Chapter 5: Indian Sociologists – CBSE NCERT Sociology Class 11 Notes

Development of Sociology in India (1920s-1950s)

During the period from the 1920s to the 1950s, the development of sociology in India was primarily centred around two major academic departments: Bombay and Lucknow. Both departments initially combined sociology with economics. The Bombay department was led by G.S. Ghurye, and the Lucknow department was distinguished by its ‘trinity’ of scholars: Radhakamal Mukerjee, the founder, alongside D.P. Mukerji and D.N. Majumdar. D.P. Mukerji emerged as a particularly influential figure, not just in sociology but also in broader intellectual and public life. He engaged widely through his teaching, academic presentations, media contributions, and books, bringing a multi-disciplinary approach to his work influenced by history, economics, and Marxism.

Short Pointers:

• Sociology in India from the 1920s to 1950s centred on major departments in Mumbai and Lucknow.
• The Bombay department was led by G.S. Ghurye.
• The Lucknow department featured Radhakamal Mukerjee, D.P. Mukerji, and D.N. Majumdar, with D.P. Mukerji being notably popular.
• D.P. Mukerji was influential through his teaching, media work, and diverse scholarly interests including sociology, literature, music, and Marxism.
• He wrote extensively in both English and Bengali, with notable works like ‘Introduction to Indian Music.’
• Both departments began as joint sociology and economics units, reflecting a multi-disciplinary foundation in these early sociology programs.

D.P. Mukerji on Tradition and Change in Indian Sociology

D.P. Mukerji, a prominent Indian sociologist, emphasised the dominant role of the social system in shaping Indian society, distinguishing it from Western societies where history, politics, and economics play more central roles. He argued that the Indian social system, being “over-developed,” revolves around social traditions that are deeply rooted yet capable of adapting and evolving. Mukerji highlighted three principles of social change in Indian tradition: shruti (what is heard), smriti (what is remembered), and anubhava (personal experience).
He stressed that in the Indian context, anubhava often transforms into a collective experience, which becomes a crucial agent of change. This perspective leads to a cyclical pattern of social change, where tradition is continuously challenged and transformed but not discarded, reflecting the resilience of societal structures in India.

Short Pointers:

• Social System Centrality: D.P. Mukerji viewed the social system as central to understanding Indian society, contrasting with less developed historical, political, and economic aspects.
• Living Tradition: He perceived tradition as dynamic, linking past and present and evolving continuously.
• Three Principles of Change: Identified shruti, smriti, and anubhava as key to understanding societal changes in India.
• Collective Experience: Emphasised the transformation of personal experiences into collective ones, which drive societal change.
• Cyclical Change: Described a process where societal challenges lead to changes within the framework of existing traditions rather than breaking them.
• Cultural Sensitivity: Advocated for a deep understanding of both high and low cultures and languages to fully grasp the Indian social system.
• Critique of Modernity: Warned against uncritical adoption of Western modernity, advocating for a balanced approach to embracing modern influences while respecting traditional values.

A.R. Desai and His Contributions to Indian Sociology

A.R. Desai, a notable Indian Marxist sociologist, significantly influenced the field of sociology with his political engagement and academic pursuits. He studied under G.S. Ghurye at the Bombay department of sociology and was an active member of the Communist Party of India before resigning. His doctoral dissertation, published as “The Social Background of Indian Nationalism,” provided a Marxist analysis of Indian nationalism, emphasising economic divisions and the context of British colonialism. This work, among others on peasant movements, modernization, and human rights, made Desai well-known, especially outside the traditional sociological circles due to the scant prominence of Marxism within Indian sociology at the time. Despite being an unusual figure in Indian sociology, Desai’s impact was profound, leading to numerous accolades including the presidency of the Indian Sociological Society.

Short Pointers:

• Academic Background: A.R. Desai studied under G.S. Ghurye in Bombay and wrote his doctoral thesis on Indian nationalism.
• Political Involvement: Initially involved in Marxist politics, he later resigned from the Communist Party of India.
• Key Contributions: His major work, “The Social Background of Indian Nationalism,” analysed Indian nationalism through a Marxist lens, focusing on economic factors under British rule.
• Broader Themes: Worked on peasant movements, rural sociology, modernization, urban issues, political sociology, forms of state, and human rights.
• Recognition: Known more outside sociology due to his Marxist approach; elected President of the Indian Sociological Society.
• Unusual Sociologist: Despite his significant contributions, he remained an atypical figure within Indian sociology.

A.R. Desai’s Critique of the Welfare State

A.R. Desai, a Marxist sociologist, provided a detailed critique of the welfare state in his essay, “The Myth of the Welfare State.” He described the welfare state as a ‘positive state’ that intervenes actively to design and implement social policies for societal betterment, contrasting sharply with the minimal intervention philosophy of classical liberal ‘laissez-faire.’ According to Desai, a welfare state also embodies democracy and a mixed economy, with both private and state-owned enterprises.
However, Desai argued that the welfare state often fails to meet its ideals, particularly in reducing income inequality, ensuring economic stability, and providing universal employment. He used specific criteria to measure the performance of welfare states and concluded that their claims of providing comprehensive economic and social security are largely mythical.

