Notes: A. R. Desai - Marxist Sociology | Sociology Mains Optional for UPSC 2024 PDF Download

 Page 1


 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
A1 - Perspectives on the study of Ifndian society: 
1. Indology (GS. Ghurye). 
2. Structural functionalism (M N Srinivas). 
3. Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
 
A (i) Perspectives on the study of Indian society: 
(c) Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
 
Radcliffe Brown – History distinguished from socio. ( Wilhelm Windbenrd & Henrich Rickert)  History ideographic 
(dealing with individual facts), socio nomothetic (dealing with abstractions, generalized facts). 
 
Marx & Marxists –  
This is unacceptable. History lifeline of society.  
Society subject matter of history. Complement. Interdependent. 
 
Noted Indian Marxists –  
DP Mukherjee (Marxological), RK Mukherjee City Studies) , IP Desai, AR Desai. 
 
They gave an alternate vision to indological perspective and str. functionalism. 
 
Marxist Idea/Thought –  
Societies Develop through dialectics.  
Indological persp gives only history, str func discusses only present.  
Marxist view studies the process of development and evolution through history.  
Social institutions understood through Dialectics + Economics. 
 
Marxist –  
 
Daniel Thornier – understood agrarian class structure  
Kathleen Gough – highlighted class – caste nexus.   
IP Desai – Joint family in agrarian societies of Economies of scale & DoL.  
Berman – Jajmani exploitative for kamins.   
 
Methodology - How do they do it –  
Marxists collect historical data and look at the socio-historical dev at diff points of time. 
 
AR Desai 
Rejects uniqueness of Indian culture. Considers that history of India should be interpreted 
from economic perspective to understand the birth, growth and rise of Indian soc. 
 
His ideas – 
 
1) On Birth of Caste –  
Aryan invasion destroyed primitive MOP (woh kyaa thaa nahin bataaya ussne).  
Indigenous were subjected to separate residence.  
Beginning of caste. Aryans thought themselves as superior, called themselves Brahmin.  
Different indigenous tribes got their names from the totems they worshipped.  
Their occupation was rigidified by Brahmins.  
Texts were written by the dominant caste to rigidify stratification, eg Rigveda which says –  
B-Head, K-Shoulders, V-Legs, S-feet. (Cultural reproduction – Pierre Bordeaux) 
 
2) On Buddhism and Jainism –  
Scholars see them as progressive anti-brahminical movements for egalitarians soc.  
He says B&J simply offered some space for explanation of existing dominant culture and looked for patronizing from 
ruling class making Hinduism stronger and seeing Buddha as one of the avtars :p 
 
Page 2


 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
A1 - Perspectives on the study of Ifndian society: 
1. Indology (GS. Ghurye). 
2. Structural functionalism (M N Srinivas). 
3. Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
 
A (i) Perspectives on the study of Indian society: 
(c) Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
 
Radcliffe Brown – History distinguished from socio. ( Wilhelm Windbenrd & Henrich Rickert)  History ideographic 
(dealing with individual facts), socio nomothetic (dealing with abstractions, generalized facts). 
 
Marx & Marxists –  
This is unacceptable. History lifeline of society.  
Society subject matter of history. Complement. Interdependent. 
 
Noted Indian Marxists –  
DP Mukherjee (Marxological), RK Mukherjee City Studies) , IP Desai, AR Desai. 
 
They gave an alternate vision to indological perspective and str. functionalism. 
 
Marxist Idea/Thought –  
Societies Develop through dialectics.  
Indological persp gives only history, str func discusses only present.  
Marxist view studies the process of development and evolution through history.  
Social institutions understood through Dialectics + Economics. 
 
Marxist –  
 
Daniel Thornier – understood agrarian class structure  
Kathleen Gough – highlighted class – caste nexus.   
IP Desai – Joint family in agrarian societies of Economies of scale & DoL.  
Berman – Jajmani exploitative for kamins.   
 
Methodology - How do they do it –  
Marxists collect historical data and look at the socio-historical dev at diff points of time. 
 
AR Desai 
Rejects uniqueness of Indian culture. Considers that history of India should be interpreted 
from economic perspective to understand the birth, growth and rise of Indian soc. 
 
