Class 11 Sociology

Book-2 Ch-5
Indian Sociologists
By: Renaissance 2.0: New Dawn Of Education

Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
 Introduction
• One of the earliest pioneers of social anthropology in India, L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer
(1861-1937), began his career as a clerk, moved on to become a school teacher and later
a college teacher in Cochin state in present day Kerala.

• In 1902, he was asked by the Dewan of Cochin to assist with an ethnographic survey of
the state.

• Ananthakrishna Iyer was probably the first self-taught anthropologist to receive national
and international recognition as a scholar and an academician.

• He was invited to lecture at the University of Madras, and was appointed as Reader at the
University of Calcutta, where he helped in setting up the first post-graduate anthropology
department in India.

• He remained at the University of Calcutta from 1917 to 1932. He had no formal

qualification in anthropology.

• He was elected President of the Ethnology section of the Indian Science Congress.

•
European universities.
Renaissance 2.0
He was awarded an honorary doctorate by German university during his lecture tour of

New Dawn of Education

• The lawyer Sarat Chandra Roy (1871-1942) was another ‘accidental anthropologist’ and
pioneer of the discipline in India.

• Before taking his law degree in Calcutta’s Ripon College, Roy had done graduate and
postgraduate degrees in English. Soon after he had begun practising law, he decided to go
to Ranchi in 1898 to take up a job as an English teacher at a Christian missionary school.

• He became the leading authority on the culture and society of the tribal peoples of the
Chhotanagpur region (presently in Jharkhand).

• Roy’s interest in anthropological matters began when he gave up his school job and began
practicing law at the Ranchi courts, eventually being appointed as official interpreter in the
court.

• Roy became deeply interested in tribal society as a by-product of his professional need to
interpret tribal customs and laws to the court. He travelled extensively among tribal
communities and did intensive field work among them.

• Roy published more than one hundred articles in leading Indian and British academic
journals in addition to his famous monographs on the Oraon, the Mundas and the Kharias.

• He founded the journal Man in India in 1922, the earliest journal of its kind in India that is
still published. Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
• G.S. Ghurye can be considered the founder of institutionalized sociology in India.

• He headed India’s very first post-graduate teaching department of Sociology at Bombay

University for thirty-five years.

• He founded the Indian Sociological Society as well as its journal Sociological Bulletin.

• Ghurye managed to nurture sociology as an increasingly Indian discipline. Ghurye was first
to implement successfully two of the features.
• The active combining of teaching and research within the same institution.
• The merger of social anthropology and sociology into a composite discipline.

• Ghurye wrote on caste, race and themes including tribes, kinship, family and marriage;
culture, civilization and the historic role of cities, religion and the sociology of conflict and
integration.

• Ghurye worked on ‘tribal’, his writings on this subject, and specially his debate with
Verrier Elwin which first made him known outside sociology and the academic world.
Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
• Many British administrator-anthropologists were specially interested in the tribes of India
and believed them to be primitive people with a distinctive culture far from the
mainstream of Hinduism.

• They also believed that the innocent and simple tribals would suffer exploitation and
cultural degradation through contact with Hindu culture and society. For this reason, they
felt that the state had a duty to protect the tribes and to help them sustain their way of
life and culture, which were facing constant pressure to assimilate with mainstream of
Hindu culture.

• Ghurye became the best-known exponent of the nationalist view and insisted on
characterizing the tribes of India as ‘backward Hindus’ rather than distinct cultural groups.

• The ‘protectionists’ believed that assimilation would result in the severe exploitation and
cultural extinction of the tribals.

• Ghurye and the nationalists, on the other hand, argued that these ill-effects were not
specific to tribal cultures, but were common to all the backward and downtrodden sections
of Indian society.

Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
 Ghurye On Race & Caste
• G.S. Ghurye’s academic reputation was built on the basis of his doctoral dissertation at
Cambridge, which was later published as Caste and Race in India (1932).

• Ghurye provides a detailed critique of the then dominant theories about the
relationship between race and caste.

• Herbert Risley, a British colonial official who was deeply interested in anthropological
matters, was the main proponent of the dominant view.

• This view held that human beings can be divided into distinct and separate races on
the basis of their physical characteristics such as the circumference of the skull, the
length of the nose, or the volume (size) of the cranium or the part of the skull where
the brain is located.

• Risley and others believed that India was a unique ‘laboratory’ for studying the
evolution of racial types because caste strictly prohibits intermarriage among different
groups, and had done so for centuries.