Short Pointers:

• Positive State: The welfare state actively engages in societal betterment, unlike minimal state intervention in classical liberalism.
• Democratic State: Democracy is essential for a welfare state, characterised by formal democratic institutions like multi-party elections.
• Mixed Economy: Combines private capitalist and state-owned enterprises, with the state focusing on basic goods and social infrastructure.
• Performance Criteria: Desai suggests measuring welfare state efficacy by its ability to eliminate poverty, reduce income inequality, transform the economy to serve community needs, stabilise economic development, and provide universal employment.
• Critical Analysis: Despite their objectives, welfare states often fail to achieve these goals, leading Desai to challenge the effectiveness of such states in practice.
• Marxist Perspective: Desai’s critique stems from a Marxist viewpoint, emphasising economic divisions and the limitations of capitalist structures within purported welfare states.

M.N. Srinivas: Contributions to Indian Sociology

Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas, one of the most renowned Indian sociologists post-independence, profoundly impacted the field through both his academic work and institutional leadership. Holding doctoral degrees from Bombay University and Oxford, Srinivas was originally influenced by Ghurye in Bombay before his orientation was reshaped at Oxford, the then hub of British social anthropology. His work, especially “Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India,” applied the structural-functional perspective and solidified his international reputation. Srinivas returned to India to establish and lead new sociology departments at Maharaja Sayajirao University in Baroda and later at the Delhi School of Economics, turning these institutions into leading centres for sociology in India. His career spanned significant research on caste, modernization, village society, and social change, placing Indian sociology prominently on the global academic map.

Short Pointers:

• Academic Foundation: Earned two PhDs, one from Bombay University and another from Oxford.
• Key Works: Known for “Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India,” which applied structural-functional analysis.
• Academic Positions: Initiated and led sociology departments in Baroda and Delhi, fostering new generations of sociologists.
• Research Focus: Investigated caste dynamics, social modernization, and village society among other areas.
• Global Influence: Bridged Indian sociology with global anthropology networks, particularly in Britain and America.
• Legacy: Trained future leaders in sociology, significantly shaping the discipline in India post-independence.

M.N. Srinivas on the Significance of the Indian Village in Sociology

M.N. Srinivas, a prominent Indian sociologist, emphasised the importance of the village as a fundamental unit of social analysis in India. He argued that villages, contrary to being static and isolated ‘little republics’ as portrayed by British administrator-anthropologists, were dynamic entities deeply involved in socio-economic and political networks. Srinivas highlighted that villages underwent significant transformations and were never truly self-sufficient. His work involved detailed ethnographic fieldwork and historical analysis, showing how villages served as central to understanding broader social changes in India. He contested views like those of Louis Dumont, who downplayed the importance of villages by emphasising broader social institutions like caste. Srinivas maintained that villages played a crucial role in shaping rural social life and were integral in reflecting the rapid social changes during India’s post-independence period.

Short Pointers:

• Fieldwork Foundation: Srinivas’s insights were grounded in extensive fieldwork in a village near Mysore, which shaped his academic path.
• Village Studies: He spearheaded the ethnographic study of villages, making it a dominant field in Indian sociology during the 1950s and 1960s.
• Ethnographic and Historical Approach: His writings included both ethnographic accounts and conceptual discussions on the village as a social unit.
• Debate on Village Significance: Challenged views undermining the village’s relevance, arguing that villages were significant social entities with a unifying identity.
• Critique of Static Views: Refuted the portrayal of Indian villages as unchanging and self-sufficient, using evidence of their socio-economic and political connections.
• Sociology’s Role in Modern India: Advocated for the relevance of sociology in understanding and aiding India’s modernization, especially through village studies.

Indianisation of Sociology: Contributions by Pioneering Sociologists

The distinctiveness of Indian sociology was significantly shaped by four pioneering sociologists: Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, D.P. Mukerjee, A.R. Desai, and M.N. Srinivas. Each brought unique perspectives and methodologies that ‘Indianised’ sociology, integrating Western academic frameworks with deep insights into Indian social realities. Ghurye applied his understanding of classical texts to Western anthropological questions, while Mukherjee rediscovered and articulated the relevance of Indian traditions in modern intellectual discourse. Desai infused his Marxist perspective to provide a rare critical analysis of the Indian state, and Srinivas adapted his Western anthropological training to address the Indian context, helping to reshape the agenda for contemporary sociology in India. This integration by the four sociologists not only personalised the discipline but also set a platform for subsequent generations to build upon, ensuring the continuous evolution and relevance of sociology within India.

Short Pointers:

• G.S. Ghurye: Began with Western anthropological questions, using his knowledge of Indian classical texts to add depth and context.
• D.P. Mukerjee: A Western-educated intellectual who re-emphasized the significance of Indian tradition in modern sociology.
• A.R. Desai: A Marxist who uniquely critiqued the Indian state, offering perspectives that were uncommon at the time.
• M.N. Srinivas: Trained in Western social anthropology, he tailored his approach to suit the Indian sociological environment, influencing the future direction of the field.
• Legacy: These pioneers set the stage for future sociologists to critique and expand upon their foundational work, demonstrating the dynamic and evolving nature of Indian sociology.

