Indian Sociologists Class 11 Sociology

Introduction

Indian sociology emerged as a unique field of study due to the dissimilarities between Indian society and the social structure of Western European societies. In 1919, the University of Bombay became the first college to offer Indian sociology as a discipline at the undergraduate level, and subsequently, universities in Lucknow and Calcutta began teaching and researching anthropology and sociology in the 1920s. Today, most large institutions have departments dedicated to anthropology, social anthropology, or both, with many of them representing more than one of these fields. However, the subject matter of Indian sociology was not initially apparent.

In the Indian context, the necessity for the discipline posed a number of issues: 

• While western sociology emerged as an attempt to understand modernity, the waves of modernity experienced by Indian culture were closely linked to colonial subjugation, resulting in a fundamentally distinct understanding of modernity compared to western societies.
• Social anthropology in the west originated from a curiosity about primitive tribes, but in India, an ancient and sophisticated civilization coexisted with primitive societies. Therefore, comprehending the functioning of the Indian social system necessitated multiple theoretical perspectives.

The specificity of the discipline of sociology in indain context raised many questions

• The role of western sociology in a country like India, which was undergoing the changes brought on by modernity, but as a colony, was intimately tied to colonial oppression. Therefore, the question arises as to how relevant western sociology would be in such a context.
• Unlike the west, where social anthropology developed out of an interest in primitive civilizations, India had both "primitive" and ancient and sophisticated societies. As India moved towards planned development and democracy, the practical role of sociology in this sovereign and independent nation was questioned.

The pioneers of Indian sociology faced the challenge of formulating new questions and providing their own answers to issues such as these. These questions were not readily available and only took shape through the practical application of sociology in an Indian setting.

Pioneers of Indian sociology

L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy were true pioneers of Indian sociology as they began practicing a field of study that was non-existent in India during the early 1900s. Even though their contributions were recognized and appreciated by distinguished anthropologists worldwide, there were no institutions to support this discipline.

L.K. Ananthkrishna Iyer

L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer (1861–1937) was an early pioneer of social anthropology in India. He began his career as a clerk, but later worked as a schoolteacher and college professor in Cochin state, which is now part of Kerala. Ananthakrishna Iyer is believed to be the first self-taught anthropologist to receive scholarly and academic recognition both nationally and internationally. He was even awarded an honorary doctorate by a German university during his lecture tour of European universities.

Mr. Sarat Chandra Roy

• As one of the founders of the field, he was an accidental anthropologist.
• Due to his professional obligation to explain tribal customs and laws to the court, Roy developed a profound interest in the tribal culture. He conducted extensive fieldwork and visited many indigenous tribes.
• For 35 years, he headed the first post-graduate sociology teaching department at Bombay University in India.
• His fieldwork-based research papers and monographs earned him recognition among anthropologists in India and Britain.
• After leaving his job as a schoolteacher, Roy pursued a career in law and became interested in anthropology. He was eventually appointed as the court's official translator.

G. S. Ghurye

• Ghurye wrote about various topics, including caste, race, tribes, kinship, families, and marriage, as well as culture, civilization, religion, and the sociology of conflict and integration. He was influenced by Diffusionism, Orientalist study on Hinduism, nationalism, and the cultural aspects of Hindu identity.
• As a nationalist, Ghurye advocated for the term "backward Hindus" to be used instead of referring to Indian tribes as distinct cultural groups. This viewpoint was well-known and supported by him.

G. S. Ghurye on caste system

Ghurye emphasised six key characteristics to help understand how caste systems function:

• The system of caste is based on dividing society into segments.
• The foundation of caste civilization is a hierarchical system.
• The institution of caste inevitably imposes limitations on social connections.
• Moreover, certain castes are assigned distinct rights and obligations in the caste system.
• Caste restricts one's career options significantly.
• The caste system imposes significant limitations on marriage opportunities.

Herbert Risley, a British colonial officer with a keen interest in anthropology, was the leading proponent of the prevailing viewpoint. This theory holds that physical characteristics such as cranial size, nose length, or the volume of the skull area that houses the brain can be used to classify humans into distinct races.

India, with its rigid caste system that forbids intermarriage between tribes, was seen as a unique "laboratory" for studying the evolution of racial types by Risley and others. According to their findings, the lower castes were largely composed of non-Aryan aboriginal, Mongoloid, or other racial groups, while the higher castes possessed Indo-Aryan racial characteristics.

Risley argued that the lowest castes were the original inhabitants of India, ruled by an Aryan race that had migrated to India and established a presence there. Ghurye agreed with Risley's primary assertion, but he believed it was only partially accurate. Ghurye cautioned against relying solely on averages and failing to account for variations in measurement distribution within a community.

Ghurye also asserted that Risley's thesis was only true for northern India, where the upper castes were largely Aryan and the lower castes non-Aryan. However, in other regions of India, inter-group variations in anthropometric measurements were less significant and less organized.

