Chapter Notes

The Beginnings of Sociology in India

While sociology is a relatively new field even in Europe, it began to take root in India a little over a century ago. The formal university teaching of sociology started in 1919 at the University of Bombay. By the 1920s, universities in Calcutta and Lucknow also established sociology programs.

In its early days, Indian sociology faced unique challenges. Scholars had to figure out what role this Western-born discipline could play in the specific context of India.

Key Questions for Indian Sociology

1. Modernity and Colonialism: Western sociology developed to understand modernity. In India, the first experience of modernity was tied to colonial rule. How could sociology make sense of this unique situation?
2. 'Primitive' vs. 'Advanced' Societies: Western social anthropology studied 'primitive' cultures. What role could it have in India, an ancient civilization that also had tribal ('primitive') societies within it?
3. A Role in Independent India: What useful purpose could sociology serve in a newly independent India, which was embarking on a path of planned development and democracy?

Early Indian sociologists had to find answers to these questions and formulate new ones by actively "doing" sociology in an Indian context.

The Pioneers: Accidental Anthropologists

Many of the first Indian sociologists and anthropologists entered the field by chance, as there were no formal institutions to promote the discipline in the early 1900s.

L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer (1861-1937)

• L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer began his career as a clerk and teacher in Cochin (modern-day Kerala).
• In 1902, the Dewan of Cochin asked him to help with an ethnographic survey of the state, a project the British government was conducting across India.
• He did this work voluntarily on weekends while teaching during the week.
• His work was so well-regarded that he was invited to help with a similar survey in Mysore.
• Despite having no formal qualifications in anthropology, Iyer became the first self-taught anthropologist to gain national and international recognition. He was appointed Reader at the University of Calcutta, where he helped set up India's first post-graduate anthropology department.

Sarat Chandra Roy (1871-1942)

• A lawyer by training, Sarat Chandra Roy moved to Ranchi in 1898 to work as a teacher.
• He later began practicing law and was appointed as an official court interpreter. His job required him to interpret tribal customs and laws for the court, which sparked his interest in anthropology.
• He traveled extensively among the tribal communities of the Chhotanagpur region (modern-day Jharkhand), conducting intensive fieldwork.
• Though an 'amateur', his detailed work resulted in famous monographs on the Oraon, the Mundas, and the Kharias.
• In 1922, he founded the journal Man in India, the earliest of its kind in the country, which is still published today.

Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1893-1983)

G.S. Ghurye is considered the founder of institutionalized sociology in India. He headed the Department of Sociology at Bombay University for thirty-five years, guiding numerous research scholars.

Ghurye's Contributions to Indian Sociology

• Institution Building: He founded the Indian Sociological Society in 1951 and its journal, Sociological Bulletin, in 1952.
• Combining Teaching and Research: His department at Bombay University was the first to successfully merge teaching with active research.
• Merging Sociology and Anthropology: He combined social anthropology and sociology into a single, composite discipline, a model that was widely adopted later.
• Wide-ranging Research: Ghurye wrote prolifically on many themes, including caste and race, tribes, kinship, family, religion, and culture.

The Debate on Tribal Cultures

Ghurye's views on tribal communities brought him widespread attention. In the 1930s and 1940s, a major debate took place on how the Indian state should treat its tribal populations.

• The 'Protectionist' View: Many British administrator-anthropologists believed that tribes were primitive people with a unique culture, separate from mainstream Hinduism. They argued that contact with Hindu society would lead to exploitation and cultural degradation. Therefore, they felt the state should "protect" tribes and help them preserve their culture.
• The 'Nationalist' View (Ghurye's Position): Nationalists, including Ghurye, strongly believed in the unity of India. They argued that trying to preserve tribal culture was misguided, as it kept them in a backward state like "museums." They saw tribes not as distinct groups but as 'backward Hindus'.
  • Ghurye provided evidence that tribal cultures had been interacting with Hinduism for a long time and were part of the same process of assimilation as other Indian communities.
  • He argued that the negative effects of this contact were not unique to tribes but were common to all poor and downtrodden sections of Indian society—unfortunate but necessary difficulties on the path to development.