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

Answer: The positions of Herbert Risley and G.S. Ghurye on the relationship between race and caste in India differed significantly.
Herbert Risley, a British colonial official, believed that human beings could be divided into distinct races based on physical characteristics like skull size and nose length. His main argument was that caste originated from race, with the higher castes belonging to the Indo-Aryan racial type and the lower castes belonging to non-Aryan, aboriginal or Mongoloid racial groups. Risley considered India a unique place to study racial evolution since inter-caste marriages were strictly prohibited, preserving racial purity over centuries.
On the other hand, G.S. Ghurye disagreed with Risley’s thesis, believing it was only partially correct. According to Ghurye, the idea of upper castes being Aryan and lower castes being non-Aryan was true only for North India. In other parts of the country, different racial groups had been mixing for a long time, and the practice of endogamy (marrying within one’s caste) was introduced into already racially varied groups. Ghurye argued that racial purity was preserved through the prohibition of inter-marriage only in North India or ‘Hindustan proper’, not in the rest of the country.
While Risley saw caste as originating from race, Ghurye believed that in most of India, endogamy was adopted after racial variations had occurred, not the other way around.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

Herbert Risley’s Position:

• Divided humans into distinct races based on physical traits
• Higher castes = Indo-Aryan race, Lower castes = Non-Aryan races
• India as a ‘laboratory’ for studying racial evolution due to strict endogamy

G.S. Ghurye’s Position:

• Risley’s thesis true only for North India
• Rest of India had long history of racial mixing
• Endogamy adopted after racial variations had occurred
• Racial purity preserved only in North India through strict endogamy

Key Difference:

• Risley: Caste originated from race
• Ghurye: In most of India, endogamy came after racial variations

• Summarise the social anthropological definition of caste.

Answer: G.S. Ghurye offered a comprehensive social anthropological definition of caste, emphasising six key features:

1. Caste is based on segmental division into mutually exclusive and closed compartments, with each caste being one such unit. Caste is determined solely by birth, with no way to change or acquire it other than through birth itself.
2. Caste involves a hierarchical division, where each caste is strictly unequal and either higher or lower than every other caste. No two castes are considered equal in theory.
3. The institution of caste necessitates restrictions on social interaction, especially regarding sharing food. Elaborate rules governed by notions of purity and pollution prescribe what food can be shared between which groups. This extends to institutions like untouchability, where even touch with certain castes is polluting.
4. Caste involves differential rights and duties across different castes, governing not just religious practices but also secular life, as ethnographic accounts have shown.
5. Caste restricts occupational choice, which is hereditary and decided by birth, resulting in a rigid division of labour with specific occupations allocated to specific castes.
6. Caste enforces strict endogamy rules, with marriage only allowed within one’s caste, often accompanied by exogamy rules about whom one cannot marry. This combination of rules helps reproduce the caste system.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Ghurye’s 6 Features of Caste:

• • Segmental division into closed compartments
  • Hierarchical inequality across castes
  • Restrictions on social interaction and food sharing
  • Differential rights/duties across castes
  • Hereditary occupations and division of labour
  • Endogamy rules within caste, exogamy across castes

• Key Points:

• • Comprehensive anthropological definition
  • Based on classical texts, but changing in practice
  • Governs social, religious and secular aspects of life

• What does D.P. Mukerji means ‘living tradition’? Why did he insist that Indian sociologists be rooted in this tradition?

Answer: According to D.P. Mukerji, a ‘living tradition’ refers to traditions that are not merely rooted in the past but also continue to evolve and adapt to the present times while retaining core elements from the past. He insisted that Indian sociologists be deeply rooted in this living tradition because understanding one’s own social system, customs, and traditions is crucial for comprehending the distinct Indian context.
In Mukerji’s words, “It is not enough for the Indian sociologist to be a sociologist. He must be an Indian first, that is, he is to share in the folk-ways, mores, customs and traditions, for the purpose of understanding his social system and what lies beneath it and beyond it.” He believed sociologists should be familiar with both ‘high’ traditions like Sanskrit as well as ‘low’ traditions like local dialects to truly grasp the multifaceted Indian society.
Mukerji emphasised that Indian traditions have an inherent capacity for change and adaptation, constantly being reshaped by the collective experiences of different groups and sects. Thus, a living tradition is not static but a dynamic process of maintaining continuity with the past while simultaneously undergoing transformation through internal and external forces.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

Living Tradition (D.P. Mukerji):

• Traditions rooted in the past but evolving with present
• Retaining core elements while adapting to change
• Shaped by collective experiences of groups/sects

Importance for Indian Sociologists:

• Understand distinct Indian social system
• Be familiar with ‘high’ and ‘low’ traditions
• Grasp multifaceted nature of Indian society

Key Points:

• Not static, but dynamic process
• Maintaining continuity and undergoing transformation
• Internal experiences as agents of change

