Chapter 5 Indian Sociologists

Introduction

Sociology is a relatively young discipline, especially in India, where formal university teaching began only in 1919. This chapter introduces some of the founding figures of Indian sociology who shaped the discipline in the specific historical and social context of India. These pioneers had to define the role and scope of sociology in India, addressing its relevance in a colonial context and later in an independent nation focused on planned development and democracy.

---

Origins Of Sociology In India

Formal university teaching of sociology started in India in 1919 at the University of Bombay, followed by Calcutta and Lucknow in the 1920s. Interest in sociological thinking existed earlier, but institutionalisation began in the early 20th century.

---

Challenges And Early Pioneers

Early Indian sociologists faced questions about the relevance of a Western-originated discipline in India's unique context (colonial modernity, ancient civilization, presence of 'primitive' societies). Pioneers like L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy became anthropologists/sociologists somewhat incidentally through their professional work (clerk/teacher/official assisting ethnographic surveys, lawyer interpreting tribal customs), demonstrating early 'doing' of sociology in India even without formal institutions.

Ananthakrishna Iyer was a self-taught anthropologist gaining national/international recognition, instrumental in setting up the first anthropology department in India (Calcutta University). Sarat Chandra Roy, a lawyer, became a leading authority on tribal cultures in Chhotanagpur through extensive fieldwork and founded the journal 'Man in India'. Both worked during the British rule, laying groundwork for the discipline before its formal institutionalisation.

G.S. Ghurye (1893-1983)

G.S. Ghurye is considered the founder of institutionalised sociology in India. He headed the first post-graduate sociology department at Bombay University for 35 years, mentoring many future prominent sociologists. He also founded the Indian Sociological Society and its journal Sociological Bulletin. Ghurye's work was prolific and covered a wide range of subjects.

---

The Founder Of Institutionalised Sociology

Ghurye's department in Bombay successfully combined teaching and research and integrated social anthropology and sociology, setting precedents for the discipline in India. He provided institutional support and nurtured sociology as an increasingly Indian discipline.

(A portrait image of G.S. Ghurye.)

---

Tribal Or Aboriginal Cultures Debate

A major theme in Ghurye's work was tribal cultures and their place in India. He engaged in a prominent debate with Verrier Elwin, a British administrator-anthropologist. Elwin and others advocated for protecting tribal societies as distinct 'primitive' groups from assimilation by mainstream Hindu culture, believing they would suffer exploitation. Ghurye, representing a nationalist view, characterised tribes as 'backward Hindus', arguing they were part of the same assimilation process as other Indian communities and that their backwardness was part of the general problems faced by downtrodden sections of Indian society, not unique to tribal cultures.

---

Ghurye On Caste And Race

Ghurye's reputation was significantly based on his doctoral work published as 'Caste and Race in India'. He critiqued the dominant theory of the time, which linked caste to race, particularly the view (by colonial official Herbert Risley) that higher castes were Aryan invaders and lower castes were subjugated original inhabitants, based on anthropometric measurements (skull circumference, nose length).

---

Definition Of Caste

Ghurye offered a comprehensive definition of caste based on six features:

1. Segmental division: Caste is divided into mutually exclusive compartments, membership is fixed by birth and unchangeable.
2. Hierarchical division: Each caste is strictly unequal to others in a hierarchy.
3. Restrictions on social interaction: Especially sharing food, governed by ideas of purity and pollution. Includes untouchability.
4. Differential rights and duties: Based on caste, applying to both religious and secular life.
5. Restriction on occupation: Occupation is hereditary and fixed by caste, functioning as a rigid division of labour.
6. Restrictions on marriage: Strict endogamy (marrying only within caste), often combined with exogamy rules (whom not to marry), reproducing the system.

Ghurye's definition provided a systematic framework for studying caste, influenced by classical texts. While some features have changed, ethnographic fieldwork provided valuable accounts of caste in post-independence India.

Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji (1894-1961)

D.P. Mukerji (D.P.), one of the famous 'trinity' at Lucknow University, was a widely respected intellectual figure beyond sociology. He came to sociology from history and economics, with broad interests in literature, music, philosophy, and political economy. Strongly influenced by Marxism as a method of analysis, he was known for his teaching and public intellectual contributions.

---

From History And Economics To Sociology

D.P.'s shift to sociology was driven by his conviction that the central and distinctive feature of India was its social system, which profoundly influenced its history, economics, and philosophy. He felt sociology was crucial for understanding this context.

(A portrait image of Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji.)

---

Tradition And Change

D.P. insisted that Indian sociologists must be rooted in the social traditions of India. He viewed tradition not as static but as a 'living tradition' – maintaining links with the past while adapting to the present and evolving. Studying tradition was essential for understanding the Indian social system. Sociologists needed familiarity with both 'high' (classical) and 'low' (local dialects) languages and cultures.

---

Specificities Of Indian Culture And Society

D.P. argued that Indian culture and society are not individualistic in the Western sense; they are oriented towards group, sect, or caste action. He saw individualism influencing the urban middle classes as a subject for study, not the defining feature of Indian society. Tradition, meaning 'to transmit' (parampara, aitihya), is rooted in the past but allows adaptation.

