B. K.

Nagla
Kameshwar Choudhary Editors

Indian
Sociology
Theories, Domains and Emerging
Concerns
Indian Sociology
B. K. Nagla · Kameshwar Choudhary
Editors

Indian Sociology
Theories, Domains and Emerging Concerns
Editors
B. K. Nagla Kameshwar Choudhary
Formerly Department of Sociology Formerly Department of Sociology
M. D. University Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University
Rohtak, India Lucknow, India

ISBN 978-981-99-5137-6 ISBN 978-981-99-5138-3 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Dedicated as a humble tribute
in respectful memory of
Professor Yogendra Singh
Preface

Indian sociology has its early roots in the studies of Indian society and culture by
British administrators in the colonial period. Its growth as an academic discipline
began in the second decade of the twentieth century, which expanded rapidly in
different regions, especially after India’s Independence. Different strands of theo-
retical orientations emerged over time in the sociological cognitive landscape and
research in the country. With the passage of time, several areas of specialization also
have gradually developed in Indian sociology. Moreover, there have been continual
debates on the issue of indigenization of Indian sociology because of the continued
hegemony of the Euro-American theories and methodologies in the study of Indian
society within the broad rubric of universalistic versus particularistic approaches in
sociology.
So, Indian sociology has a wide canvas. However, the present volume deals with
only certain theoretical perspectives, areas of study and newer emerging concerns in
Indian sociology. It is divided into three parts. Part I critically delves into some of the
important theoretical orientations in Indian sociology, like Indology, the civilizational
approach, the recent foray into Ambedkar’s sociology, and the issue of indigeneity.
Moreover, it specifically explains the contributions of (late) Prof. Yogendra Singh,
especially with reference to the sociology of knowledge, liberal democracy, and the
concept of Islamization in the study of Indian society. Part II is concerned with certain
substantive domains of studies in Indian sociology, viz. the issue of continuity and
change relating to caste and class, village (meaning ‘home’), and trends of research
in tribal studies, population studies, and disability studies. Finally, Part III reflects on
the newer emerging concerns in Indian sociology related to the issues of the future
of Indian and South African sociologies, the shift from globalization of sociology
to sociology of globalization, and rethinking Area Studies underlining the need for
planetary conversations.
This volume is dedicated in respectful memory of eminent sociologist (late) Prof.
Yogendra Singh (1932–2020), who was Professor Emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. Born in a modest rural family of Basti district in eastern Uttar
Pradesh and educated at Lucknow University in the 1950s, Prof. Singh was one of
the most distinguished sociologists of post-colonial India. Professor Singh remained

vii
viii Preface

a teacher throughout his professional career. He taught at universities in the states of

Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Delhi for four decades, out of which he was at JNU for
27 years. The Department of Sociology at Jaipur and the CSSS at JNU were popularly
known as ‘Yogendra Singh’s departments’. Professor Singh was a rare and visionary
scholar who established the Centre for the Study of Social Systems (Sociology) at
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. While at Jaipur (1961–1970), he was also
a visiting faculty member first at McGill University, Canada, and later at Stanford
University in the United States. On his superannuation in 1997, he was designated
as Professor Emeritus at the JNU (B. K. Nagla, Social Change, 50: 3, 2020).
As a prominent academic figure, Prof. Yogendra Singh held many profes-
sional positions, such as President, Indian Sociological Society; Member, Research
Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and also of ICSSR; President, Indian
Academy of Social Sciences; Member, Planning Committee of the International
Sociological Association; and Expert member, Mandal Commission, Government of
India. Moreover, he was the member of several Governing Boards and Councils, like
National Institute of Science, Technology and Development, Delhi; National Labour
Institute, Delhi; National Institute of Family Welfare and Public Health, New Delhi;
A. N. Sinha Institute of Social Sciences, Patna; and Institute of Economic Growth,
Delhi. As a member of the Board of Studies and Academic Councils at many Univer-
sities, he contributed immensely to enhancing the standard of teaching and research
at Universities and Institutes in different parts of the country.
According to Prof. K. L. Sharma, who was his student and fellow sociologist
at JNU, Prof. Singh was an extraordinary person; he was both a scholar and a fine
human being. He was an excellent speaker and communicator of knowledge. Not
only students of sociology benefitted from his scholarship, but several scholars of
other disciplines also used to attend his lectures at JNU. He had sound knowledge
of classics and original texts. He moved between theories and theoreticians with
equal felicity. Professor Singh has written on a wide array of themes with deep
understanding and concern. These include theory and method, social stratification
and mobility, tradition and modernization, professions, culture, society, and change.
His book, Modernization of Indian Tradition, provides a path-breaking paradigm shift
in the understanding of modernization and social change. It is also an invigorating
critique of the culturological explanations of social change. Professor Singh analyzed
Indian society in terms of caste, class, and community, where he examined caste in
terms of class and power (K. L. Sharma, Economic and Political Weekly, 23 May
2020). Indian sociology as a discipline remained always very close to his heart. No
book or paper on Indian sociology would be considered complete without drawing
from and citing his highly authoritative in-depth critical analysis of the growth of
the discipline in terms of conceptual, theoretical, and methodological orientations
and thematic shifts. Unlike contemporary intellectual surroundings of classically
trained British anthropologists, Prof. Singh, a rare homegrown sociologist, played
an important role in shaping a profound, non-elitist sociological imagination. No
wonder, his several books were published by non-elite Indian publishers.
Professor Yogendra Singh, who taught both of us at JNU, New Delhi, inspired
us not only during our research work but also throughout our academic career. His
Preface ix

humane attitude and generosity will forever remain in our memory. Reminiscences
about Prof. Singh always invigorate us and that impelled us to edit this volume on
Indian sociology, in which he had deep interest and unparallel command, as a humble
tribute to him.
Most chapters of the book are contributed by Indian sociologists and some by
foreign scholars. Introductory chapter of the book gives an analytical bird’s eye view
of growth of Indian sociology over a century, major debates and future directions.
The critical tenor of the volume makes it distinct. The book would be highly useful to
graduate, postgraduate, and research students of sociology and social anthropology
in particular and social science in general. Its reflections on issues like changes in
caste, village and Ambedkar’s sociology would be of interest to general readers as
well.
We must acknowledge that without the munificence and love of several friends
and colleagues in the sociology discipline in India and abroad, this volume would
not have been possible. We are immensely grateful to our teacher Prof. K. L. Sharma
and several friends, viz. Dipankar Gupta, (late) P. K. Bose, Anand Kumar, Paramjit
Singh, Satish Sharma, Rajiv Gupta, Vivek Kumar, P. Jogdand, and Madhu Nagla for
their kind help and encouragement in bringing out this volume. We are grateful to
all the scholars who contributed their papers to the volume. Last but not least, we
sincerely appreciate the support of Ms. Satvinder Kaur, editor at Springer, and her
team and thank them all and also the publisher.