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

Answer: The Indian culture and society are marked by certain specificities that shape the pattern of social change in distinct ways, different from Western societies.
Firstly, Indian society is not individualistic like the West, but oriented towards groups, sects or castes. An individual’s behaviour and desires are largely fixed by their socio-cultural group norms, making voluntary individual action less prominent. This group-centric orientation makes Indian society less susceptible to changes stemming from individual motivations.
Secondly, traditions in India are strongly rooted in the past, maintained through constant retelling of stories and myths. While traditions adapt to the present, forming a ‘living tradition’, the resilience of tradition ensures that changes occur more in an adaptive form rather than radically breaking from the past.
Furthermore, the role of the economy as an internal driver of change is diluted in Indian society. Class conflict, which is a major source of change in the West, has been “smoothed and covered by caste traditions” in India, where new class relations have not emerged sharply.
Changes in Indian society tend to arise more from the collective experiences of groups, sects and the resulting social conflicts and resolutions. However, even such conflicts lead to changes within the overarching tradition, without completely overriding existing social institutions like caste.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

Specificities of Indian Society:

• Group-oriented rather than individualistic
• Traditions strongly rooted in the past
• Role of economy as change driver diluted

Pattern of Change:

• Adaptive changes within tradition, not radical breaks
• Stemming from collective group experiences
• Conflicts leading to changes within tradition
• Caste system smoothing over class conflicts

Key Points:

• Individual motivations less prominent
• ‘Living tradition’ evolving but resilient
• Non-economic, group-based causes of change

• What is a welfare state? Why is A.R. Desai critical of the claims made on its behalf?

Answer: According to A.R. Desai, a welfare state has three key features:

1. It is a positive and interventionist state that actively designs and implements social policies for the betterment of society, going beyond just maintaining law and order.
2. Democracy and democratic institutions like multi-party elections are considered essential for the emergence of a welfare state. Liberal thinkers exclude communist or socialist states from this definition.
3. A welfare state involves a mixed economy with the co-existence of private capitalist enterprises and state-owned enterprises, where the state focuses on basic goods and infrastructure while private industry dominates consumer goods production.

Desai is highly critical of the claims made by welfare states like Britain, USA and European nations. He argues that these states have failed to truly deliver on their promises, as assessed against the following criteria:

• They have been unable to ensure freedom from poverty, social discrimination and security for all citizens.
• Economic inequalities have not been reduced through income redistribution or preventing concentration of wealth.
• The capitalist profit motive has not been made subservient to community needs in their economies.
• They have failed to enable stable economic development free from market fluctuations and boom-bust cycles.
• High levels of unemployment persist, despite excess economic capacity.

Based on this lack of performance, Desai concludes that the notion of a ‘welfare state’ is largely a myth and its claims are greatly exaggerated.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

Welfare State Features (Desai):

• Positive, interventionist state for social policies
• Democracy and multi-party elections essential
• Mixed economy with state and private enterprises

Desai’s Criticism:

• Failure to ensure economic/social security for all
• Unable to reduce inequalities
• Capitalist motives still dominate over community needs
• Unstable development with market fluctuations
• Persistent high unemployment

Conclusion:

• Welfare state claims are greatly exaggerated
• Notion of welfare state itself is a myth

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

Answer: M.N. Srinivas argued in favour of the village as a relevant social entity and a useful subject for sociological research, while Louis Dumont was against giving much importance to the village as a unit of analysis.

Srinivas’s arguments for studying villages:

• Historical evidence showed villages served as unifying identities, with village unity being significant in rural social life.
• He criticised the British view of Indian villages as unchanging and self-sufficient ‘little republics’, showing through evidence that villages had undergone considerable change.
• Villages were involved in various economic, social and political relationships at the regional level, not just self-contained units.
• Village studies offered advantages like illustrating ethnographic research methods and providing eyewitness accounts of social change underway.

Dumont’s arguments against studying villages:

• Social institutions like caste were more important than villages, which were simply collections of people living in one place.
• As people moved between villages, their key institutions like caste and religion moved with them.
• Hence, Dumont felt giving much importance to the village as a concept or unit of analysis would be misleading.

In essence, Srinivas saw the village as a relevant and dynamic social entity worthy of focused study, while Dumont considered caste and other institutions more fundamental than the transient village settlements.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

Srinivas – For Village Studies:

• Historical unifying identity
• Undergoing social change
• Involved in regional relationships
• Enabling ethnographic accounts

Dumont – Against Village Studies:

• Caste/religion more fundamental than village settlements
• People’s institutions not bound to any one village
• Village an impermanent unit, not worthy of primacy

Key Difference: Srinivas – Village as relevant social entity Dumont – Caste/institutions more important than villages

• What is the significance of village studies in the history of Indian sociology? What role did M.N. Srinivas play in promoting village studies?

Answer: Village studies held immense significance in the history of Indian sociology, especially in the post-independence era.

Their importance stems from:

1. i) Providing an opportunity to emphasise the importance of ethnographic research methods.
2. ii) Offering eyewitness accounts of the rapid social changes underway in rural India after independence and the adoption of planned development programmes.

iii) Enabling urban Indians and policymakers to understand the transformations occurring in the heartland of the country.