Ghurye on Caste and Race

Ghurye's doctoral dissertation, published as Caste and Race in India (1932), was a landmark study. He critically examined the dominant theory of his time, proposed by the British official Herbert Risley.

• Risley's Racial Theory of Caste:

  • Risley believed that caste originated from race. He argued that one could identify different races based on physical measurements (anthropometry), such as skull size and nose length.
  • He claimed that in India, higher castes generally had Indo-Aryan racial features, while lower castes belonged to non-Aryan, aboriginal, or Mongoloid racial types.
  • His theory suggested that lower castes were the original inhabitants of India, who were conquered by Aryans from outside.

• Ghurye's Critique:

  • Ghurye agreed with Risley's basic argument but found it only partially correct.
  • He argued that Risley's theory was broadly true only for northern India.
  • In other parts of India, physical differences between castes were not very systematic, suggesting that different racial groups had been mixing for a long time.
  • He concluded that "racial purity" was only preserved in the north, while in the rest of India, the practice of endogamy (marrying within one's caste) was adopted by groups that were already racially mixed.

Ghurye's Definition of Caste

Ghurye provided a comprehensive, six-feature definition of caste, based on classical texts. This definition helped make the study of caste more systematic.

1. Segmental Division: Society is divided into distinct, closed segments (castes). Membership is determined by birth and cannot be changed.
2. Hierarchy: Every caste is strictly unequal, ranked as either higher or lower than every other caste.
3. Restrictions on Social Interaction: There are strict rules about social interactions, especially the sharing of food, governed by ideas of purity and pollution. This is most extreme in the practice of untouchability.
4. Differential Rights and Duties: Different castes have different rights and duties, not just in religious matters but in everyday life.
5. Restricted Choice of Occupation: Occupations are hereditary and decided by birth.
6. Strict Restrictions on Marriage: Marriage is generally only allowed within one's own caste (endogamy). This is often combined with rules about whom one cannot marry (exogamy), which helps reproduce the caste system.

Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji (1894-1961)

D.P. Mukerji (or D.P.) was one of the most influential scholars of his generation, associated with the Lucknow University. His influence came largely from his teaching and public engagement. He was strongly influenced by Marxism as a method of social analysis.

D.P. Mukerji on Tradition and Change

D.P. turned to sociology because he felt that India's most crucial and distinctive feature was its social system. He argued that while history, politics, and economics were less developed in India compared to the West, its social dimensions were 'over-developed'.

The Importance of Tradition

• For D.P., the first duty of an Indian sociologist was to study India's social traditions.
• He insisted that an Indian sociologist must first "be an Indian"—meaning they should share in the customs and traditions of the people to truly understand the social system.
• He emphasized the concept of a "living tradition." This means a tradition that maintains links with the past but also adapts to the present and evolves over time.

Specificities of Indian Society and Change

• Group-Oriented Society: D.P. argued that Indian society is not individualistic like the West. An individual's actions are largely fixed by their socio-cultural group (caste, sect, etc.).
• Non-Economic Causes of Change: In Western societies, the economy is often the primary driver of change (e.g., class conflict). D.P. believed that in India, class conflict had been "smoothed and covered by caste traditions." Therefore, he argued that Indian sociology should focus on the internal, non-economic causes of change.
• Three Principles of Change: D.P. identified three principles of change in Indian tradition:
  1. Shruti (revealed texts, like the Vedas)
  2. Smriti (remembered texts, like the Dharmashastras)
  3. Anubhava (personal experience)
• Of these, anubhava, or personal experience, is the revolutionary principle. In India, this personal experience often becomes a collective experience of groups.
• Love and Experience as Agents of Change: D.P. argued that in India, change has historically been driven more by anubhava and prem (experience and love) than by reason. Movements like the Bhakti and Sufi traditions, which emphasized experience over holy texts, were powerful agents of change.

D.P.'s view was that tradition should neither be worshipped nor ignored. Modernity was necessary but should not be blindly adopted.

