Chapter 5 Indian Sociologists

Introduction

Sociology is a relatively young academic discipline, emerging in Europe about a century before the period discussed in this chapter (mid-20th century). In India, formal university teaching of sociology began in 1919 at Bombay University, with Calcutta and Lucknow Universities following suit in the 1920s.

Today, sociology, social anthropology, or anthropology departments are common in Indian universities, but the establishment of the discipline in India was not a straightforward process.

In the early 20th century, pioneers had to define what an 'Indian sociology' would entail and its relevance for the country.

This chapter introduces some of the foundational figures of Indian sociology who were instrumental in adapting the discipline to India's unique historical and social context.

The Indian context presented specific challenges and questions for sociology:

• Western sociology developed to understand modernity. India was also experiencing modernity, but under colonial rule, intertwining modernity with colonial subjugation. What was sociology's role in this colonial modern context?
• Western social anthropology studied 'primitive cultures'. India had both ancient, advanced civilisations and groups considered 'primitive'. What role could anthropology play here?
• After independence, India embarked on planned development and democracy. What practical contribution could sociology make in this new, sovereign nation?

Early Indian sociologists often entered the field incidentally, without formal training, shaping the discipline through their practical experience. Examples include L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy, who became pioneers through ethnographic surveys and studies driven by administrative or professional needs under British rule.

These early scholars, though self-taught in anthropology, gained significant national and international recognition for their detailed fieldwork and publications, establishing some of the first anthropological departments and journals in India.

The four main Indian sociologists discussed in this chapter — G.S. Ghurye, D.P. Mukerji, A.R. Desai, and M.N. Srinivas — came a generation later, starting their careers in the colonial era but continuing into independent India. They played a crucial role in institutionalising sociology and began to articulate what a specifically 'Indian' sociology should be, building upon but also adapting Western sociological traditions.

G.S. Ghurye

Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1893-1983) is considered the founder of institutionalised sociology in India.

He established and headed the first post-graduate sociology department at Bombay University for 35 years, mentoring many future prominent sociologists.

He founded the Indian Sociological Society and its journal, *Sociological Bulletin*.

Ghurye was a prolific writer on a wide range of subjects, including caste, race, tribes, kinship, family, marriage, culture, urban life, religion, conflict, and integration.

Influences on his work included diffusionism, Orientalist scholarship on Hinduism, nationalism, and Hindu cultural identity.

A major theme for Ghurye was the study of 'tribal' or 'aboriginal' cultures in India, particularly his debate with Verrier Elwin regarding the integration of tribes into mainstream Indian society.

British administrator-anthropologists like Elwin viewed Indian tribes as distinct primitive groups whose unique cultures needed protection from perceived harmful contact with mainstream Hinduism. They advocated for state protection and preserving tribal ways of life.

Ghurye represented the nationalist viewpoint, arguing that Indian tribes were not isolated but had long interacted with Hinduism and were simply less advanced in a common process of assimilation undergone by all Indian communities. He labelled them 'backward Hindus' and believed attempts to isolate them were misguided, contributing to their backwardness. He saw the problems faced by tribes as similar to those of other disadvantaged groups, representing difficulties in the path towards development.

Ghurye On Caste And Race

Ghurye's reputation was significantly built on his doctoral work published as *Caste and Race in India* (1932).

He critically examined the dominant racial theory of caste, notably proposed by Herbert Risley.

Risley argued that castes originated in race, with higher castes approximating Indo-Aryan racial traits and lower castes being non-Aryan aboriginal or other racial groups, based on anthropometric measurements (skull circumference, nose length).

Risley saw India as a 'laboratory' due to caste endogamy preserving racial purity, suggesting lower castes were the original inhabitants subjugated by invading Aryans.

Ghurye partially agreed with Risley's findings about northern India but pointed out that in most other parts of India, anthropometric differences between caste groups were not large or systematic, indicating long-standing racial mixing. He argued that endogamy preserved racial variety within castes rather than racial purity, except in the Indo-Gangetic plain. While the racial theory is now outdated, Ghurye's engagement with it was significant at the time.