M.N. Srinivas played a pivotal role in promoting village studies in Indian sociology:

• He focused his research on village areas, conducting extensive fieldwork and coordinating efforts to produce detailed ethnographic accounts of villages.
• His writings featured rich ethnographic descriptions as well as historical and conceptual discussions about villages as units of analysis.
• He critiqued the British view of Indian villages as unchanging and self-sufficient, using evidence to show they had undergone considerable social change.
• He argued for the village’s relevance as a social entity, countering views that caste/religion were more fundamental than village settlements.
• Through village studies, Srinivas illustrated the importance of ethnography and provided a new role for sociology in understanding India’s rural transformations.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

Significance of Village Studies:

• Promoting ethnographic methods
• Capturing rural social changes
• Enabling policymaker understanding

Srinivas’s Role:

• Fieldwork and ethnographic accounts
• Critiquing British static village views
• Arguing for village’s relevance as social entity
• Providing new role for sociology in rural context

Key Points:

• Capturing India’s rural transition post-independence
• Srinivas promoting ethnography and village’s analytical value

How did D.P. Mukerji views the relationship between Indian society and tradition?

Answer: D.P. Mukerji viewed Indian society as being over-developed with regard to social dimensions compared to history, politics and economics.

Which sociologist analysed the state from a Marxist perspective and critiqued the concept of the welfare state?

Answer: The sociologist who analysed the state from a Marxist perspective and critiqued the concept of the welfare state was A.R. Desai.

What were the main themes of A.R. Desai’s sociological work?

Answer: The main themes of A.R. Desai’s sociological works were peasant movements, rural sociology, modernization, urban issues, political sociology, and state and human rights.

What role did the Indian Sociological Society play in the development of sociology in India?

Answer: G.S. Ghurye founded the Indian Sociological Society as well as its journal Sociological Bulletin, playing a key role in nurturing sociology as an Indian discipline.

How did the integration of social anthropology and sociology impact academic research according to G.S. Ghurye?

Answer: According to G.S. Ghurye, the merger of social anthropology and sociology into a composite discipline was enthusiastically endorsed by his successors.

In what way did D.P. Mukerji’s approach to sociology differs from traditional views?

Answer: Unlike traditional views that focused only on the past, D.P. Mukerji viewed tradition as a living tradition adapting to the present while maintaining links with the past.

What challenges did sociologists face when institutionalising sociology in India during the early 20th century?

Answer: When institutionalising sociology in India during the early 20th century, sociologists faced challenges like limited financial and institutional support for university research.

How did the colonial context influence the development of sociology in India?

Answer: The colonial context significantly shaped Indian sociology, as the discipline emerged during a period of colonial subjugation, raising unique questions about its application and relevance in an Indian setting that was radically different from the West.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Colonial Influence: Shaped questions and focus
• Key Context: Subjugation, modernity in a colony
• Adaptation: Tailored to Indian historical, social conditions
• Outcome: Distinct Indian sociology developed

• What was the role of Ghurye in the establishment of Indian sociology?

Answer: G.S. Ghurye played a foundational role in Indian sociology by leading Bombay University’s first postgraduate sociology department for 35 years, nurturing the discipline and influencing future sociologists.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Key Figure: G.S. Ghurye
• Roles: Head of department, mentor, writer
• Contributions: Institutional development, academic proliferation
• Impact: Shaped future of Indian sociology

• What unique contributions did Sarat Chandra Roy make to the field of anthropology in India?

Answer: Sarat Chandra Roy, an ‘accidental anthropologist,’ became a leading authority on tribal societies in the Chhotanagpur region, contributing extensive fieldwork and scholarly articles. He also founded the journal Man in India, advancing the study of anthropology in India.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Identity: ‘Accidental anthropologist’
• Contributions: Extensive fieldwork, scholarly articles
• Impact: Founded Man in India journal
• Focus Area: Tribal societies in Chhotanagpur

• Describe the academic significance of the journal ‘Man in India’.

Answer: The journal ‘Man in India’ is academically significant as it was the first of its kind in India, founded by Sarat Chandra Roy. It has greatly contributed to the documentation and understanding of India’s tribal societies and cultural anthropology.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• First of its kind: Pioneer journal in India
• Founder: Sarat Chandra Roy
• Focus: Tribal societies, cultural anthropology
• Contribution: Enhances documentation and study of Indian anthropology

• What impact did European colonialism have on the methodologies of Indian sociology?

Answer: European colonialism influenced Indian sociology by introducing Western methodologies that emphasised empirical research and ethnographic studies. This was often focused on understanding tribal and rural societies within the colonial context.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Influence: Western methodologies
• Focus: Tribal and rural societies
• Methods: Empirical research, ethnographic studies
• Context: Colonial influence

• How did early Indian sociologists adapt Western sociological methods to the Indian context?

Answer: Early Indian sociologists adapted Western sociological methods to the Indian context by focusing on local social structures, such as caste and kinship, and integrating them into their research and teachings, making sociology relevant to Indian societal issues.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Focus: Local social structures (caste, kinship)
• Integration: Research and teaching
• Relevance: Addressing Indian societal issues
• Methodology: Adaptation of Western techniques

• Discuss the relevance of ‘primitive’ societies in the formation of social anthropology in India.

Answer: The study of ‘primitive’ societies was crucial for developing social anthropology in India as it helped sociologists understand the diverse tribal cultures and integrate this knowledge into broader anthropological studies, thus enriching the discipline.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Focus: Tribal cultures, diversity
• Importance: Basis for broader studies
• Contribution: Enriched social anthropology
• Outcome: Integrated knowledge into anthropology

• What were the main sociological concerns addressed by G.S. Ghurye?