Rohtak, India B. K. Nagla

Lucknow, India Kameshwar Choudhary
About This Book

This book is brought out as a humble tribute in memory of an eminent Indian sociolo-
gist (late) Prof. Yogendra Singh, whose critical analysis and theoretico-philosophical
reflections on Indian sociology have enlightened for long those in the discipline of
sociology in particular and social science in general. The scope of Indian sociology
is quite vast, and no single volume would be able to cover it fully. The present
book offers a glimpse of some of the traditional and new theoretical perspectives,
thematic domains, and emerging concerns in Indian sociology. It critically reflects
on the conventional Indological and civilizational approaches, Saran’s indigenous
approach, and the recent foray into Ambedkar’s sociology, besides Prof. Singh’s
conceptualization of Islamization and contribution to liberal democracy. It delves
into some changes in the domains of caste, class, and village. Moreover, it gives
an overview of trends of research in the field of tribal studies, population studies,
and disability studies. Finally, it delves into some recent emerging concerns, such
as futures of Indian and South African sociologies, the shift from globalization of
sociology to sociology of globalization, and the need for rethinking and transforming
narrow area studies toward planetary conversations.
Most chapters of the book are contributed by Indian sociologists and some by
foreign scholars. The introductory chapter of the book gives an analytical bird’s eye
view of the growth of Indian sociology over a century, major debates, and future
directions. The critical tenor of the volume makes it distinct.
The book would be highly useful to graduate, postgraduate, and research students
of sociology and social anthropology in particular and social science in general. Its
reflections on issues like changes in caste, village, and Ambedkar’s sociology would
be of interest to general readers as well.

xi
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. K. Nagla and Kameshwar Choudhary

Part I Theoretical Orientations

2 Indology and Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Pradip Kumar Bose
3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha . . . . . . 41
Biswajit Ghosh
4 A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian Tradition and Sociology
in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Ajit Kumar Pandey
5 Sociology and Public Life: Professor Yogendra Singh and His
Contribution to Liberal Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Dipankar Gupta
6 Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology
and Yogendra Singh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
K. M. Ziyauddin
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical
Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Swapan Kumar Bhattacharyya

Part II Thematic Domains

8 Power in Caste: The Decline of the Dominant Caste in a Village
in Eastern Uttar Pradesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Hira Singh

xiii
xiv Contents

9 Village Meaning Home: The Exodus from Urban India

During the Pandemic of COVID-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Tulsi Patel
10 The Text and Context of Tribal Studies in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Vidyut Joshi
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
A. K. Sharma
12 Disability, Social Inequalities, and Intersectionality in India . . . . . . . 187
Ritika Gulyani and Nilika Mehrotra

Part III Some Emerging Concerns

13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African
Sociologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Kiran Odhav and Jayanathan P. Govender
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization . . . . . . . 221
Habibul Haque Khondker
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian
Studies: A New Cosmopolitanism and the Challenges
of Planetary Realizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Ananta Kumar Giri
Editors and Contributors

About the Editors

B. K. Nagla is former Professor of Sociology, M.D. University, Rohtak, Haryana.

He obtained his master’s degree from Udaipur University, Udaipur, and M.Phil.
and Ph.D. from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Before joining at M.D.
University, Rohtak, in 1978, he taught at M.S. University, Baroda, and Institute of
Criminology and Forensic Science, New Delhi. After retirement in 2006, he worked
as Consultant at Kota Open University and also at Banaras Hindu University as
Professor, Babu Jagjivan Ram Chair. Professor Nagla has published 12 books in
areas like political sociology, Indian sociological thought, and social stratification.
His main books are: Factionalism, Politics and Social Structure; Political Sociology;
Development and Transformation; Social Stratification and Social Mobility; and
Indian Sociological Thought. He has about 70 research papers in national and inter-
national journals. He received an ISC Fellow Award for the growth and development
of the Indian Society of Criminology given by the Council of the Indian Society
of Criminology, affiliated with the International Society of Criminology, Paris. In
2017, Sulabh International Social Organization conferred upon him ‘Sulabh Swach-
hata Samman’ with Gold Medal for authoring an outstanding book, Sociology of
Sanitation. He is awarded Lifetime Achievement Award by Rajasthan Sociolog-
ical Society and also by the Indian Sociological Society. He was also the editor of
the Indian Sociological Society Journal (Hindi), Bhartiya Samajshastra Sameeksha
(published by Sage).

Kameshwar Choudhary is former Professor of Sociology, Babasaheb Bhimrao

Ambedkar (Central) University, Lucknow, India. Earlier, he was Professor of Soci-
ology at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi; Associate Professor at Institute of
Rural Management, Anand (Gujarat); and Lecturer in Sociology at Institute of Social
Sciences, Agra. He was Visiting Fellow at CSSS, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New
Delhi, and Associate at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. He completed
his M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. studies at CSSS, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New

xv
xvi Editors and Contributors

Delhi. He has completed, as Coordinator/Team Member, about a dozen projects

sponsored by National Dairy Development Board, Gujarat Ecology Commission,
Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India; Forest Department, Govern-
ment of Gujarat; UNDP, India; etc. His books have been published by reputed national
and international publishers, which include Globalisation, Governance Reforms and
Development in India (ed., Sage Publications, New Delhi); Intellectuals and Society:
A Study of Teachers in India (Popular Prakashan, Bombay). He has also published
several papers in reputed journals, edited books and articles in newspapers, like The
Times of India and The Hindustan Times. He was Head, Department of Sociology,
and Dean, Ambedkar School of Social Sciences (formerly SAS), B. B. Ambedkar
(Central) University, Lucknow. He was Member of the Twelfth Plan Working Group
on Empowerment of OBCs, DNTs and EBCs, constituted by the Planning Commis-
sion, Government of India. He was honored with Prof. L. P. Vidyarthi Memorial
Award 2017 by the Indian Social Science Association (Email: kames.c@gmail.com).