Ghurye also provided a comprehensive definition of caste based on classical textual prescriptions, highlighting six key features:

1. Segmental Division: Caste divides society into closed, mutually exclusive compartments based on birth; membership is hereditary and unchangeable.
2. Hierarchical Division: Castes are strictly unequal, ranked higher or lower than each other in a hierarchy.
3. Restrictions on Social Interaction: Elaborate rules govern social interaction, particularly sharing of food, based on ideas of purity and pollution. This is most visible in untouchability, where physical contact is restricted.
4. Differential Rights and Duties: Castes have unequal rights and obligations in both religious and secular life, governing interactions between members of different castes.
5. Restriction on Occupation: Occupation is traditionally decided by birth and is hereditary, making caste a rigid system of division of labour.
6. Restrictions on Marriage: Strict rules of caste endogamy (marrying only within one's caste) combined with rules of exogamy (whom one cannot marry within the caste) help maintain the caste system by regulating marriage relations.

Ghurye's definition systematised the study of caste based on prescribed norms. While these features have undergone changes in practice in independent India, they continue to exist in some form. Subsequent ethnographic fieldwork provided detailed accounts of these changes.

Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji

Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji (1894-1961), or D.P. as he was known, was a prominent figure in Indian sociology and public intellectual life.

He was part of the 'trinity' at the Lucknow University's Department of Economics and Sociology, starting his career there in 1924.

D.P. had a wide range of intellectual interests, including history, economics, literature, music, film, philosophy, Marxism, and development planning. He was significantly influenced by Marxism, viewing it as a valuable method for social analysis.

He was known for his engaging teaching style and media presence, contributing to the popularity of sociology.

D.P. Mukerji On Tradition And Change

D.P.'s approach to sociology was rooted in his strong belief that to understand India, one must study its social system and traditions. He felt that India's distinctive feature was its "over-developed" social dimension, where history, economics, and philosophy were centered in social groups rather than individuals.

He argued that the first duty of an Indian sociologist was to understand the social traditions of India, not just academically, but by sharing in the customs and folkways of the culture. This involved familiarity with both 'high' languages (Sanskrit, Persian) and 'low' local dialects.

For D.P., tradition was a 'living tradition' — rooted in the past but constantly adapting and evolving through interaction with the present. It is transmitted through repeated recalling of stories and myths (parampara, aitihya).

He argued that Indian culture is not individualistic in the Western sense; individual desires and actions are largely shaped by socio-cultural group patterns.

D.P. believed internal and external sources of change exist in every society. While economic factors are key in Western change (Marx), they were less effective in India where class conflict was historically muted or 'covered' by caste traditions.

He suggested that a key task for Indian sociology was to identify internal, non-economic drivers of change.

D.P. identified three principles of change in Indian traditions: *shruti* (sacred texts), *smriti* (commentaries/interpretations), and *anubhava* (personal experience).

He saw *anubhava* as the revolutionary principle, particularly when it develops into collective experience of groups and sects, leading to movements like the Bhakti movement or Sufism in Indian Islam. These collective experiences challenge dominant traditions but are eventually reabsorbed, transforming tradition without breaking it.

This process of change, where rebellion is contained within the overarching tradition, was seen by D.P. as characteristic of a caste society where class consciousness was less developed.

D.P. was critical of blindly adopting Western ideas (including development planning), advocating for a critical engagement with both Indian tradition and Western modernity.

Activity 2 encourages exploring the concept of a 'living tradition' by comparing specific practices across generations in one's own context.

A.R. Desai

Akshay Ramanlal Desai (1915-1994) was a notable Indian sociologist and a life-long Marxist, also involved in politics.

He studied sociology under G.S. Ghurye at Bombay University.

His doctoral dissertation, *The Social Background of Indian Nationalism* (1948), is a significant work offering a Marxist analysis of Indian nationalism, focusing on economic processes and colonial conditions.

Desai also wrote on themes including peasant movements, rural sociology, modernisation, urban issues, political sociology, forms of the state, and human rights. He remained a somewhat distinct figure within Indian sociology due to his strong Marxist perspective.

A.R. Desai On The State

The modern capitalist state, particularly the concept of the welfare state, was a key focus for Desai, approached from a Marxist viewpoint.