Answer: G.S. Ghurye focused on the sociological issues of caste, race, tribes, and cultural integration, significantly influencing the foundational structure of Indian sociology.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Main topics: Caste, race, tribes, culture
• Impact: Shaped Indian sociology
• Key Concerns: Integration, social structure

• How did the concept of caste evolve in Ghurye’s work?

Answer: In Ghurye’s work, the concept of caste evolved through systematic study, emphasising its features like segmentation, hierarchy, and occupational restriction, reflecting Indian societal structures.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Key Concepts: Segmentation, Hierarchy, and Occupational restriction
• Focus: Systematic study, Indian societal structure
• Outcome: Deeper understanding of caste dynamics in India

• What principles of change did D.P. Mukerji identify in Indian society?

Answer: According to D.P. Mukerji, the three principles of change recognised in Indian traditions are shruti (sacred texts), smriti (remembered tradition), and anubhava (personal/collective experience), with anubhava being the most revolutionary force.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

Principles of change in Indian society (D.P. Mukerji):

• Shruti (sacred texts)
• Smriti (remembered tradition)
• Anubhava (personal/collective experience)
  • most important principle
  • Challenges orthodoxy through collective experiences
  • Example: Bhakti movement

• How did M.N. Srinivas contribute to the study of village societies in India?

Answer: M.N. Srinivas made significant contributions to the study of Indian village societies through detailed ethnographic accounts, conceptualising the village as a relevant social unit, and spearheading major efforts at village studies in the 1950s-60s.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

M.N. Srinivas on village studies:

• Detailed ethnographic fieldwork in villages
• Emphasised village as relevant social entity
• Countered views undermining importance of village
• Coordinated major efforts at village studies (1950s-60s)
• Documented rapid social changes in villages
• Provided new role for sociology in independent India

• What role did A.R. Desai play in the integration of Marxist theory with Indian sociology?

Answer: A.R. Desai, a lifelong Marxist, played a pioneering role in integrating Marxist theory with Indian sociology by offering a Marxist analysis of issues like Indian nationalism, peasant movements, state forms and critiquing notions like the welfare state.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

A.R. Desai’s role:

• Lifelong Marxist scholar
• Marxist analysis of Indian nationalism (book)
• Studied peasant movements from Marxist perspective
• Critique of welfare state and capitalist state
• Highlighted role of Marxist theory in Indian sociology
• Rare voice of Marxism within Indian sociology

• How have subsequent generations of sociologists built on the works of pioneers like Ghurye and Mukerji?

Answer: Subsequent generations of sociologists have built on the works of pioneers like Ghurye and Mukerji by subjecting them to constructive criticism, learning from them, and taking the discipline further with new perspectives and approaches.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

How later scholars built on pioneers:

• Subjecting their work to constructive criticism
• Learning from and going beyond pioneers’ contributions
• Offering new perspectives, theories, methodologies
• Continuing the process of ‘Indianizing’ sociology
• Signs of critique and growth visible across Indian sociology

Which journal, founded by Sarat Chandra Roy, is still published today?

(a) Anthropological Survey of India

(b) Tribal India

(c) Man in India

(d) Indian Anthropologist

Answer: (c) Man in India

Case Study 3: “During his tenure at Bombay University, G.S. Ghurye was noted for his comprehensive approach to sociology, blending teaching and research. He emphasised the integration of sociology with social anthropology and founded the Indian Sociological Society.”

Questions:

• Which of the following was established by G.S. Ghurye?

(a) Indian Science Congress

(b) Indian Sociological Society

(c) Sociological Bulletin

(d) Both (b) and (c)

Answer: (d) Both (b) and (c)

• Ghurye’s approach at Bombay University included which of the following?

(a) Separating sociology from anthropology

(b) Combining teaching and research

(c) Focusing solely on theoretical sociology

(d) None of the above

Answer: (b) Combining teaching and research

Case Study 4: “D.P. Mukerji emphasised the importance of understanding Indian social traditions in the context of sociology. He believed that sociology in India should integrate the understanding of local traditions and customs, and his works spanned across various domains, including music and philosophy.”

Questions:

• What did D.P. Mukerji was central to Indian society, influencing his approach to sociology?

(a) Economic factors

(b) Political systems

(c) Social traditions

(d) Technological advancements

Answer: (c) Social traditions

• D.P. Mukerji’s interdisciplinary approach included contributions to which field outside of sociology?

(a) Literature

(b) Music

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

Answer: (c) Both (a) and (b)

Case Study 5: “M.N. Srinivas is renowned for his ethnographic work and theoretical contributions, particularly through his detailed studies of the Coorgs in South India. His work helped establish village studies as a significant area of Indian sociology, emphasising the dynamic nature of rural societies in India.”

Questions:

• What aspect of Indian society did M.N. Srinivas focuses his studies on, making significant contributions to its understanding?

(a) Urban development

(b) Tribal cultures

(c) Village societies

(d) Industrial growth

Answer: (c) Village societies

• Which concept did M.N. Srinivas notably contribute to, discussing the interactions and assimilation processes within Indian communities?

(a) Sanskritization

(b) Westernization

(c) Modernization

(d) Globalisation

Answer: (a) Sanskritization

Critically assess the impact of the British colonial administration on the evolution of tribal studies in India. Discuss the contrasting views of British administrators and Indian nationalists like G.S. Ghurye on the integration of tribal societies into mainstream Hindu culture.