Akshay Ramanlal Desai (1915-1994)

A.R. Desai was a life-long Marxist and one of the few Indian sociologists directly involved in politics. His best-known work, The Social Background of Indian Nationalism, offered a Marxist analysis of the subject.

A.R. Desai on the State

Desai was deeply interested in the modern capitalist state, which he analyzed from a Marxist perspective. He is particularly known for his critique of the "welfare state."

Features of the Welfare State

Desai identified three core features that define a welfare state:

1. A Positive State: It is an interventionist state that actively uses its power to implement social policies for the good of society. This is the opposite of a laissez-faire state, which does the minimum.
2. A Democratic State: Formal democratic institutions, like multi-party elections, are considered essential.
3. A Mixed Economy: The economy includes both private capitalist enterprises and state-owned enterprises. The state typically focuses on basic goods and infrastructure, while the private sector dominates consumer goods.

Desai's Critique: The Myth of the Welfare State

Desai proposed five "test criteria" to measure the performance of self-proclaimed welfare states like Britain and the USA.

1. Does it ensure freedom from poverty and provide security for all citizens?
2. Does it remove income inequality and prevent the concentration of wealth?
3. Does it make the capitalist profit motive secondary to the real needs of the community?
4. Does it ensure stable development, free from economic booms and depressions?
5. Does it provide employment for all?

Using these criteria, Desai found that the claims of welfare states were "greatly exaggerated." He argued that even the most developed capitalist countries fail on these counts: they do not provide minimum security for all, they encourage economic inequality, and they cannot prevent unemployment or market fluctuations.

Based on this analysis, Desai concluded that the notion of the welfare state is a myth.

Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas (1916-1999)

M.N. Srinivas is probably the best-known Indian sociologist of the post-independence era. After studying under Ghurye in Bombay, he went to Oxford, which transformed his intellectual approach. He was instrumental in establishing strong sociology departments at Baroda University and the Delhi School of Economics.

M.N. Srinivas on the Village

The Indian village was a lifelong focus for Srinivas. He believed that firsthand fieldwork in villages was crucial for understanding Indian society.

The Importance of Village Studies

• A New Role for Sociology: In the 1950s and 1960s, Srinivas promoted village studies, making them a dominant field in Indian sociology. This gave the discipline a new and relevant role in independent India.
• Understanding Social Change: Village studies provided eyewitness accounts of the rapid changes happening in rural India as the nation began its program of planned development.
• Informing Policy: These detailed ethnographic accounts were highly valued by urban Indians and policymakers, giving them a real sense of what was happening in the country's heartland.

The Village as a Unit of Social Analysis

Srinivas was part of a major debate about whether the village was a useful concept for sociological research.

• The Argument Against Village Studies (Louis Dumont): The social anthropologist Louis Dumont argued that institutions like caste were more important than the village. He reasoned that people might move from one village to another, but they take their social institutions (caste, religion) with them. Therefore, focusing on the village was misleading.
• Srinivas's Defense of Village Studies:
  • Srinivas argued that the village was a relevant social entity with a unifying identity.
  • He criticized the view of British administrator-anthropologists, who had portrayed the Indian village as an unchanging, self-sufficient "little republic."
  • Using historical and sociological evidence, Srinivas showed that villages had always experienced change and were never self-sufficient. They were deeply connected to the wider region through economic, social, and political relationships.

Glossary

• Administrator-anthropologists: British administrative officials in 19th and early 20th century India who conducted anthropological research, such as surveys and censuses.
• Anthropometry: A branch of anthropology that studied human racial types by measuring the human body, especially the skull and nose.
• Assimilation: A process where one culture (usually a dominant one) gradually absorbs another, causing the absorbed culture to lose its distinct identity.
• Endogamy: A social rule that requires marriage to be within a specific social or kin group, such as a caste.
• Exogamy: A social rule that prohibits marriage within a certain social or kin group, such as blood relatives or members of the same lineage.
• Laissez-faire: An economic and political doctrine that advocates for minimal state intervention in the economy, believing in the efficiency of the free market.