In his essay "The myth of the welfare state," Desai critically examines the claims made on behalf of welfare states, identifying its supposedly unique features:

1. Positive State: An interventionist state actively using power to implement social policies for societal betterment, unlike the minimal state of classical liberal theory.
2. Democratic State: Essential condition, characterised by formal democratic institutions like multi-party elections.
3. Mixed Economy: Coexistence of private capitalist enterprises and state/publicly owned enterprises.

Desai then proposed criteria to evaluate the performance of states claiming to be welfare states:

• Does it ensure freedom from poverty, discrimination, and provide security for all citizens?
• Does it reduce income inequality and prevent wealth concentration?
• Does it make capitalist profit motives subservient to community needs?
• Does it ensure stable development without economic cycles?
• Does it provide employment for all?

Using these criteria, Desai argued that states typically called welfare states (like in Western Europe) fail to fully achieve these goals. They don't eliminate poverty or inequality, and development remains unstable with unemployment. Therefore, he concluded that the notion of the welfare state is largely a myth, as these states ultimately serve capitalist interests.

Desai also critiqued Marxist theories of the state, emphasising the importance of democracy, political liberties, and the rule of law even in socialist states, arguing against the shortcomings observed in Communist states.

Activity 3 suggests discussing Desai's critique of the welfare state in contrast to free-market viewpoints and exploring the role of the state in one's own life and neighbourhood, considering differing opinions across social classes.

M.N. Srinivas

Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas (1916-1999) is one of the most well-known Indian sociologists of the post-independence era.

He trained under G.S. Ghurye at Bombay and later at Oxford, where he was deeply influenced by British social anthropology's structural-functional perspective.

His doctoral work, *Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India*, established his international reputation for its ethnographic application of this perspective.

Srinivas returned to India and played a key role in setting up prominent sociology departments at Maharaja Sayajirao University in Baroda and the Delhi School of Economics, which became leading centers for the discipline.

He was instrumental in training a new generation of Indian sociologists.

M.N. Srinivas On The Village

The Indian village and village society were a lifelong research focus for Srinivas. While he had conducted surveys earlier, his fieldwork experience in a village near Mysore (Rampura) was particularly influential, shaping his career path.

Srinivas encouraged and coordinated significant village studies in the 1950s and 1960s, making it a dominant field in Indian sociology. These studies provided detailed ethnographic accounts of rural life.

Srinivas engaged in debates about the village as a unit of sociological analysis. Against scholars like Louis Dumont, who argued that institutions like caste were more important than the village as a concept, Srinivas maintained that the village was a relevant social entity with historical unity and significant in rural social life.

He also challenged the colonial view of the Indian village as unchanging and self-sufficient "little republics," using historical and sociological evidence to show that villages had undergone considerable change and were interconnected with regional economic, social, and political systems.

Village studies offered significant advantages to Indian sociology:

• Illustrated the importance of ethnographic research methods.
• Provided firsthand accounts of rapid social change in the countryside due to planned development in independent India.
• Made sociology relevant to policy-makers and urban Indians interested in rural life.
• Helped redefine sociology's role beyond studying 'primitive' peoples to being relevant for a modernising nation.

Activity 4 suggests defining a 'village' based on one's own understanding and comparing definitions, while Activity 5 explores urban interest in villages today compared to the 1950s, considering media portrayal, family contacts, and reasons for wanting to live in villages or cities.

Conclusion

The four Indian sociologists — G.S. Ghurye, D.P. Mukerji, A.R. Desai, and M.N. Srinivas — played a crucial role in giving Indian sociology its distinct character during the post-independence era.

They represent diverse approaches to 'Indianising' the discipline:

• Ghurye: Engaged with Western anthropological questions but integrated his knowledge of Indian texts and educated Indian perspectives, particularly on caste and tribes.
• D.P. Mukerji: A Westernised intellectual who emphasised the importance of studying and engaging with living Indian traditions while critically appreciating modernity.
• A.R. Desai: Offered a strong Marxist critique of Indian nationalism and the state, advocating for socialist principles.
• M.N. Srinivas: Adapted his Western training in social anthropology to the Indian context, pioneering village studies and setting a new research agenda for sociology in independent India.

The strength of sociology as a discipline lies in succeeding generations learning from, constructively criticising, and building upon the work of their predecessors. This process of learning and critique is ongoing in Indian sociology, visible in contemporary studies.