His ideas – 
 
1) On Birth of Caste –  
Aryan invasion destroyed primitive MOP (woh kyaa thaa nahin bataaya ussne).  
Indigenous were subjected to separate residence.  
Beginning of caste. Aryans thought themselves as superior, called themselves Brahmin.  
Different indigenous tribes got their names from the totems they worshipped.  
Their occupation was rigidified by Brahmins.  
Texts were written by the dominant caste to rigidify stratification, eg Rigveda which says –  
B-Head, K-Shoulders, V-Legs, S-feet. (Cultural reproduction – Pierre Bordeaux) 
 
2) On Buddhism and Jainism –  
Scholars see them as progressive anti-brahminical movements for egalitarians soc.  
He says B&J simply offered some space for explanation of existing dominant culture and looked for patronizing from 
ruling class making Hinduism stronger and seeing Buddha as one of the avtars :p 
 
 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
 
 
3) On Classes in India –  
2 Classes – Masters and Service.  
Service Class morally and socially bound to offer services to master class. The relation is dialectic economical 
relation. Comparable to slavery in west. 
 
4) On feudalism in India –  
Largely different from European.  
Indian came from above (by Emperors or British), in Europe the feudalism came from below, means that a lot of 
minor chieftains, feudal lords collectively determined who would they support for Kingship.  
Indian feudal lords were already chiefs or kings.  
Normal ppl no ownership of land they tilled.  
Rent in the form of taxes and services offered.  
Therefore, loss of political, social and economical freedom by masses. 
 
Capitalistic MOP - Colonialism brought railways, roadways, diff tenure systems, Bureaucracy, legal courts, police 
system, cash transactions, thus, starting Capitalistic MOP.  
Machines produced, cottage industries shut, peasants lost right over agri land and forced to grow cashcrops and 
indigo. 
 
5) On revolt of 1857  
(Capitalism VS Feudalism) – clash between rising capitalism and declining feudalism (represented by diff feudal 
communities). 
 
6) On INM (5 Phases) –  
AR Desai is Critical of national and liberal historians.  
Many ex-feudal lords got into industry under British.  
Emergent industrialists and Middle class started eyeing a position in admin, politics, police etc and started a mass 
mobilization against British which they called INM. 
 
“The so-called national leaders like Gandhi and Nehru adopted policies not to wipe out class ineq rather they 
preferred to glorify nation in the minds of all in order to receive support from the hungry and speechless masses in 
India, so as to transfer the power from the hands of external colonizers to internal colonizers”. 
 
Therefore, democracy came in India without democratic participation, without economic freedom, without pol 
freedom. 
 
7) On Contemporary Policies–  
He is Sceptical of New policies as they profess False Consciousness like Governmental policies like LR, 
Reservations etc.  
He sees it as a conscious design  of dominant group to glorify the segmentation amongst the culturally, politically and 
economically deprived sections of the society. 
 
Conclusion – Desai attempts to understand poverty, illetracy, backwardness, marginalization of masses in India as a 
product of economic history driven by conscious ideological constructs.  
To him INM, Devl policies are all populist measures by govt to ensure that True Class Consciousness and 
Polarisation of society never occurs. 
 
Criticism – 
 
1) Andre Beteille – exaggeration of eco history to fit into Marxist theory. Eg peasant movements in diff parts of the 
country sign of democracy, never seen in history. AB says that Development is happening. 
 
2) Y Singh – Marxian theory never looks for alternatives to social change. Highly skeptical of everything (govt 
policies, mass media, popular movements etc.). 
 
3) Gail Omvedt – Marxian theory sees only 2 polarised classes. Whereas in india the degree of inequality 
experienced by all classes is not equal. Dalits immensely suppressed, worst victims. 
 
Page 3


 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
A1 - Perspectives on the study of Ifndian society: 
1. Indology (GS. Ghurye). 
2. Structural functionalism (M N Srinivas). 
3. Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
 
A (i) Perspectives on the study of Indian society: 
(c) Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
 
Radcliffe Brown – History distinguished from socio. ( Wilhelm Windbenrd & Henrich Rickert)  History ideographic 
(dealing with individual facts), socio nomothetic (dealing with abstractions, generalized facts). 
 