Contributors

Pradip Kumar Bose was the Professor of Sociology, Centre for Studies in Social
Sciences, Kolkata. Earlier, he worked at Centre for the Study of Developing Soci-
eties, Delhi, and at Centre for Social Studies, Surat. His books include Classes in
a Rural Society: A Sociological Study of Some Bengal Villages (1984), Classes and
Class Relations Among Tribals of Bengal (1985), Computer Programming for Social
Science (1986), Research Methodology: A Trend Report (1995), and Conceptualising
Man and Society: Perspectives in Early Indian Sociology (2018). He edited several
books like, Refugees in West Bengal: Institutional Practices and Contested Iden-
tities (2000), Health and Society in Bengal: A Selection from Late 19th-Century
Bengali Periodicals (2005), and Social Justice and Enlightenment: West Bengal
(2009). He wrote extensively in Bengali as well; some of his important Bengali
books are: Samayiki: Purono Samayikpatrer Prabandha Sankalan, vol. 1, Bigyan o
Samaj (1998), Samayiki: Purono Samayikpatrer Prabandha Sankalan, vol. 2, Griha
o Paribar (2009), Rajnitir Tattva, Tattver Ragniti (2011), Bangla Bhashai Samajbidy-
acharcha (2011), Paribairk Prabandha (2012), and Bhasha Darshan Sangeet (2nd
revised edition, 2014), Bigyaner Darshan (2019), Bartamaner Kuljibichar (2020),
Charchay Oedipus (2021). He received the VKRV Rao Award in 1984 for his
contribution in Sociology.
Biswajit Ghosh is former Vice Chancellor and Professor of Sociology at the Univer-
sity of Burdwan, West Bengal. He did his Masters from the University of Calcutta
and M.Phil. and Ph.D. from Jawaharlal Nehru University. He was a Visiting Faculty
at JNU, Shivaji University, Tripura University, and Vidyasagar University. He has
presented papers/chaired sessions over 190 national and international seminars/
conferences/workshops, including invited lectures and key-note address. He has
carried out research projects sponsored by UNICEF Save the Children and Govt of
Editors and Contributors xvii

West Bengal. He has authored five books, 102 articles, and three major policy docu-
ments for UNICEF, Govt. of West Bengal and Save the Children. He was a Module
Coordinator of UGC E-Pathshala e-content on Research Methodology and Social
Movement courses in Sociology. He is in the editorial board of many peer-reviewed
journals.
Ajit Kumar Pandey is Professor of Sociology (retd.) from Banaras Hindu Univer-
sity, Varanasi, India, presently associated with Giri Institute of Development Studies,
Lucknow as Distinguished Visiting Professor. He has published eleven books New
Directions in Sociological Theory: Disputes, Discourses and Orientations, Kinship
and Tribal Polity, Social Development in India, and Emerging Issues in Empow-
erment of Women etc. from leading publishers and more than 67 articles in reputed
academic journals. Prof. Pandey has proposed a new perspective on subaltern studies
which addresses to the limitations of Ranjit Guha’s Subaltern Studies. His recent co-
edited contributions include—(i) Subalternity, Exclusion and Social Change in India
(Cambridge University Press, 2014) and (ii) Dalits, Subalternity and Social Change
in India (Routledge, London, 2018. He is also working on other sites of exclusion,
such as gender, peasantry, tribes and minorities in India. He has been Editor of BHU
Journal of Social Sciences and Development Ecology. He was Visiting Professor at
many universities.
Dipankar Gupta taught sociology for nearly three decades in the Centre for the
Study of Social Systems in Jawaharlal Nehru University. He started his academic
career in the field of ethnicity and politics and this interest stayed with him for a
lifetime. In the meanwhile, he was also drawn to an examination of caste and, in
particular, to the relationship between hierarchy and difference. His awareness of
the fact that his fundamental interest really was in studying the interaction between
tradition and modernity grew over time and he delved into this area more directly
when he later began to work on the peasantry, modernity, and social policy. He has
done fieldwork in several regions, both rural and urban. He has several publications,
which include—Nativism in a Metropolis: The Shiv Sena in Bombay (1982), The
Context of Ethnicity (1996), Rivalry and Brotherhood (1997), Interrogating Caste
(2000), Mistaken Modernity (2000), Culture, Space and the Nation-State (2000),
Learning to Forget: The Anti-memoirs of Modernity (2005), The Caged Phoneix:
Can India Fly (2010), Justice before Reconciliation (2011), Revolution from Above:
India’s Future and the Citizen Elite (2013), From People to Citizen: Democracy Must
Take Road (2017), and Talking Sociology (2018). He has been a Visiting Professor
and researcher at many universities in India and abroad. He is a prolific writer and has
published several books and research papers in national and international journals.
K. M. Ziyauddin teaches Sociology in Maulana Azad National Urdu University,
Hyderabad, India. He was faculty of sociology in the Department of Sociology in
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He got M.A. degree in Sociology from Jamia Millia
Islamia, M.Phil. from JNU, and PhD in Sociology from Delhi School of Economics,
University of Delhi, Delhi. His books are: Muslims of India: Exclusionary Process
xviii Editors and Contributors

and Inclusionary Measures (edited, Manak Publication), Dimensions of Social Exclu-