• In general, the higher castes approximated Indo-Aryan racial traits, while the lower
castes seemed to belong to non-Aryan aboriginal, Mongoloid or other racial groups.
Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
• Risley and others suggested that the lower castes were the aboriginal inhabitants of India.
They had been subjugated by an Aryan people who had come from elsewhere and settled
in India.

• Ghurye did not disagree with the basic argument put forward by Risley but believed it to
be only partially correct. He pointed out the problem with using averages alone without
considering the variation in the distribution of a particular measurement for a given
community.

• Ghurye believed that Risley’s thesis of the upper castes being Aryan and the lower castes
being non-Aryan was broadly true only for northern India. In other parts of India, the
inter-group differences in the anthropometric measurements were not very large or
systematic.

• This suggested that, in most of India except the Indo-Gangetic plain, different racial
groups had been mixing with each other for a very long time.

• Thus, ‘racial purity’ had been preserved due to the prohibition on inter-marriage only in
‘Hindustan proper’ (north India). In the rest of the country, the practice of endogamy
(marrying only within a particular caste group) may have been introduced into groups
that were already racially varied.

Ghurye is also known for offering a comprehensive definition of caste. His definition
Renaissance 2.0
•
emphasises the following features :
New Dawn of Education
1. Caste is an institution based on segmental division:

• This means that society is divided into a number of closed, mutually exclusive segments or compartments. Each
caste is one such compartment.

• It is closed because caste is decided by birth – the children bom to parents of a particular caste will always
belong to that caste.
• There is no way other than birth of acquiring caste membership. In short, a person’s caste is decided by birth; it
can neither be avoided nor changed.

2. Caste society is based on hierarchical division:

• Each caste is strictly unequal to other caste, that is, every caste is either higher or lower than other one. In
theory (though not in practice), no two castes are ever equal.

• The institution of caste necessarily involves restrictions on social interaction, specially the sharing of food.
• There are elaborate rules prescribing what kind of food may be shared between which groups. These rules are
governed by ideas of purity and pollution.

• Caste also involves differential rights and duties for different castes.

• These rights and duties pertain not only to religious practices but also extend to the secular world.

• Caste restricts the choice of occupation, which, like caste itself, is decided by birth and is hereditary.

• At the level of society, caste functions as a rigid form of the division of labour with specific occupations being
allocated to specific castes.

• Renaissance 2.0
Caste involves strict restrictions on marriage. Caste ‘endogamy’, or marriage only within the caste, is often
accompanied by rules about ’exogamy’, or whom one may not marry.
New Dawn of Education
 D.P. Mukerji on Tradition and Change
• D.P. Mukerji felt very strongly that the distinctive feature of India was its social system, and
that, therefore, it was important for each social science to be rooted in this context.

• For Mr. Mukerji, this study of tradition was not oriented only towards the past, but also
included sensitivity to change. Thus, tradition was a living tradition, maintaining its links
with the past, but also adapting to the present and thus evolving over time.

• He believed that sociologists should learn and be familiar with both ‘high’ and ‘low’ languages
and cultures – not only Sanskrit, Persian or Arabic, but also local dialects.

• Mr. Mukerji argued that Indian culture and society are not individualistic in the western
sense.

• Indian social system is basically oriented towards groups, sect, or caste-action, not
‘voluntaristic’ individual action. Although ‘voluntarism’ was beginning to influence the urban
middle classes.

• Mr. Mukerji pointed out that the root meaning of the word ‘tradition’ is to transmit. Its
Sanskrit equivalents are either parampara, that is, succession: or aitihya, which comes from
the same root as itihas or history. Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
• The most commonly cited internal source of change in western societies is the
economy, but this source has not been as effective in India. Class conflict, D.P.
believed, had been “smoothed and covered by caste traditions” in the Indian
context, where new class relations had not yet emerged very sharply.
• He concluded that one of the first tasks for a dynamic Indian sociology would be to
provide an account of the internal, non-economic causes of change.
• Mr. Mukerji believed that there were three principles of change recognized in
Indian traditions, namely; shruti, smriti and anubhava.
• The most important principle of change in Indian society was generalized
anubhava, or the collective experience of groups.
• Mr. Mukerji emphasized that this was true not only of Hindu but also of Muslim
culture in India. In Indian Islam, the Sufis have stressed love and experience rather
than holy texts, and have been important in bringing about change.
• Indian context is not only where discursive reason (buddhi-vichar) is the dominant
force for change; anubhava and prem (experience and love) have been historically
superior as agents of change. Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
• Mr. Mukerji’s views on tradition and change led him to criticise all instances of
unthinking borrowing from western intellectual traditions, including in such contexts as
development planning. Tradition was neither to be worshiped nor ignored, just as
modernity was needed but not to be blindly adopted.

Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
 A R Desai
• A.R. Desai is one of the rare Indian sociologists who was directly involved
in politics as a formal member of political parties.

• Desai was a life-long Marxist and became involved in Marxist politics

during his undergraduate days at Baroda, though he later resigned from
his membership of the Communist Party of India.

• Desai joined the Bombay department of sociology to study under Ghurye.

He wrote his doctoral dissertation on the Social aspects of Indian
nationalism and was awarded the degree in 1946.

• His thesis was published in 1948 as the Social Background of Indian

Nationalism, which is probably his best known work.

Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
 A.R Desai On State
• In an essay called “The Myth of the Welfare State”, Desai provides a detailed critique of
this notion and points to its many shortcomings.

• Desai identifies the following unique features of the welfare state :

• A welfare state is a positive state. This means that, unlike the Laissez faire’ of classical
liberal political theory, the welfare state does not seek to do only the minimum
necessary to maintain law and order.
• The welfare state is an interventionist state and actively uses its considerable powers to
design and implement social policies for the betterment of society.
• The welfare state is a democratic state. Democracy was considered an essential
condition for the emergence of the welfare state.
• Formal democratic institutions, specially multi-party elections, were thought to be a
defining feature of the welfare state.
• A welfare state involves a mixed economy. A ’mixed economy’ means an economy
Renaissance 2.0
where both private capitalist enterprises and state or publicly owned enterprises co-
exist.
New Dawn of Education
 • A welfare state does not seek to eliminate the capitalist market, nor does it prevent
public investment in industry and other fields.
• The state sector concentrates on basic goods and social infrastructure, while private
industry dominates the consumer goods sector.

• Performance of the welfare state can be measured.

• Does welfare state provide employment to all?:

• Even developed countries are unable to reduce economic inequality and often seem to
encourage it.
• The so-called welfare states have also been unsuccessful at enabling stable development
free from market fluctuations.
• The presence of excess economic capacity and high levels of unemployment are yet
another failure.
• Based on these arguments, Desai concludes that the notion of the welfare state is
something of a myth.

• Emphasized the importance of democracy even under communism, arguing strongly that
Renaissance
political liberties and the rule of law must be upheld in all genuinely socialist states. 2.0
New Dawn of Education
 M N Srinivas
• The best known Indian sociologist of the post-independence era, M.N. Srinivas
earned two doctoral degrees, one from Bombay university and other, from
Oxford.

• Srinivas was a student of Ghurye’s at Bombay. Srinivas’ intellectual orientation

was transformed by the years he spent at the Department of Social
Anthropology in Oxford.

• Srinivas’ doctoral dissertation was published as Religion and Society among the
Coorgs of South India.

• This book established Srinivas’ international reputation with its detailed

ethnographic application of the structural-functional perspective dominant in
British social anthropology.

Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
 M N Srinivas On Village
• First of all ethnographic accounts of fieldwork done in villages or discussions of such
accounts.

• A second kind of writing included historical and conceptual discussions about the
Indian village as a unit of social analysis.

• In the latter kind of writing, Srinivas was involved in a debate about the usefulness of
the village as a concept.

• Arguing against village studies, some social anthropologists like Louis Dumont thought
that social institutions like caste were more important than something like a village,
which was after all only a collection of people living in a particular place.

• Villages may live or die, and people may move from one village to another, but their
social institutions, like caste or religion, follow them and go with them wherever they
go.
Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education
 IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

1. Mention Ghurye’s contribution to sociology.

2. Differentiate between the rural and the urban society.

3. Explain the structural features of caste given by Ghurye.

4. What was DP Mukherji’s view about traditions and modernity?

5. What is the significance of village studies in the history of Indian sociology? What role did MN Srinivas play in
promoting village studies?

6. What arguments were given for and against the village as a subject of sociological research by MN Srinivas and
Louis Dumont?

7. What is a welfare state? Why is AR Desai critical of the claims made on its behalf?

8. What are the specificities of Indian culture and society and how do they affect the pattern of change?

9. What does DP Mukerji mean by a ‘living tradition’? Why did he insists that Indian sociologists be rooted in this
tradition?

10.Outline the positions of Herbert Risley and GS Ghurye on the relationship between race and caste in India.

11.What were the main arguments on either side of the debate about how to relate to tribal communities?
Renaissance 2.0
12.How did Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy come to practise social anthropology?
New Dawn of Education
Until Next Time…

Renaissance 2.0
New Dawn of Education