Answer: The British colonial government shaped Indian tribal studies. Tribal Hindu integration divided British administrators and Indian nationalists like G.S. Ghurye.

British administrator-anthropologists were fascinated by primitive Indian tribes with a culture distinct from Hinduism. Hindu society would exploit and degrade innocent tribals, they believed. Therefore, they believed the state should protect tribal communities and help them resist Hindu assimilation.

Indian nationalists like G.S. Ghurye wanted cultural modernization and unity. They thought misguided tribal culture preservation stagnated tribals in primitive “museums.” Nationalist leader Ghurye called the tribes ‘backward Hindus’ (not distinct cultures).

Ghurye provided detailed evidence that tribal cultures had long interacted with Hinduism. Assimilation was a tribal conspiracy, he said. This argument challenged the colonial view of tribes as isolated, primitive communities in classical anthropology.

Tribes and mainstream culture assimilate, but its effects are debated. British protectors feared tribal exploitation and cultural extinction. The nationalists and Ghurye claimed that all low-class Indians faced these ills and development challenges.

Therefore, the British colonial administration sparked debates about tribal societies in India and state treatment. British administrators valued tribal cultures, while Indian nationalists like Ghurye valued assimilation and modernization for national unity.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• British colonial impact on tribal studies

• • • British administrator-anthropologists’ views
      • Tribes as primitive, distinct from Hinduism
      • Need to protect tribal cultures from assimilation
    • Indian nationalist perspective (G.S. Ghurye)
      • Tribes as ‘backward Hindus,’ not distinct groups
      • Assimilation into mainstream for modernization and unity

• Contrasting viewpoints

• • • Interaction between tribes and mainstream culture
    • Evaluating impact of assimilation
      • Protectionists: Exploitation and cultural extinction
      • Nationalists: Inevitable difficulties in development

• Shaping debates and perspectives

• • Place of tribal societies in India
  • State’s response to tribal communities
  • Preservation vs. assimilation

Examine D.P. Mukerji’s views on the relationship between tradition and modernity in Indian society. Discuss how he believed Indian sociology should respond to the unique social context of India, focusing on his interpretation of tradition as a dynamic rather than a static concept.

Answer: India’s central social system shaped his views on tradition and modernity. Indian sociology should study its modernising living traditions, he said.

Mukerji believes tradition is alive. He believed tradition evolved while retaining its roots. Tradition can change, according to Mukerji.

Mukerji criticised Indian sociology’s unthinking borrowing of Western intellectual traditions and stressed the need to understand and engage with Indian social traditions. He believed tradition should not be worshipped or ignored, nor modernity blindly adopted.

Shruti, smriti, and anubhava were important to Mukerji. He thought anubhava, or collective experience, was the most revolutionary Indian principle. This shared experience challenged and changed dominant orthodoxies, alternating rebellion and synthesis.

While the West studied economic factors, Mukerji believed Indian sociology should study internal, non-economic causes of change. He saw change in Indian society as rebellion within tradition, typical of caste societies with limited class consciousness.

Mukerji supported an Indian sociology that was sensitive to the country’s unique social context and engaged with living traditions adapting to modernity through collective experiences and internal change.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• D.P. Mukerji’s views

• • • Centrality of social system in India
    • Tradition as a living, dynamic force
      • Adapting to present while maintaining past links
      • Capable of change and evolution

• Indian sociology’s role

• • • Rooted in India’s social context
    • Studying living traditions and their adaptation
    • Critiquing unthinking borrowing of Western traditions

• Principles of change in Indian traditions

• • • Shruti, smriti, anubhava (personal experience)
    • Anubhava as collective experience – key revolutionary force
    • Challenging orthodoxies, leading to rebellion and synthesis

• Internal, non-economic causes of change

• • • Distinct from Western emphasis on economic factors
    • Rebellion contained within limits of overarching tradition
    • Typical of caste society with inhibited class consciousness

• Indian sociology sensitive to unique social context

• • Engaging with living, adapting traditions
  • Studying internal principles of change
  • Avoiding blind imitation of Western models

• Discuss the unique features of the welfare state as proposed by A.R. Desai. Critically evaluate his critique of the welfare state concept and discuss the relevance of his analysis in understanding the role of the state in modern Indian society.

Answer:In his analysis, A.R. Desai identified three welfare state characteristics. A welfare state is an interventionist, positive state that actively designs and implements social policies to improve society beyond law and order. 2. Multi-party elections and other democratic institutions are needed. Thirdly, welfare states have private and state-owned businesses.

Desai proposed welfare state performance standards. These included ending poverty, social discrimination, and insecurity for all, redistributing income, subordinating the capitalist profit motive to community needs, enabling stable economic development without boom-bust cycles, and providing jobs for all.

The welfare states of Britain, the US, and much of Europe exaggerated their claims, she found. He claimed that most modern capitalist states failed to reduce inequality, provide minimum economic and social security, experience market fluctuations, and have high unemployment. After this critical analysis, Desai declared the welfare state a myth.

Desai, a Marxist, openly criticised capitalist welfare states and Communist states, emphasising the importance of democracy, political liberties, and the rule of law in truly socialist societies.