sion: An Ethnographic Exploratons, and Sociology of Health in a Dalit Community:
Axes of Exclusion (CSP-UK), Muslim Scavengers in India (Lampbert); apart from
research papers on questions of health, minorities and Dalits, caste, gender poli-
tics, child labour etc. Presently, he is working on three upcoming manuscripts in
areas – ‘Communalism in India: Socio-Historical and Legal Perspectives’, ‘Reading
Minorities in India: Forms and Perspectives’, and ‘Illness and Health: Sociolog-
ical Narratives of Dalits’. He is Convener (RC-26: Minority Studies) of the Indian
Sociological Society. (Email: ziyakmjamia@gmail.com)
Swapan Kumar Bhattacharyya is former Professor of Sociology, Calcutta Univer-
sity of Calcutta. Earlier, he taught at Kalyani University, and he worked also as
the Visiting Research Professor at the Council for Research in Values and Philos-
ophy and Catholic University of America, Washington D.C. He was awarded the
prestigious Premchand Roychand Studentship of the Calcutta University for his
thesis, ‘J.S. Mill’s contribution to Sociology’. His publications include: i) Farmers,
Rituals and Modernization, ii) Leadership, Factions and Panchayati Raj: A Case
Study in West Bengal (co-author Krishna Chakraborty), and iii) Indian Sociology:
The Role of Benoy Kumar Sarkar (which earned him the Asutosh Mookerjee Gold
Medal of the Calcutta University). He is also the principal author of Understanding
Society and the editor of Structure of Indian Society, both published by the NCERT,
New Delhi. Exploration into the nature of Indian-ness of the composite culture of
India, its values and philosophy operating at various societal levels has been the
lifelong interest of Prof. Bhattacharyya. He has delivered lectures in many universi-
ties—Catholic University of America, Virginia-Tech, U.S.A.; Charles University,
Czech Republic; Universities of Dacca and Chittagong, Bangladesh; Silpakorn
University and Walailak University, Thailand; and a good number of universities
across India—analysing the nature of Indian society and Indian culture. (Email:
skb7845@gmail.com)
Hira Singh received Ph.D. from Toronto university and Delhi university. He is
currently Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University, Toronto,
Canada. He was previously teaching as Reader at Delhi School of Economics, Delhi
University, India and also taught as lecturer at University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. His
areas of specialization are: Social Inequality; Social Theory; Social Movements;
Colonial Rule and Resistance; Feudalism in Non-European and European Societies;
Migrant Labor System and Agribusiness; Indian Indentured Labor and the Empire.
His select publications are: Recasting Caste: From the Sacred to the Profane (New
Delhi/ London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2014) (also translated in Hindi
and Marathi, New Delhi: SageBhasha, 2019), and “Class, Caste, and Social Strati-
fication in India: Weberian Legacy”, in Edith Hanke and Sam Whimster (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Max Weber (New York: Oxford University Press). His forth-
coming book is Class, Caste, and the Making of Colonial and Contemporary India
(Lieden: Brill). (Email: hsingh@yorku.ca)
Editors and Contributors xix

Tulsi Patel is former Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, Delhi School

of Economics, University of Delhi, and presently S. K. Dey Chair Professor, Insti-
tute of Social Sciences, New Delhi. She is a noted scholar in the field of gender,
family, kinship and marriage, and medical sociology and anthropology of reproduc-
tion. Her books are - Fertility Behaviour: Population and Society in a Rajasthan
Village (Oxford University Press, 1994/2006). She has edited, The Family in India:
Structure and Practice (2005) and Sex selective Abortion in India (2007) (both with
Sage Publications). She co-edited with B S Baviskar, Understanding Indian Society:
Past and Present (Orient BlackSwan, 2010), co-edited with S. Mitra and S. Schick-
tanz, Cross-cultural Comparisons on Surrogacy and Egg Donation: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives from India, Germany and Israel (2018) (Palgrave Publishers). Her arti-
cles are published in edited books, national and international journals. She has held
visiting assignments with Universities in the UK, Germany, Canada, France and
Sweden. She was a member of State Appropriate Authority of Delhi for PCPNDT
issues for several years until 2019. (Email: pateltulsidse@gmail.com)
Vidyut Joshi (1945) got his BA and MA degrees in sociology. He completed his
Ph. D. research under Prof.I. P. Desai on tribal education. After teaching at college
and university for 12 years, he shifted to research institute and worked with Centre
for Social Studies, Surat and Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute, Ahmedabad, and
conducted research project and wrote 49 research reports and 31 books. He was
Vice-Chancellor of M.K. Bhavnagar University, and Director CSS, Surat. He was
also emeritus professor at Gujarat Vidyapith and Nirma University. Currently, he
is emeritus professor at Chimanbhai Patel Institute of Management and Research,
and adjunct professor at Gujarat Vidyapith. He is now working on Gujarat Tribal
Gazetteer. He has also worked as consultant to the World Bank, UNESCO, ILO, Gol
and GoG. He has travelled to many countries as part of his research and consutancy
assignments. (Email: vidyutj@gmail.com).
A. K. Sharma is former Professor of Sociology, Department of Humanities & Social
Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India. His areas of specialization
are social demography and social statistics, neo-social movements, social devel-
opment, social aspects of science, Gandhian theory, representations of health and
illness, and sociology of HIV/AIDS. (Email: arunk@iitk.ac.in)
Ritika Gulyani is currently a Assistant Professor (Guest) at the Department of
Sociology, Miranda House College. She submitted her PhD titled ‘Being D/deaf :
Issues of Education, Employment and Identity Among Young People in the National
Capital Region of Delhi’ at the Centre for Study of Social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. Her research interests include Deaf Studies, Disability Studies
and Governmental Policies. (Email: ritika.gulyani@mirandahouse.ac.in)
Nilika Mehrotra is Professor of Social Anthropology at Jawaharlal Nehru Univer-
sity, New Delhi. For the past three decades, she has been researching and super-
vising on Gender, disability and Development issues in the Indian context. Her
books include Disability, Gender, and State Policy; Exploring Margins (2013) and
Disability Studies in India: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (2020). She has been a
xx Editors and Contributors

Fulbright senior research scholar at the University of California, Berkeley (2013-