Marx & Marxists –  
This is unacceptable. History lifeline of society.  
Society subject matter of history. Complement. Interdependent. 
 
Noted Indian Marxists –  
DP Mukherjee (Marxological), RK Mukherjee City Studies) , IP Desai, AR Desai. 
 
They gave an alternate vision to indological perspective and str. functionalism. 
 
Marxist Idea/Thought –  
Societies Develop through dialectics.  
Indological persp gives only history, str func discusses only present.  
Marxist view studies the process of development and evolution through history.  
Social institutions understood through Dialectics + Economics. 
 
Marxist –  
 
Daniel Thornier – understood agrarian class structure  
Kathleen Gough – highlighted class – caste nexus.   
IP Desai – Joint family in agrarian societies of Economies of scale & DoL.  
Berman – Jajmani exploitative for kamins.   
 
Methodology - How do they do it –  
Marxists collect historical data and look at the socio-historical dev at diff points of time. 
 
AR Desai 
Rejects uniqueness of Indian culture. Considers that history of India should be interpreted 
from economic perspective to understand the birth, growth and rise of Indian soc. 
 
His ideas – 
 
1) On Birth of Caste –  
Aryan invasion destroyed primitive MOP (woh kyaa thaa nahin bataaya ussne).  
Indigenous were subjected to separate residence.  
Beginning of caste. Aryans thought themselves as superior, called themselves Brahmin.  
Different indigenous tribes got their names from the totems they worshipped.  
Their occupation was rigidified by Brahmins.  
Texts were written by the dominant caste to rigidify stratification, eg Rigveda which says –  
B-Head, K-Shoulders, V-Legs, S-feet. (Cultural reproduction – Pierre Bordeaux) 
 
2) On Buddhism and Jainism –  
Scholars see them as progressive anti-brahminical movements for egalitarians soc.  
He says B&J simply offered some space for explanation of existing dominant culture and looked for patronizing from 
ruling class making Hinduism stronger and seeing Buddha as one of the avtars :p 
 
 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
 
 
3) On Classes in India –  
2 Classes – Masters and Service.  
Service Class morally and socially bound to offer services to master class. The relation is dialectic economical 
relation. Comparable to slavery in west. 
 
4) On feudalism in India –  
Largely different from European.  
Indian came from above (by Emperors or British), in Europe the feudalism came from below, means that a lot of 
minor chieftains, feudal lords collectively determined who would they support for Kingship.  
Indian feudal lords were already chiefs or kings.  
Normal ppl no ownership of land they tilled.  
Rent in the form of taxes and services offered.  
Therefore, loss of political, social and economical freedom by masses. 
 
Capitalistic MOP - Colonialism brought railways, roadways, diff tenure systems, Bureaucracy, legal courts, police 
system, cash transactions, thus, starting Capitalistic MOP.  
Machines produced, cottage industries shut, peasants lost right over agri land and forced to grow cashcrops and 
indigo. 
 
5) On revolt of 1857  
(Capitalism VS Feudalism) – clash between rising capitalism and declining feudalism (represented by diff feudal 
communities). 
 
6) On INM (5 Phases) –  
AR Desai is Critical of national and liberal historians.  
Many ex-feudal lords got into industry under British.  
Emergent industrialists and Middle class started eyeing a position in admin, politics, police etc and started a mass 
mobilization against British which they called INM. 
 
“The so-called national leaders like Gandhi and Nehru adopted policies not to wipe out class ineq rather they 
preferred to glorify nation in the minds of all in order to receive support from the hungry and speechless masses in 
India, so as to transfer the power from the hands of external colonizers to internal colonizers”. 
 
Therefore, democracy came in India without democratic participation, without economic freedom, without pol 
freedom. 
 
7) On Contemporary Policies–  
He is Sceptical of New policies as they profess False Consciousness like Governmental policies like LR, 
Reservations etc.  
He sees it as a conscious design  of dominant group to glorify the segmentation amongst the culturally, politically and 
economically deprived sections of the society. 
 
Conclusion – Desai attempts to understand poverty, illetracy, backwardness, marginalization of masses in India as a 
product of economic history driven by conscious ideological constructs.  
To him INM, Devl policies are all populist measures by govt to ensure that True Class Consciousness and 
Polarisation of society never occurs. 
 