---

Principles Of Change In Indian Traditions

D.P. identified three principles of change in Indian traditions: shruti (sacred texts), smriti (tradition), and anubhava (personal experience). Anubhava was the revolutionary principle. In India, personal experience often flowered into collective experience (generalised anubhava), which was the most important principle of change (e.g., Bhakti movement challenging orthodoxy). Experience and love (anubhava and prem), not just discursive reason, were historically significant agents of change.

---

Conflict And Rebellion In Indian Context

Conflict and rebellion in India work through collective experiences. Tradition is resilient; pressure from conflict produces change within tradition without breaking it. This process of contained rebellion is typical of caste society, where class formation has been inhibited. D.P. criticised blind adoption of Western intellectual traditions (including in development planning), advocating for a critical approach to both tradition and modernity, being a proud but critical inheritor of tradition and an admiring critic of modernity.

A.R. Desai (1915-1994)

A.R. Desai was a prominent Indian sociologist and Marxist, directly involved in politics. He is best known for his Marxist analysis of Indian nationalism and his critique of the welfare state.

---

Marxist Perspective

Desai remained a life-long Marxist, using Marxist analysis as a method to understand Indian society, politics, and economics. His work often focused on economic processes and divisions, particularly within the context of British colonialism and post-independence India.

(A portrait image of A.R. Desai.)

---

The Social Background Of Indian Nationalism

This book is Desai's best-known work, providing a Marxist analysis of Indian nationalism, highlighting the role of economic factors and class divisions while considering the specific conditions of colonialism. It was influential despite facing criticism.

---

The Myth Of The Welfare State

Desai critically examined the concept of the modern capitalist state, particularly the notion of the 'welfare state'. He identified unique features of the welfare state (positive/interventionist, democratic, mixed economy). Using test criteria (freedom from poverty/discrimination, income equality, profit subservient to community needs, stable development, full employment), he argued that states commonly described as welfare states (Western capitalist nations) fail to meet these criteria. Their claims are exaggerated; they do not ensure security, reduce inequality, or achieve stable development/full employment. Thus, he concluded the welfare state notion is a myth.

---

Marxist Theory Of The State

Desai also wrote on the Marxist theory of the state, critically analysing shortcomings of Communist states as well. He emphasised the importance of political liberties and the rule of law in truly socialist states, not taking a one-sided view but advocating for democratic principles even within a socialist framework.

M.N. Srinivas (1916-1999)

M.N. Srinivas is one of the most prominent Indian sociologists of the post-independence era, trained in both Indian and Western sociological traditions. His work significantly shaped the discipline in India, particularly his focus on caste and village studies.

---

Post-Independence Era Sociologist

Srinivas, trained in Bombay under Ghurye and later at Oxford in British social anthropology, was influenced by the structural-functional perspective. His doctoral work on the Coorgs established his international reputation. He was instrumental in setting up sociology departments in Baroda and Delhi, which became leading centres for the discipline.

(A portrait image of M.N. Srinivas.)

---

Srinivas On The Village

The Indian village was a central and lifelong interest for Srinivas. His extensive fieldwork in a village near Mysore (Rampura, documented in 'The Remembered Village') profoundly influenced his career and research. He encouraged and coordinated village studies, making it a dominant field in Indian sociology in the 1950s and 1960s.

---

Village Studies Debate

Srinivas contributed to a debate on the usefulness of the village as a sociological concept. Against scholars like Louis Dumont, who argued that institutions like caste were more important than villages (which were just collections of people), Srinivas maintained that the village was a relevant social entity. He used historical and sociological evidence to show that villages had served as unifying identities and were not self-sufficient, static 'little republics' (challenging British colonial administrators' views) but were involved in regional social, economic, and political relationships and had experienced considerable change.

---

Significance Of Village Studies

Village studies had several advantages for Indian sociology: they provided opportunities for ethnographic research, offered accounts of rapid social change in post-independence rural India (planned development), provided relevant insights for policymakers and urban Indians, and established a new role for sociology in a modernising nation, moving beyond the study of 'primitive' peoples to be relevant to contemporary society.

Conclusion

The four Indian sociologists discussed represent the diverse ways in which sociology was 'Indianised', given a distinctive character in the context of a newly independent modernising country. Their work exemplifies different approaches to adapting Western sociological traditions to the Indian context.

---

Distinctive Character Of Indian Sociology

These pioneers shaped Indian sociology by engaging with both Western theoretical frameworks and the specific social, historical, and cultural realities of India, resulting in unique contributions and perspectives within the discipline.

---

h3 class="yellowheading">'Indianising' Sociology

Ghurye combined Western anthropological questions with knowledge of Indian texts and public opinion. D.P. Mukerji, a Westernised intellectual, critically engaged with both Indian tradition and modernity, emphasising the importance of tradition while acknowledging its shortcomings. A.R. Desai, influenced by Marxism, offered a critical analysis of the Indian state and nationalism. Srinivas adapted his training in Western social anthropology to the Indian context, focusing on village and caste studies and shaping a new agenda for Indian sociology.

---

Learning And Critique

The health of a discipline is reflected in succeeding generations learning from and critically engaging with the work of pioneers. Indian sociology continues this process, subjecting the work of these founding figures to constructive criticism to further develop the discipline, demonstrating a process of ongoing learning and critique.