14). She is also editor of Indian Anthropologist, journal of Indian Anthropological
Association. (Email: nilika@jnu.ac.in)
Kiran Odhav is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Faculty of Humanities, School of
Social Sciences. Cnr. University Drive and Albert Luthuli Drive, Mafikeng campus,
Mafikeng, 2745, North West Province, South Africa. His academic interests are:
Social Theory, Social policy, Inequality, Sociology of Youth, BRICS sociology. He
is a Member of the South African and International Sociological Associations, and
Deputy President of the Research Committee on Youth for Southern Africa. He has
published a number research papers in reputed journals and also a book on inequality
in BRICS. He has also presented papers in national and international seminars and
conferences. (Email: Kiran.odhav@nwu.ac.za)
Jayanathan P. Govender is Senior Lecturer of Industrial Organization and Labour
Studies, School of Social Sciences, College of Humanities, Howard College Campus,
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. His academic interests are:
public policy, inequality, Sociology of youth, BRICS sociology futures. He is holding
professional positions as a Member of the South African Sociological Association,
Member of the International Sociological Association, and also Community positions
like Secretary of the Natal Indian Congress History Project, Incoming Board Member
of the Gandhi Development Trust, Chairperson of the Board of the Amandla Kabuntu
NPO (Gauteng-based). (Email: govenderj1@ukzn.ac.za)
Habibul Haque Khondker is Professor of Social Sciences at Zayed University,
Abu Dhabi. He was educated at University of Dhaka, Carleton University, Ottawa
and University of Pittsburgh. He taught at the National University of Singapore until
2005. He served as the co-chair of (Research Committee 09 Social Transformations
and Sociology of Development, Section of the International Sociological Associ-
ation). He has published articles in International Sociology, The British Journal of
Sociology, International Migration, Globalizations, Armed Forces and Society, South
Asia, Asian Journal of Social Sciences, among others. He co-authored Globaliza-
tion: East and West with Bryan Turner (Sage, 2010; translation in Turkish 2019).
He coedited with Olav Muurlink, and Asif Bin Ali, The Emergence of Bangladesh,
Palgrave Macmillan, 2022. Khondker co-edited with Jan Nederveen Pieterse and
Haeran Lim, Covid-19 and Governance: Crisis Reveals, New York: Routledge,
2021. He co-edited with Goran Therborn, Asia and Europe in Globalization (Leiden:
Brill, 2006) and with Jan Nederveen Pieterse, 21st Century Globalization: Perspec-
tives from the Gulf (Dubai and Abu Dhabi: Zayed University Press, 2010). (Email:
habib.khondker@gmail.com)
Ananta Kumar Giri is Professor at the Madras Institute of Development Studies,
Chennai, India. He has been a Visiting Professor and researcher at many universities
in India and abroad, including Aalborg University (Denmark), Maison des sciences de
l’homme, Paris (France), the University of Kentucky (USA), University of Freiburg &
Humboldt University (Germany), Jagiellonian University (Poland) and Jawaharlal
Nehru University, New Delhi. He has an abiding interest in social movements and
Editors and Contributors xxi

cultural change, criticism, creativity and contemporary dialectics of philosophy and

literature. Prof. Giri has written and edited around two dozen books in Odia and
English. (Emails: aumkrishna@gmail.com)
Chapter 1
Introduction

B. K. Nagla and Kameshwar Choudhary

Sociology originated in the nineteenth century. Many social and intellectual factors
led to its growth first in the West. Saint Simon (1760–1825) was the first social
thinker who tried to understand the natural and social phenomena through scien-
tific investigation. Later, a French social thinker and philosopher Auguste Comte
(1798–1857), who is considered the founding father of sociology, made rich contri-
bution in the origin and development of ‘positive sociology’. After Comte, works
done by Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), Emile Durkheim (1858–1917), Karl Marx
(1818–1883) and Max Weber (1864–1920) became significant contribution in the
development of sociology in the West. All these major early sociological thinkers
worked mainly as individuals. There was no institution especially meant for study
and research in sociology. Durkheim founded first journal in sociology Annee Soci-
ologique in 1898. Department of sociology were first established at University of
Bordieux in France and University of Chicago in USA in the last decade of the nine-
teenth century. But the situation changed at the turn of the nineteenth century first in
the West and a few decades later outside (Beteille, 2006). Sociology grew gradually
as an academic discipline/profession with opening of more centres of teaching and
research, publication of journals and associations of sociologists in different parts of
the world.
The origin of Indian sociology is traced by many sociologists generally to the
works done by several British civil servants, missionaries, and Western scholars
during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Dhanagare, 1985; Mukherjee, 1979;
Rao, 1978; Singh, 1986; Srinivas & Panini, 1973; Lele, 1981; Oommen et al.,
2000; Nagla, 2008; Patel, 2016; Srivastava et al., 2019). The British East India

B. K. Nagla (B)
Department of Sociology, M. D. University, Rohtak, India
e-mail: bnagla@yahoo.com
K. Choudhary
Department of Sociology, B.B. Ambedkar (Central) University, Lucknow, India
e-mail: kames.c@gmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 1
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_1
2 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

Company came to India as a trading company. However, it started also assuming

and augmenting political and administrative power in India with its victory in the
Battle of Plassey in 1757. Later, the Revolt of 1857 took place which led to the British
Crown assuming direct rule over India. The unity among Hindus and Muslims in the
Revolt added to the necessity that the British know more about the Indian people
and culture to govern more effectively. To ensure the smooth running of their admin-
istration some British administrators conducted studies to understand the customs,
manners and institutions of the people of India. To carry out their activities, Christian
missionaries also tried to learn local languages, folklore and culture. Mainly ethno-
graphic studies of various customs and traditions, the Hindu systems of caste and
joint family, and the economy and polity of the village/tribal community were some
of the prominent themes of study by the British administrators and missionaries.
Based mainly on classical Indian literature, Indological studies of Indian society and
culture was another development which involved some foreign scholars, European
and British, and Indian intellectuals.

1.1 Trajectory of Growth

Although the first universities in India were established in 1857 in Bombay, Calcutta
and Madras, formal teaching of sociology began only in the second decade of the
twentieth century—at University of Bombay in 1914, at University of Calcutta in
1917 and at University of Lucknow in 1921. Only three other universities (Mysore,
Osmania, and Poona) were teaching sociology prior to India’s Independence in 1947.
However, there was no separate department of sociology. Sociology was joined
with the department of economics (Bombay and Lucknow), economics and political
science (Calcutta), anthropology (Poona), and philosophy (Mysore). B. N. Seal and
B. K. Sarkar were two of the leading pioneer sociologists of that time at University
of Calcutta. S. V. Ketkar and B. N. Dutt, both of whom specialized in Indological
studies in United States, and K. P. Chattopadhyay, a social anthropologist trained in
the United Kingdom, were some of the other noteworthy scholars of Indian sociology.
Many of the later pioneers in sociology were educated at University of Calcutta.
However, substantial growth of Indian sociology during the first half of the twen-
tieth century occurred at University of Bombay (now Mumbai) and University of
Lucknow. Patrick Geddes, the first chairperson of the department of sociology at
University of Bombay, was a scholar of civics, a city planner and human geographer.
His reports on the city planning of Calcutta, Indore, and the temple cities of south
India contain much useful information and demonstrate his keen awareness of the
problems of urban disorganization and renewal (Srinivas & Panini, 1973:187). G.
S. Ghurye succeeded Geddes in 1924 at University of Bombay. He was trained as
social anthropologist at Cambridge University but emphasized more on the Indo-
logical approach, besides field-based research, as he had Sanskrit background of his
education. He became the first Indian sociologist who systematically developed the
discipline of sociology in India, hence is considered the founding father of Indian
sociology.
1 Introduction 3