D. P. Mukherjee

• D.P.'s work emphasizes the crucial role of social systems in society.
• According to D.P., a thorough understanding of Indian society requires familiarity with its social customs.
• To comprehend a society's social structure, one must first understand its traditions. The study of traditions is a living tradition that considers both the past and the sensitivity to change.
• D.P. contends that Indian culture and society differ significantly from those of Western societies.
• In Indian society, an individual's behavior is primarily determined by his socio-cultural group pattern, making it impossible to describe Indian culture as individualistic in the way that Western societies understand it. The social structure of India is founded on groups, sects, castes, etc.
• Traditions are passed down from the same ancestral sources to subsequent generations. Traditions have deep historical roots and are preserved through recollections and stories that are retold over time. While tradition is rooted in the past, it does not necessarily preclude change. It simply reflects that every community undergoes a process of adapting to change brought about by both internal and external factors.
• Economic changes drive internal change in Western societies. However, most of India's sources of change come from non-economic factors such as values and practices.

A.R. Desai

• "The Myth of the Welfare State" essay by Desai offers a detailed critique of this idea and exposes its numerous shortcomings.
• A R Desai, one of the few Indian sociologists to have held official party memberships, was also actively involved in politics.
• Throughout his life, Desai remained a staunch Marxist and was affiliated with several non-mainstream Marxist political organizations.
• Desai's noteworthy contributions include his analysis of the social context of Indian nationalism and his research on various topics such as peasant movements, rural sociology, modernization, urban challenges, political sociology, forms of the state, and human rights.
• In his Marxist interpretation of Indian nationalism, Desai emphasized the economic divisions and the impact of British colonialism on the country.
• According to Desai, India's nationalism was a result of the material conditions created by British colonialism.
• The British brought about industrialization and modernization, which resulted in new economic relationships.
• Desai argues that when customs and economic relationships are intertwined, changes in the latter are inevitable due to changes in the former.
• He believed that caste would eventually vanish as new social and material circumstances, such as the growth of industries, economic expansion, and education, emerge.

Desai on welfare state

A R Desai was deeply interested in the contemporary capitalist state as one of his main areas of focus. Through a Marxist perspective, he provided a comprehensive critique of the concept of the welfare state, emphasizing its numerous flaws.

Characteristics of a welfare state:

• Welfare states are categorized as positive states, indicating that their aim is not limited to maintaining peace and order, which is in contrast to traditional liberal political theory's "laissez faire" approach.
• The welfare state is a democratic state, and the growth of the welfare state was thought to be contingent on the presence of democracy.
• A mixed economy refers to an economic system in which publicly owned or state-owned companies coexist with privately owned capitalist enterprises and is accompanied by the development of a welfare state. The aim of a welfare state is not to eliminate the free market or prohibit public investment in various industries.

Desai's suggested test metrics for evaluating the effectiveness of the welfare state:

• Can the welfare state ensure that everyone is free from poverty and social discrimination, and that their security is guaranteed?
• Can the welfare state eliminate income inequality?
• Can the welfare state transform the economy to utilize capitalist profits for the betterment of meeting the community's real needs?
• Does the welfare state promote stable development that is immune to economic booms and depressions?
• Does it provide employment opportunities for all individuals?

The welfare state idea is a myth:

• By using established criteria for welfare states, Desai examines the performance of countries commonly identified as welfare states, such as the USA, Britain, and much of Europe, and finds that these claims are greatly exaggerated.
• As a result, even the most advanced capitalist systems in modern times fail to provide minimum levels of economic and social security to all of their citizens.
• They are also unable to reduce economic disparities and often appear to exacerbate them.
• Additionally, these so-called welfare governments have been unsuccessful in promoting stable growth that is free from market fluctuations.
• Another shortcoming is the presence of excess economic capacity and high unemployment rates.
• Based on these findings, Desai concludes that the idea of a welfare state is somewhat of a myth.

M N Srinivas

• M N Srinivas, a renowned sociologist of the post-independence era, was greatly influenced by his association with British social anthropology.
• He played a pivotal role in making village studies the primary field of study in Indian sociology and in establishing Indian sociology on the world map.
• Srinivas also focused on caste, modernization, and the process of social transition.
• Srinivas based his village studies on two main categories of publications: (i) ethnographic accounts of fieldwork conducted in villages, and (ii) historical and conceptual discussions about Indian villages as a unit of social analysis.
• Srinivas regarded the village as a crucial social unit.
• Srinivas criticized British anthropologists who had propagated the idea that Indian villages were unchanging, self-contained, and akin to "small republics."
• Srinivas demonstrated that there had been significant changes in the village through historical and social facts.
• He emphasized the utility of the village. However, some sociologists, including Louis Dumont, opposed village studies, arguing that social institutions such as caste were more significant than something like a village because people may move from one village to another and that villages may live or die, but their social institutions, such as caste or religion, remain with them wherever they go.

Advantages of village studies as a site of research

• Ethnographic research techniques are given an opportunity to be highlighted.
• Firsthand reports are available on the rapid social change taking place in the Indian countryside during the planned development program of the newly independent country.
• The detailed descriptions of rural India were highly appreciated at the time, as they provided urban Indians and policymakers with an understanding of the situation in the countryside.
• Consequently, village studies presented sociology with a fresh application within the context of an independent nation.