Criticism – 
 
1) Andre Beteille – exaggeration of eco history to fit into Marxist theory. Eg peasant movements in diff parts of the 
country sign of democracy, never seen in history. AB says that Development is happening. 
 
2) Y Singh – Marxian theory never looks for alternatives to social change. Highly skeptical of everything (govt 
policies, mass media, popular movements etc.). 
 
3) Gail Omvedt – Marxian theory sees only 2 polarised classes. Whereas in india the degree of inequality 
experienced by all classes is not equal. Dalits immensely suppressed, worst victims. 
 
 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
Criticism  
 
Jyoti Basu : Biggest folly of Marxist studies in India is to ignore castes & religion. ( equality caste as class is invalid in 
India)  
 
Andre Beiteille – Exaggeration of eco. History to fit into Indian History , other basis of stratifications like caste & 
political pouncer milled.  
 
Urban areas are witnessing large swathes of Middle – class, contrary to what Marxists Predicted. ( Use Dahrenderf’s 
5)  
 
Gail omvedt:  Not right to clarify India into 2 polar classes, Dalits are highly oppressed compared to others.  
 
Other Marxist approaches to study Indian Soc- 
 
Ranajeet Guha’s Subaltern Sociology – The history of india should be re-written from a mass persp than from the 
(current) govt’s perspective. Empirical evidence indicates that how subaltern groups have exhibited resistance in diff 
parts of the country at diff times. Eg tribal movmts, caste movmts, peasant etc. 
 
Anand Chakravarthy’s Hegemonistic Domination – It is against class domination. ( Under-class = a body of ppl who 
are subjected to various forms of deprivation). He says that politics, judiciary, police etc controlled by same class and 
for underclass to rise and get HRs and other economic and political rights it will need support from urban 
intelligentsia. 
 
Ashok Rudra, Pranab Bardhan – Follow Althuser’s thoety of ideological state apparatus (which does not track history 
of inequality but focuses on genesis of inequality). 
 
Pradeepto Sarkar – LPG era = neo-colonialism (for explaining poverty and marginalization in india) 
 
All in all, India from past to present is a dialectic of Poverty and Prosperity, Empowerment and Powerlessness. 
 
Some fodder material on AR Desai 
 
Worked under GSG. 
 
Major Book – The SBIN. 
 
A fresh view on “India” level problems. 
 
Fame – 15th All-Indian Socilogical conference. 27 points emphasizing non-exixtence of Marxist methodology in 
Indian sociology. 
 
7 Broad Contemporary Ideas 
 
1) Constitiution – Bourgeoisie, leadership capitalistic. Slogan of socialism is a hoax to confuse masses. 
 
2) State – Though preaching science, revivalist and popularizing old religious philosophies. (naming india Bharat ( To 
be quoted in Secularism - that state’s symbol still talk of religion), Dharma chakra as national symbols etc.) 
 
3) Culture – idealistic and religio-mystical philosophies re-inforced by ruling bourgeois to dominate. 
 
4) Development – book India’s path of Development, 1984. Weak Indian capitalist society can’t resolve eco, pol, 
socio, educational, cultural problems of India. 
 
5) Crisis – present society will deepen eco, pol, socio, cultural crises. 
 
6) Capitalism – Under capitalism not possible to liquidate mass poverty, unemployement, illetracy, ignorance, 
reactionary caste, feudal institutions. 
 
Page 4


 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
A1 - Perspectives on the study of Ifndian society: 
1. Indology (GS. Ghurye). 
2. Structural functionalism (M N Srinivas). 
3. Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
 
A (i) Perspectives on the study of Indian society: 
(c) Marxist sociology (A R Desai). 
 
Radcliffe Brown – History distinguished from socio. ( Wilhelm Windbenrd & Henrich Rickert)  History ideographic 
(dealing with individual facts), socio nomothetic (dealing with abstractions, generalized facts). 
 
Marx & Marxists –  
This is unacceptable. History lifeline of society.  
Society subject matter of history. Complement. Interdependent. 
 