Almost all the pioneers in sociology in the first half of the twentieth century were
trained in disciplines other than sociology. Only a limited number of courses in soci-
ology, as formulated by teachers according to their interest, were taught. Radhakamal
Mukerjee and Dhrujati Prasad Mukerji, both trained in economics at University of
Calcutta, taught sociology at University of Lucknow. R. K. Mukerjee made a series
of micro-level analysis of problems concerning rural economy, land, population, and
the working class in India as well as the deteriorating agrarian relations and condi-
tions of the peasantry, inter-caste tensions, and urbanization. D. P. Mukerji’s interest
was diverse which ranged from music and fine arts to Indian tradition in relation to
modernity. Having a Marxist orientation (preferred to call himself a Marxologist),
he attempted a dialectical interpretation of the encounter between the Indian tradi-
tion and modernity that unleashed many forces of cultural contradiction during the
colonial era (Dhanagare, 1985). Till the late 1950s sociology was a ‘relatively small
affair’ in India (Beteille, 2006). Later, it spread fast and became one of the most
popular academic disciplines at universities and colleges all over the country.
Professor Yogendra Singh (1986:98) has very succinctly analysed the trajectory
of origin and development of Indian sociology. He observes that during 1920s and
1930s the ‘pioneers’ of Indian sociology were influenced by two factors—exposure to
the British and European academic cultures and influence of the emerging national
consciousness. This was reflected in their contributions, especially in their ques-
tioning of the various presuppositions of Western sociology used in interpretations of
the Indian reality. They questioned the relevance of looking at Indian institutions from
a universal evolutionary perspective which ignored its historicity and civilizational
depth. Also, questions were raised about use of an atomistic-individualistic approach
to analyse Indian social structure, which was not in tune with the communitarian-
wholistic principles of Indian social organization. Some indicated ideological biases
in most Western sociologists’ emphasis on discreteness and isolation in the anal-
ysis of Indian social system ignoring its organic linkages and systemic bonds. The
pioneers were also critical of most of those scholars overlooking the issues of social
change and mainly focusing on continuity and static sociography.
Although certain elements of the preceding divergence in perspectives in Indian
sociology continued during the period 1950s and 1960s, some important changes
occurred in other aspects of its cognitive dimension and substantive concerns. The
British and European influence on Indian sociology declined, but the American
impact increased. Functionalist theoretical perspective was commonly used in the
analysis of social reality in this period. The substantive areas of study covered more
the processes of development as seen in several micro-level studies of village commu-
nity, community development projects, processes of institutionalization, voting
behaviour, leadership, etc. This was done mostly from the structural–functional view-
point. M. N. Srinivas introduced the concepts of Sanskritization, Westernization,
secularization and dominant caste to understand the realities of inter-caste relations
and their dynamics (Dhanagare, 1985). The village studies focused on stratification
and mobility, factionalism and leadership, the Jajmani (patron–client) relationship,
and contrasting characteristics of rural and urban communities and linkages with the
4 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

outside world. Change in the structural and functional aspects of joint family was
the focal point in many studies.
Further, in the mid-1960s there began a debate on ‘indigenization’ of sociology, or
‘sociology for India’ and the relevance of then existing Indian sociology which was
dominated by external theoretical paradigms (Nagla, 2017; Sharma, 1985; Unnithan
et al., 1967). The continuing or rather increasing deprivation of the marginalized
sections of society despite adoption of the new model of development after Indepen-
dence provided the context for questioning the relevance of the reining exogenous
perspectives to understand Indian social reality. Here, the word indigenization of
sociology connotes the process of indigenization (adaptation) of exogenous/Western
paradigms to understand Indian society whereas sociology for India implied using
indigenous perspective to understand the same in place of exogenous paradigms (see
Atal, 2003:119). Several Indian sociologists advocated for a distinct Indian sociology
having indigenous approach to analyse and explain Indian society. In this connec-
tion, A. K. Saran took an extreme position. Singh (1986:6) finds Saran declaring that
‘sociological cognition and world-view is fundamentally alien to the Indian tradition,
hence any attempt towards its indigenization or adaptation into an Indian cognitive
system is bound either to fail or to turn imitative’. Saran rejects the language of
individualism and this-worldly thrusts which characterized the Western paradigms.
In his view,
… our main point has been to show that individuality is not the best concept for under-
standing of Indian Society. The central problem of the Indian (traditional) Society arises
from the encounter of the Divine and the Human. The task of this society is to keep alive the
transcendent, the Eternal, through the temporal-social. The central problem of the modern
West is: How to maintain social life without a Divine Center (see Atal, 2003:131).

However, some other scholars were of the view that sociology as a discipline
cannot be particularistic limiting it to national boundaries, rather the approach should
be geared to developing universal theories (ibid:132).
During the 1970s and 1980s, several social research institutes were established
in different parts of India. Also, many more universities were established. Some
prominent sociology departments and/or social science research institutes are located
in Delhi, Hyderabad, Bombay (now Mumbai), Poona (Pune), Ahmedabad, Chandi-
garh, Jaipur, Kolkata, Banglore (Bengaluru) and Trivandrum (Thiruvananthapuram).
Reflections on social relevance and an indigenous perspective for Indian sociology
persisted during the 1970s–1980s. But many new directions opened in the explo-
rations of Indian society. There was a shift away from a continuum approach to
analysis of social process to the notion of levels like macro/national, meso/regional
and micro/local, which showed a new sensitivity in choosing concepts and their use.
Several studies used the Marxist historical approach to analyse agrarian structure,
working classes and peasantry. More aspects and depth was added in the studies
of social structure by using conceptual typologies, historical data and linguistic/
symbolic structural analysis. Concentration on ritual, cultural and social dimensions
of caste and simplistic dichotomy between caste and class reduced. Scholars became
oriented towards perspectives like structuralism, ethnosociology, and system anal-
ysis, in addition to Marxist theory. Studies of Indian social, economic and cultural
1 Introduction 5