The welfare state’s ideals and reality differ, but Desai’s analysis helps explain the state’s role and limitations in addressing social and economic issues in modern India, where poverty, inequality, and development persist.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• Unique features of welfare state (per Desai)
  • Interventionist and positive state
  • Democratic state with multi-party elections
  • Mixed economy (private and public enterprises)
• Criteria to assess welfare state performance
  • Freedom from poverty, discrimination, insecurity
  • Income redistribution and reducing inequalities
  • Subordinating profit motive to community needs
  • Stable economic development, no boom-bust cycles
  • Providing employment for all
• Desai’s critique
  • Claims of welfare states greatly exaggerated
  • Failure to provide economic and social security
  • Unable to reduce inequalities and market fluctuations
  • High unemployment levels
• Relevance in Indian context
  • Understanding state’s role in addressing poverty, inequality, development
  • Limitations of welfare state model in practice
  • Critique of capitalist and Communist states (upholding democracy, liberties)

• Describe M.N. Srinivas’s contributions to the study of Indian villages and his role in establishing sociology departments in India. Analyse his concept of village studies and how it contributed to understanding the social dynamics of rural India.

Answer: M.N. Srinivas institutionalised sociology in India and studied villages. Srinivas spent his life studying Indian villages and society, and his fieldwork near Mysore gave him firsthand knowledge.

Srinivas guided a 1950s and 1960s collective effort to write ethnographic accounts of village societies. Along with S.C. Dube and D.N. Majumdar, he made village studies the dominant field in Indian sociology.

Srinivas wrote ethnographic fieldwork and historical and conceptual discussions about Indian villages. He advocated for village unity over caste.

Srinivas challenged colonial views of Indian villages as “little republics.” He used historical and sociological evidence to show that villages changed and participated in regional economic, social, and political relationships.

Indian sociology used villages to demonstrate ethnographic methods and provide eyewitness accounts of rural India’s rapid social changes during independence and planned development. Urban Indians and policymakers appreciated Srinivas’s vivid village life descriptions for showing the nation’s heartland.

Besides village studies, Srinivas founded sociology departments at the Maharaja Sayajirao University in Baroda and the Delhi School of Economics, leading Indian centres. His international connections and associations helped him train a new generation of sociologists who led the field, putting Indian sociology on the global map.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• M.N. Srinivas

• • • Lifelong focus on Indian villages and rural society
    • Extensive fieldwork in a Mysore village

• Contributions to Village Studies

• • • Encouraged detailed ethnographic accounts (1950s-1960s)
    • Instrumental in making village studies dominant field
    • Defended village as a relevant social entity
    • Challenged colonial portrayal of unchanging “little republics”

• Role in Indian Sociology

• • • Established sociology departments (Baroda, Delhi School of Economics)
    • Trained new generation of sociologists
    • Helped establish Indian sociology globally
    • International connections and associations

• Significance

• • Insights into rural social dynamics and change
  • Relevance of ethnographic methods
  • Appreciation of village life by urban Indians and policymakers

• Evaluate the interdisciplinary approach of Indian sociologists like D.P. Mukerji and their contribution to integrating various social sciences. Discuss how Mukerji’s background in history and economics enriched his sociological insights and influenced his academic and public engagements.

Answer: D.P. Mukerji enriched Indian sociology with history and economics. These fields influenced his academic and public work.

After Indian history and economics failed him, Mukerji turned to sociology, realising India’s social system was vital. The “over-developed” social dimensions should inform each social science, he believed. He supported an Indian sociology that studied living traditions and modernization because of this belief.

Mukerji saw tradition as dynamic and present. He condemned unthinking Western intellectual borrowing and urged understanding and engaging with India’s unique social traditions. He saw tradition as a living, changing concept and focused on internal, non-economic causes of change due to multidisciplinary exposure.

His interdisciplinary background helped Mukerji transcend disciplines. In addition to his scholarship, he influenced others through teaching, public lectures, newspaper articles, and radio programmes. Writing about literature, music, film, philosophy, Marxism, political economy, and development planning showed his intellectual range.

Mukerji added history, economics, and other perspectives to Indian sociology. He advocated a sociology that was grounded in India’s social context, sensitive to tradition and modernity, and aware of its unique change processes. His interdisciplinary approach shaped Indian sociology.

Mindmap to remember this answer:

• D.P. Mukerji’s Interdisciplinary Approach

• • • Background in history and economics
    • Turned to sociology due to dissatisfaction with limitations

• Enriching Indian Sociology

• • • Centrality of India’s social system and traditions
    • Advocating for a distinctively Indian sociology
    • Integrating insights from multiple disciplines

• Perspectives on Tradition and Modernity

• • • Tradition as a living, dynamic force
    • Adapting to modernity while maintaining links to the past
    • Internal, non-economic causes of change

• Academic and Public Engagement

• • • Teaching, public lectures, media engagements
    • Broad interests spanning literature, arts, philosophy, Marxism
    • Contributing to interdisciplinary discourse

• Shaping Indian Sociology

• • Rooted in social context and traditions
  • Sensitive to dynamics of tradition and modernity
  • Attuned to unique principles of change in Indian society