Noted Indian Marxists –  
DP Mukherjee (Marxological), RK Mukherjee City Studies) , IP Desai, AR Desai. 
 
They gave an alternate vision to indological perspective and str. functionalism. 
 
Marxist Idea/Thought –  
Societies Develop through dialectics.  
Indological persp gives only history, str func discusses only present.  
Marxist view studies the process of development and evolution through history.  
Social institutions understood through Dialectics + Economics. 
 
Marxist –  
 
Daniel Thornier – understood agrarian class structure  
Kathleen Gough – highlighted class – caste nexus.   
IP Desai – Joint family in agrarian societies of Economies of scale & DoL.  
Berman – Jajmani exploitative for kamins.   
 
Methodology - How do they do it –  
Marxists collect historical data and look at the socio-historical dev at diff points of time. 
 
AR Desai 
Rejects uniqueness of Indian culture. Considers that history of India should be interpreted 
from economic perspective to understand the birth, growth and rise of Indian soc. 
 
His ideas – 
 
1) On Birth of Caste –  
Aryan invasion destroyed primitive MOP (woh kyaa thaa nahin bataaya ussne).  
Indigenous were subjected to separate residence.  
Beginning of caste. Aryans thought themselves as superior, called themselves Brahmin.  
Different indigenous tribes got their names from the totems they worshipped.  
Their occupation was rigidified by Brahmins.  
Texts were written by the dominant caste to rigidify stratification, eg Rigveda which says –  
B-Head, K-Shoulders, V-Legs, S-feet. (Cultural reproduction – Pierre Bordeaux) 
 
2) On Buddhism and Jainism –  
Scholars see them as progressive anti-brahminical movements for egalitarians soc.  
He says B&J simply offered some space for explanation of existing dominant culture and looked for patronizing from 
ruling class making Hinduism stronger and seeing Buddha as one of the avtars :p 
 
 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
 
 
3) On Classes in India –  
2 Classes – Masters and Service.  
Service Class morally and socially bound to offer services to master class. The relation is dialectic economical 
relation. Comparable to slavery in west. 
 
4) On feudalism in India –  
Largely different from European.  
Indian came from above (by Emperors or British), in Europe the feudalism came from below, means that a lot of 
minor chieftains, feudal lords collectively determined who would they support for Kingship.  
Indian feudal lords were already chiefs or kings.  
Normal ppl no ownership of land they tilled.  
Rent in the form of taxes and services offered.  
Therefore, loss of political, social and economical freedom by masses. 
 
Capitalistic MOP - Colonialism brought railways, roadways, diff tenure systems, Bureaucracy, legal courts, police 
system, cash transactions, thus, starting Capitalistic MOP.  
Machines produced, cottage industries shut, peasants lost right over agri land and forced to grow cashcrops and 
indigo. 
 
5) On revolt of 1857  
(Capitalism VS Feudalism) – clash between rising capitalism and declining feudalism (represented by diff feudal 
communities). 
 
6) On INM (5 Phases) –  
AR Desai is Critical of national and liberal historians.  
Many ex-feudal lords got into industry under British.  
Emergent industrialists and Middle class started eyeing a position in admin, politics, police etc and started a mass 
mobilization against British which they called INM. 
 
“The so-called national leaders like Gandhi and Nehru adopted policies not to wipe out class ineq rather they 
preferred to glorify nation in the minds of all in order to receive support from the hungry and speechless masses in 
India, so as to transfer the power from the hands of external colonizers to internal colonizers”. 
 
Therefore, democracy came in India without democratic participation, without economic freedom, without pol 
freedom. 
 
7) On Contemporary Policies–  
He is Sceptical of New policies as they profess False Consciousness like Governmental policies like LR, 
Reservations etc.  
He sees it as a conscious design  of dominant group to glorify the segmentation amongst the culturally, politically and 
economically deprived sections of the society. 
 
Conclusion – Desai attempts to understand poverty, illetracy, backwardness, marginalization of masses in India as a 
product of economic history driven by conscious ideological constructs.  
To him INM, Devl policies are all populist measures by govt to ensure that True Class Consciousness and 
Polarisation of society never occurs. 
 