structure became analytical and explanatory in nature in contrast with emphasis

on descriptive approach followed in the 1950s (Singh, 1986:25–26). Indicating the
significance of using Marxist perspective in studies, though fewer in number, Singh
(ibid:100) observes: ‘Its important contribution to sociology rests on enlarging and
shifting the focus of sociological research from caste, kinship, symbols and tradi-
tions to a macro-historical treatment of political economy, modes of production and
dialectics of change in the social structure’. Two important trends which emerged
in the 1970s got strengthened in the 1980s. This included emphasis on structure
in terms of concrete processes rather than forms and focus on history and tradi-
tion. This was reflected in increasing studies in the areas of social mobilization and
movements, restructuration of social statuses, roles and institutions due to modern-
ization and development in Indian society. Studies on movements brought in use
of new perspectives and methods like sociological historiography, theory of collec-
tive action, development and modernization. The study of processual aspects led to
increasing interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary interactions with disciplines such
as history, political science and psychology.
1980s also witnessed increasing focus on the processes of restructuration in Indian
society that occurred due to impact of the technological, educational and economic
modernization. Sociological studies were conducted on modern professions such as
law, health and medicine, education, science and other academic professions. Several
studies showed increasing consolidation of the class character of Indian society as
a result of the multiple forces of modernization. There was noticed rise in relative
deprivation and socio-economic inequalities causing social tensions and conflicts
on the basis of caste, class and other social categories. Indian sociologists realized
this which necessitated increasing application of Marxist and critical theories and
social history in the analysis of the social dynamics of the modernization process
(Singh, 1986:102). The holding of the eleventh World Congress of Sociology in New
Delhi in 1986 signified recognition of the development of Indian sociology and its
contributions.
With a paradigm shift from the earlier mixed economy socialistic approach to
development to private sector-driven economic growth-centred policies of liberal-
ization, privatization and globalization adopted from 1990s onwards, the orientation
of Indian sociology has undergone a significant change. The macro cognitive frame
has changed from modernization to globalization and its impact. New thematic areas
of studies and issues of concerns have got increasing attention. Dalit studies, gender
studies, and studies on issues of tribal identity, environment, migration, displacement,
religion and culture, identity, sustainable development, media and communication
have increased. A steady trend of out-migration of entrepreneurial and educated
Indians, particularly to Western countries, led to a modest beginning of sociolog-
ical studies of the Indian diaspora (Motwani et al., 1993). Such studies attempt to
understand the socio-cultural dynamics of the Indian diaspora. Some of these studies
are influenced primarily by the phenomenological and the symbolic interactionist
perspectives (Jayaram, 1998). Interest in the study of changing patterns of marriage
and family relations due to international migration, both among the out-migrants
and among the aged and others who continue to reside in India, is slowly increasing.
6 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

In some universities, the 1990s saw introduction of some new courses with global
themes such as ecology and society, human rights, media and society, sociology of
management and human resource development, and action sociology.
The development of Indian sociology in the first decade of the twenty-first century
is covered in the three-volume ICSSR survey of research edited by Singh (2014). In
these volumes, relatively recent areas of research like dalit studies, gender studies,
globalization, culture and religion, (new) middle class, migration and displacement,
and communication research find their place in addition to the earlier thematic areas
like rural, urban and industrial sociology, and sociology of profession. Also, the
exclusionary implications of globalization for the large mass of India’s population
have geared sociologists to focus their attention on the issues of social exclusion
and marginalisation, social justice and equity, and human rights. Singh (ibid) finds
consensual to critical orientation in the papers included in these volumes. There
is also noted shifts in conceptual and theoretical perspectives and methodological
orientations. Emphasis is reflected on ‘deconstruction’ of the West as a frame of
reference, ‘field view’ of history, questioning of caste as a system, new rural linkages
and country-town interrelations, middle class, counter-ideologies of development and
politics, and complex and multi-layered urbanization in the country (see Sharma,
2019:19). These volumes show both continuity and change in research in Indian
sociology in the early twenty-first century, which Singh (ibid) indicates as: ‘(i) a
continued emphasis on the relevance of history and past, (ii) a continued presence of
the West as a frame of reference in discourses, (iii) a consistent acknowledgement of
a multidisciplinary approach in regard to theory, method and data, (iv) an enormous
differentiation in substantive foci or concerns, and (v) recognition of the process of
globalization in terms of its impact on new forms of social and cultural formations
in the society’ (see Sharma, 2019:20).
Indicating the changes in Indian sociology, Sharma (2019:18, 19) sees indolog-
ical studies and holistic-monographic studies almost disappearing. Even multidimen-
sional studies of caste, class and power as well as studies of family, green revolution,
and (planned) development are not common. The studies of professions, movements
and civil society have decreased. Even the studies of dalits and women are not centre
stage as earlier. Presently, he finds studies being conducted more on topics like
middle class, migration, mobility, country-town linkages, globalization, empower-
ment, social inequalities, etc. Sociological studies are also seen covering the areas
of health, education, marginality, human rights and social justice.
Thus, the trajectory of development of Indian sociology over more than a century
shows its passage through different stages in terms of its conceptual and theo-
retical perspectives, methodological orientations, thematic thrust areas of study
and concerns. In 1970s, some noted sociologists identified different phases of
growth of Indian sociology. Taking a methodological view, Ramkrishna Mukherjee
(1973, 1977) found three stages of the development of Indian sociology: (i) Proto-
professional stage which covers the period before the twentieth century (featuring
ethnographic and indological studies), (ii) Professional stage covering the first half
of the twentieth century, characterized by descriptive and explanatory studies, and
(iii) Required stage of diagnostic studies for second half of the twentieth century.
1 Introduction 7

