Pioneering Indian Sociologists

Introduction

The development of sociology in India was a complex process, shaped by its colonial past and its unique social structure. While the discipline was formally established in the early 20th century, it was initially dominated by Western frameworks and the perspectives of British colonial administrators. The true foundation of an indigenous Indian sociology was laid by a generation of pioneering scholars who, while trained in Western traditions, sought to understand and theorise Indian society on its own terms.

These pioneers grappled with fundamental questions about the nature of Indian society, the dynamics of tradition and modernity, and the path of social change in a post-colonial nation. They moved the discipline away from a purely text-based or 'Indological' approach and a colonial 'anthropological' approach towards an empirically grounded, historically informed, and critically engaged sociology. The four scholars discussed here—G.S. Ghurye, D.P. Mukerji, A.R. Desai, and M.N. Srinivas—represent different but equally vital streams of thought that have shaped the discipline in India. Their work set the agenda for sociological research for decades and continues to be relevant today.

G.S. Ghurye (1893-1983)

Govind Sadashiv Ghurye is widely regarded as the 'father of Indian sociology'. He founded the Department of Sociology at the University of Bombay in 1924 and trained a whole generation of Indian sociologists. Ghurye's work was encyclopedic in its range, covering an astonishing variety of topics, including caste, race, tribes, kinship, family, marriage, religion, and urbanisation.

Ghurye's approach was a unique blend of diffusionism and Indology. He was trained under the renowned anthropologist W.H.R. Rivers at Cambridge, from whom he absorbed the 'diffusionist' idea that culture spreads from one group to another. At the same time, he had a deep knowledge of classical Sanskrit texts. He used this textual knowledge to trace the historical evolution of Indian social institutions but insisted that this must be supplemented by empirical observation of how these institutions function in the present. He was a strong advocate for fieldwork, even though he is not known for any major single-village study himself.

Ghurye On Caste And Race

Ghurye's most famous and influential work was 'Caste and Race in India' (1932). In this book, he presented a comprehensive definition of the caste system and put forward a controversial theory about its origins.

Features of the Caste System

Ghurye identified six key features of the caste system:

1. Segmental Division of Society: Society is divided into a number of closed segments (castes), whose membership is determined by birth and is hereditary.
2. Hierarchy: These segments are arranged in a rigid hierarchy of rank, with the Brahmins at the top and the 'untouchable' castes at the bottom. This hierarchy is based on the principle of purity and pollution.
3. Restrictions on Feeding and Social Intercourse: There are strict rules governing the sharing of food and social interactions between members of different castes.
4. Civil and Religious Disabilities and Privileges of Different Sections: The system accords differential rights and disabilities to different castes. Higher castes enjoy privileges, while lower castes face numerous restrictions (e.g., on access to wells, temples, and education).
5. Lack of Unrestricted Choice of Occupation: Occupations are traditionally fixed and hereditary.
6. Restrictions on Marriage (Endogamy): There are strict rules requiring individuals to marry within their own caste or sub-caste.

The Racial Theory of Caste Origin

Ghurye's most significant contribution was his argument that the caste system in India originated from the encounter between different racial groups. He argued that the Indo-Aryans, who migrated to India, were a distinct racial group. To maintain their racial purity and establish their dominance over the indigenous population, they developed the rigid rules of endogamy and social hierarchy that became the basis of the caste system. He supported his theory with anthropometric evidence (measurements of physical features like the nasal index), suggesting that physical differences between castes were more pronounced in northern India, the heartland of Aryan settlement.

While this racial theory of caste is no longer widely accepted by sociologists and anthropologists, Ghurye's comprehensive definition of the caste system remains a foundational starting point for its study.

Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji (1894-1961)

D.P. Mukerji, popularly known as 'DP', was a prominent sociologist at Lucknow University. He was a Marxist in his orientation but was also deeply rooted in Indian culture and tradition. Unlike many Marxists who dismissed tradition as an obstacle to progress, DP believed that a sociologist studying India must first understand its unique social traditions. He was a polymath with wide-ranging interests in economics, history, music, and literature.

Mukerji argued against the uncritical imitation of Western models of modernity. He believed that the Indian path to modernity had to be different, emerging from an engagement with its own living traditions. His major contribution was his emphasis on the need for a sociology that was grounded in Indian history and thought.

D.P. Mukerji On Tradition And Change

For DP, the central concept for understanding Indian society was 'tradition'. He argued that Indian traditions were not static but were constantly adapting and changing through a dialectical process.

What is Tradition?

Tradition, for DP, was not just about the past. It is a living and dynamic process that connects the past with the present and the future. It gives meaning and shape to people's lives. The primary duty of an Indian sociologist, he argued, was to study these Indian social traditions first, before trying to apply Western theories.

The Dialectic of Tradition and Modernity

Mukerji believed that social change in India has historically occurred through a process of internal and external conflict and synthesis. He identified three key principles of change in Indian tradition: Shruti, Smriti, and Anubhava.

• Shruti (that which is heard) and Smriti (that which is remembered) represent the established, classical principles of tradition.
- Anubhava (personal or collective experience) represents the challenge to these established principles that comes from lived experience.

He argued that Indian culture has always changed through the conflict between these established principles and the challenges posed by dissenting groups and experiences (like Buddhism or the Bhakti movement). The result was not a complete rejection of tradition but a synthesis that enriched and modified it.

He saw the encounter with the West as another such challenge. He was critical of the Indian middle class for uncritically adopting Western individualism and breaking away from their own traditions. He argued that India's path to modernity must be a synthesis of its own traditions with the forces of Western modernity. The goal was not to become a 'second-rate copy' of the West, but to build a modern India that was still rooted in its own cultural identity. Thus, for DP, change was not about discarding tradition, but about a creative and critical engagement with it.

