not individualistic but is oriented towards group action, defined by caste, sect, or community. An individual's desires and actions are rigidly fixed by their socio-cultural group pattern. This group-centric nature profoundly affects the pattern of social change in India.
How these specificities affect the pattern of change:
-
Non-Economic Causes of Change: Unlike in the West where the economy and class conflict are major drivers of change, Mukerji argued that in India, class conflict has been 'smoothed and covered by caste traditions'. Therefore, the primary causes of change in India are internal and non-economic.
-
Three Principles of Change: Mukerji identified three principles of change within Indian tradition: shruti, smriti, and anubhava. He considered anubhava, or personal experience, to be the most revolutionary principle. However, in the Indian context, personal experience quickly transforms into collective experience (generalized anubhava).
-
Collective Experience as the Agent of Change: Historically, major changes in India have been driven by the collective experience of groups and sects, which challenge the high traditions of smriti and sruti. The bhakti movement is a key example of this process, where popular revolts based on experience and love (anubhava and prem) challenged dominant orthodoxy.
-
Resilience of Tradition: A key feature of the Indian pattern of change is that conflict and rebellion tend to be contained within the overarching framework of tradition. The pressure of conflict leads to change and transformation of the tradition, but it does not break it. The challenges are eventually reabsorbed into a transformed tradition, leading to a cyclical pattern of change rather than a complete rupture with the past.
Q7Exercises
What is a welfare state? Why is A.R. Desai critical of the claims made on its behalf?
Solution
According to A.R. Desai, a welfare state is a modern state characterized by three unique features:
- Positive State: It is an interventionist state that actively uses its powers to design and implement social policies for the betterment of society, going beyond the minimal role of maintaining law and order.
- Democratic State: It must have formal democratic institutions, particularly multi-party elections.
- Mixed Economy: It has an economy where both private capitalist enterprises and state-owned enterprises coexist. The state does not seek to eliminate the capitalist market but plays a role in providing basic goods and social infrastructure.
A.R. Desai is highly critical of the claims made on behalf of the welfare state, concluding that the concept is a 'myth'. He arrives at this conclusion by measuring the performance of self-proclaimed welfare states (like Britain, the USA, and European nations) against a set of test criteria. He argues that these states fail on all counts:
- They do not ensure freedom from poverty and insecurity: Desai points out that these states fail to provide minimum levels of economic and social security to all their citizens.
- They do not remove income inequalities: Instead of redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, these states often encourage economic inequality.
- They do not make the profit motive subservient to community needs: The capitalist logic of profit remains dominant over the actual needs of the community.
- They do not ensure stable development: These economies are still subject to the cycle of economic booms and depressions, and market fluctuations.
- They do not provide employment for all: The continued presence of high levels of unemployment and excess economic capacity is a major failure.
Based on these shortcomings, Desai argues that the 'welfare state' in capitalist countries does not genuinely promote welfare for all and its claims are greatly exaggerated.
Q8Exercises
What arguments were given for and against the village as a subject of sociological research by M.N. Srinivas and Louis Dumont?
Solution
M.N. Srinivas and Louis Dumont had opposing views on the importance of the village as a unit of sociological research in India.
Arguments Against the Village (Louis Dumont):
- Louis Dumont, a French social anthropologist, argued that social institutions like caste were more important than the village.
- He viewed the village as merely a collection of people living in a particular place, a geographical location rather than a primary social entity.
- He reasoned that while villages might change or people might move between them, their fundamental social institutions, such as caste and religion, are portable and follow them wherever they go.
- Therefore, Dumont believed that focusing on the village as a unit of analysis would be misleading and that sociologists should instead focus on the principles and structures of these more enduring social institutions.
Arguments For the Village (M.N. Srinivas):
- M.N. Srinivas strongly defended the village as a relevant and significant social entity for sociological study.
- He presented historical evidence showing that villages possessed a unifying identity and that village unity was a significant factor in rural social life.
- He criticized the colonial-era view, put forward by British administrator-anthropologists, that depicted the Indian village as a static, self-sufficient 'little republic'.
- Srinivas used sociological and historical evidence to demonstrate that villages had, in fact, experienced considerable change and were never fully self-sufficient. They were always integrated into regional economic, social, and political networks.
Q9Exercises
What is the significance of village studies in the history of Indian sociology? What role did M.N. Srinivas play in promoting village studies?
Solution
Village studies hold immense significance in the history of Indian sociology, particularly in the post-independence era of the 1950s and 1960s. Their importance can be understood in the following ways:
- Showcasing Ethnographic Methods: Village studies provided an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the value and importance of ethnographic fieldwork methods in understanding Indian society from the ground up.
- Documenting Social Change: They offered rich, first-hand accounts of the rapid social change occurring in rural India as the newly independent nation embarked on its program of planned development. These vivid descriptions were highly valued.
- Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide: The detailed studies of village life helped urban Indians and, crucially, policymakers to form a clearer impression of what was happening in the country's heartland.
- Making Sociology Relevant: Village studies gave sociology a new and vital role in the context of a modernizing nation. The discipline was no longer restricted to studying 'primitive' peoples but could contribute directly to understanding and navigating the challenges of a developing society.
M.N. Srinivas's Role:
M.N. Srinivas was a central figure in promoting and institutionalizing village studies in India. His contributions were pivotal:
- He was one of the first to conduct intensive, long-term fieldwork in a village, which became the basis for his influential writings.
- He was instrumental in encouraging and coordinating a major collective effort among sociologists to produce detailed ethnographic accounts of village life across India.
- Along with scholars like S.C. Dube and D.N. Majumdar, Srinivas helped make village studies the dominant field in Indian sociology during this period.
- Through his own work and his efforts in institution-building (at Baroda and Delhi University), he trained a new generation of sociologists who carried forward the tradition of village-based ethnographic research.