Criticism – 
 
1) Andre Beteille – exaggeration of eco history to fit into Marxist theory. Eg peasant movements in diff parts of the 
country sign of democracy, never seen in history. AB says that Development is happening. 
 
2) Y Singh – Marxian theory never looks for alternatives to social change. Highly skeptical of everything (govt 
policies, mass media, popular movements etc.). 
 
3) Gail Omvedt – Marxian theory sees only 2 polarised classes. Whereas in india the degree of inequality 
experienced by all classes is not equal. Dalits immensely suppressed, worst victims. 
 
 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
Criticism  
 
Jyoti Basu : Biggest folly of Marxist studies in India is to ignore castes & religion. ( equality caste as class is invalid in 
India)  
 
Andre Beiteille – Exaggeration of eco. History to fit into Indian History , other basis of stratifications like caste & 
political pouncer milled.  
 
Urban areas are witnessing large swathes of Middle – class, contrary to what Marxists Predicted. ( Use Dahrenderf’s 
5)  
 
Gail omvedt:  Not right to clarify India into 2 polar classes, Dalits are highly oppressed compared to others.  
 
Other Marxist approaches to study Indian Soc- 
 
Ranajeet Guha’s Subaltern Sociology – The history of india should be re-written from a mass persp than from the 
(current) govt’s perspective. Empirical evidence indicates that how subaltern groups have exhibited resistance in diff 
parts of the country at diff times. Eg tribal movmts, caste movmts, peasant etc. 
 
Anand Chakravarthy’s Hegemonistic Domination – It is against class domination. ( Under-class = a body of ppl who 
are subjected to various forms of deprivation). He says that politics, judiciary, police etc controlled by same class and 
for underclass to rise and get HRs and other economic and political rights it will need support from urban 
intelligentsia. 
 
Ashok Rudra, Pranab Bardhan – Follow Althuser’s thoety of ideological state apparatus (which does not track history 
of inequality but focuses on genesis of inequality). 
 
Pradeepto Sarkar – LPG era = neo-colonialism (for explaining poverty and marginalization in india) 
 
All in all, India from past to present is a dialectic of Poverty and Prosperity, Empowerment and Powerlessness. 
 
Some fodder material on AR Desai 
 
Worked under GSG. 
 
Major Book – The SBIN. 
 
A fresh view on “India” level problems. 
 
Fame – 15th All-Indian Socilogical conference. 27 points emphasizing non-exixtence of Marxist methodology in 
Indian sociology. 
 
7 Broad Contemporary Ideas 
 
1) Constitiution – Bourgeoisie, leadership capitalistic. Slogan of socialism is a hoax to confuse masses. 
 
2) State – Though preaching science, revivalist and popularizing old religious philosophies. (naming india Bharat ( To 
be quoted in Secularism - that state’s symbol still talk of religion), Dharma chakra as national symbols etc.) 
 
3) Culture – idealistic and religio-mystical philosophies re-inforced by ruling bourgeois to dominate. 
 
4) Development – book India’s path of Development, 1984. Weak Indian capitalist society can’t resolve eco, pol, 
socio, educational, cultural problems of India. 
 
5) Crisis – present society will deepen eco, pol, socio, cultural crises. 
 
6) Capitalism – Under capitalism not possible to liquidate mass poverty, unemployement, illetracy, ignorance, 
reactionary caste, feudal institutions. 
 
 
www.YouTube.com/SleepyClasses 
https://testseries.sleepyclasses.com/ 
Sleepy Classes 
7) Socialism – Only Socialism can end crisis. By changing consti – giving right to work, removing private property for 
transformation of Indian society. 
 
 
Interactional Theory – It a caste receives max food from max castes, is lowest in hierarchy ( Mekim 
Marxist from GSGS writing)  
DP Mukherjee – Marxian perspective on Indology (Marxology) (Dialects of Indian History)  
Wendy Doniger  - American Indologist , Book – The Hindus : An Alternative History 
Content Analysis – Apart from texts, official data, Histories, Mass Media also being analysed (eg. Analysis 
of Tv serials presents primacy of traditional roles, family.  Also, texts. Monuments, scripts desiphered, 
leading to never meanings 
Criticism :  
Field Studies highlighted weakness in studying texts as they do not reflect present day situations.