A.R. Desai (1915-1994)

Akshay Ramanlal Desai was another influential sociologist from the University of Bombay. Unlike the other pioneers discussed here, Desai was an avowed and consistent Marxist. He applied the framework of historical materialism to analyse Indian society and history. His work is characterized by its critical stance towards the Indian state and its policies, and its unwavering focus on economic structures and class conflict.

Desai's most famous work is 'Social Background of Indian Nationalism' (1948). In this book, he provided a detailed Marxist analysis of the rise of Indian nationalism, arguing that it was a product of the material conditions created by British colonialism. He traced how British policies led to the development of new economic classes (like the modern bourgeoisie and proletariat), which in turn became the social base for the nationalist movement.

A.R. Desai On The State

Desai's most distinctive contribution was his critical Marxist analysis of the modern Indian state. In the post-independence era, the dominant view, influenced by Nehruvian socialism, was that the Indian state was a neutral arbiter and a benevolent agent of development, working for the welfare of all its citizens.

Desai rigorously challenged this view. From a Marxist perspective, the state in a capitalist society can never be neutral; it is an instrument of the ruling class. Desai argued that the post-colonial Indian state, despite its socialist rhetoric, was fundamentally a capitalist state.

The Myth of the Welfare State

In his edited volume, 'State and Society in India', Desai argued that the claims of the Indian state to be a 'welfare state' were largely a myth. He laid down several criteria for a state to be genuinely considered a welfare state, including freedom from poverty, equality of opportunity, and the right to work. He then used government data and statistics to demonstrate that the Indian state had failed to meet these criteria.

• He showed that despite years of planning, poverty and inequality had not decreased, and in some cases, had worsened.
• He argued that the state's policies, including land reforms and industrial development, had primarily benefited the dominant classes—the industrial bourgeoisie and the rural landowners.
• He pointed to the state's increasing use of repressive measures (like preventive detention laws) against working-class movements and peasant struggles as evidence of its true class character.

Desai concluded that the Indian state's welfare agenda was more of a public relations exercise to secure the legitimacy of the capitalist system. Its real function was to protect the interests of the propertied classes and manage the contradictions of capitalist development. His work provided a powerful and enduring critique of the nature of development and democracy in modern India.

M.N. Srinivas (1916-1999)

Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas is one of the most celebrated and internationally renowned Indian sociologists. He was a student of G.S. Ghurye in Bombay and later studied at Oxford, where he was influenced by the British school of social anthropology and its emphasis on intensive fieldwork. Srinivas's work revolutionized the study of Indian society by shifting the focus from a text-based, 'Indological' perspective to a fieldwork-based, empirical understanding of social life as it is lived on the ground.

Srinivas's major contribution was his pioneering work in village studies. He believed that the Indian village was a microcosm of Indian society and that a detailed, ethnographic study of a single village could yield insights into the functioning of broader social institutions like caste, kinship, and religion. His own detailed study of the village of Rampura in Mysore (which he called 'The Remembered Village') became a classic of the genre.

M.N. Srinivas On The Village

Srinivas's view of the Indian village was a direct challenge to the prevailing colonial and nationalist narratives.

• The British administrators often saw the Indian village as a static, self-sufficient, and unchanging 'little republic'.
• Nationalist leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi, often romanticized the village as a harmonious community that embodied the true spirit of India.

Through his meticulous fieldwork, Srinivas presented a much more complex and realistic picture. He showed that the village was not a self-sufficient unit but was always linked to the wider economic, political, and social networks. He also demonstrated that the village was far from harmonious; it was a site of significant inequality and conflict, deeply stratified by caste.

The Dynamic Village

Srinivas's most important contribution was to show that the village was not static but was a dynamic and changing entity. His concepts of Sanskritization and Dominant Caste (discussed in the previous chapter) were developed to capture these processes of change and conflict within the village. He showed how caste relations were constantly being negotiated and how power structures were shifting. He argued that the study of these micro-level processes in the village was essential for understanding the macro-level changes happening in Indian society as a whole.

His emphasis on empirical fieldwork set a new standard for sociological research in India. He argued that the "book view" of Indian society (derived from ancient texts) must be tested against the "field view" (derived from the observation of actual social life). This methodological shift had a profound and lasting impact on the discipline, moving it towards a more grounded and nuanced understanding of Indian society.

Conclusion

The pioneering Indian sociologists—Ghurye, Mukerji, Desai, and Srinivas—laid the intellectual foundations for the study of society in India. Though they had different theoretical orientations and methodological preferences, they shared a common goal: to develop a sociology that was relevant to the unique historical and social context of India.

• G.S. Ghurye provided a broad, encyclopedic map of Indian social institutions, combining textual knowledge with a call for empirical study.
• D.P. Mukerji offered a philosophical and dialectical perspective, emphasizing the need to understand change through a critical engagement with Indian tradition.
• A.R. Desai brought a sharp, critical Marxist lens, forcing sociologists to confront the realities of class power and the capitalist nature of the Indian state.
• M.N. Srinivas revolutionized the discipline's methodology, grounding it in intensive fieldwork and providing powerful concepts to understand the dynamic nature of caste and village life.

Together, their work represents a rich and diverse intellectual heritage. They established the key debates and areas of inquiry—caste, village, tradition, nationalism, and the state—that continue to shape the field of Indian sociology today. They successfully steered the discipline away from its colonial origins and set it on a path towards becoming a self-aware and critical science of Indian society.