Moreover, in his later reviews of growth of Indian sociology, Mukherjee (1979) gave
a five-fold classification of sociologists: (i) pioneers (1920–1940s), (ii) modernisers
(1950s), (iii) insiders (1960s), pacemakers (1970s), and non-conformists (1970s).
Considering the period till early 1970s, Srinivas and Panini (1973:181) identified
three phases in the growth of sociology in India. In their view, the first phase
covers the period between 1773–1900, when the foundations were laid. In the second
phase (1901–1950), Indian sociology got professionalized. And finally, in the post-
independence years, when a complex of forces, including the undertaking of planned
development by the government, the increased exposure of Indian scholars to the
work of their foreign scholars, and the availability of funds, resulted in considerable
research activity in the discipline (see Nagla, 2008:11). Lakshmanna (1974) also
divided the growth of Indian sociology till early 1970s in the twentieth century into
three phases: 1917–1946, 1947–1966, and 1967 onwards.
According to Yogendra Singh (1967:20), Indian sociology prior to Indepen-
dence was descriptive, analytical, comparative and particularistic. It was limited
in its scope, approaches and procedures followed. It lacked positivist orientation.
In contrast, in terms of approaches adopted, he finds a five-fold orientations in the
post-Independence period: (i) the comparative-historical approach, (ii) philosophic-
sociological approach, (iii) logico-philosophical approach, (iv), structural–functional
approach, and statistical-positivistic approach. Moreover, considering the period
between 1952–1977, Singh (1979) observes four phases in the development of Indian
sociology, which includes: (i) 1952–60 (philosophical), (ii) 1960–65 (culturolog-
ical), (iii) 1965–70 (structural), and (iv) 1970–77 (dialectical-historical). It reflected
use of conceptual schemes by Indian sociologists, rather than formulation of meta/
general theories. This was the general trend, though some sociologists followed the
theories propounded by Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Parsons, and ideas of Habermas,
Foucault, Derrida, and others (Sharma (2019:11). During the 1950s and 1960s, a
leading role was played by ‘modernisers’ of Indian sociology. The sociological
categories used in the pre-Independence period were replaced with categories of
caste, family, kinship, village and religion. Subsequently, the categories like class
and power were added. The indological approach was sidelined in 1950s and the
1960s. Holistic-monographic studies with functionalist orientation became domi-
nant. M. N. Srinivas’s variety of cultural sociology/anthropology had to contend with
macro-categories like structure, change, development, modernization, and movement
(ibid:16).
Further, in his comprehensive analysis of Indian sociology, Singh (1986) deciphers
clear decadal shifts in Indian sociology in the post-Independence period. During the
1970s-1980s, he identifies a five-fold typology, which includes: (i) structuralism,
(ii) ethnosociology, (iii) structural-historicism, (iv) Marxism, and (v) dimensional or
systematic approaches. In this period of Indian sociology, he finds both continuities
and changes in terms of paradigms, social research concerns and issues of identity.
In ideological sense, the paradigm shift reflected in the emphasis on the issues of
dalits, gender studies, weaker sections, poor, etc. Moreover, the issues of ‘relevance’
and ‘indigenisation’ of paradigms were discussed in relation to social policy and the
role of sociologists related to development and change (see Sharma, 2019:12).
8 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

Covering only the post-Independence period, Sarmila Rege (1997) divides devel-
opment of Indian sociology into three phases. According to her, the first phase of
development is characterized by interrogations of the colonial impact on the disci-
pline of sociology and nationalist response to that. Second phase shows explorations
into the nature of the theoretical paradigms of the discipline, debates on strategies
of indigenization, critical reflections on deductive positivistic base of sociology and
use of Marxist paradigms. The third phase reflects post-structuralist, feminist and
postmodern explorations of the discipline and the field.
Thus, there is seen considerable conceptual and cognitive advances and shift in
thematic thrust, with some continuities, in Indian sociology over time.

1.1.1 Sociology and Social Anthropology

Further, it is worth indicating here that traditionally there has been an issue about
distinction between the disciplines of sociology and social anthropology. Anthro-
pology focused on the study of primitive and tribal societies, whereas sociology
dealt with contemporary societies. There is a distinction also in terms of method
of study, anthropology privileging participatory observational qualitative approach
but sociology preferring quantitative survey techniques. Atal (2003:123) notes that
the Lucknow School led the debate about the nature of Indian sociology and the
difference between sociology and anthropology. But the Bombay school did not
concern with this especially in the beginning. M. N. Srinivas and I. P. Desai were
both students of Ghurye, former representing anthropology and latter sociology. But
both of them were part of the department of sociology at Baroda University. Desai
(1981:33) reports that the then M.A. students were conversant with American soci-
ology as well as British sociology and social anthropology. Srinivas, though being a
social anthropologist and heading the department, never prevented buying American
sociology books for teaching as well for the library. Writing in early 1980s Desai
(ibid:46) observes,
I must make it clear that anthropologists and sociologists were never understood as two
‘castes’ as they are understood today. Sociology and anthropology had a common theoretical
outlook, namely evolutionism. In fact, sociology was something amorphous at least as it was
practiced then in India and probably elsewhere too.

Srinivas laid emphasis on empirical research and anthropological fieldwork. He

considered all such studies as sociological, which he systematically tried to differen-
tiate from indological studies and social work. Hence, there was an attempt to give
sociology a distinct identity focusing on the study of contemporary Indian society by
using systematic fieldwork without giving emphasis on conceptual frameworks or
theory. This variety of sociology still prevails at University of Delhi (Atal, 2003:24).
In his interactions with Srinivas Desai felt that Srinivas considered anthropology as
‘true or real sociology’ (ibid:123). In contrast, sociology started and established by
Yogendra Singh at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi is regarded as closer to
1 Introduction 9

sociology of another type. Here, it needs to be noted that in India initially no rigid
distinction was made between social anthropology and sociology, but they separated
as teaching disciplines in the 1950s. After Independence, anthropological researches
showed a shift from the studies of tribal societies to the village communities. In
1970s, Lakshmanna (1974) noted the gap narrowing between sociologists and social
anthropologists. In fact, many scholars initially trained in social anthropology joined
the stream of sociology, but generally not the other way round. He appreciated this
trend, though there is a distinction between the two disciplines in terms of content
and method. Lakshmanna (ibid) observes,
A distinction can be made between any two disciplines in two ways, in content and in method.
With the growing complexity in the social organization whose understanding and study is our
main concern, the present-day [Indian] society is neither primitive nor completely modern-
ized. The focus of our studies is therefore mainly directed towards a transitional social order.
This transition itself may be of varying dimensions. Nonetheless we are mostly concerned
with change or in creating conditions of change in the social order. This calls for obliterating
the distinction which was held for long between sociology and social anthropology.

Also, Ghurye, Srinivas, S. C. Dube, and Andre Beteille, among others, have argued
that sociologists in the Indian context cannot afford to make any artificial distinction
between the study of tribal and folk society on the one hand and advanced sections
of the population on the other. Neither can they confine themselves to any single set
of techniques. The distinction between social anthropology and sociology continues
to be blurred particularly in the field of research in India.

1.1.2 Issue of Indigenization

In fact, there are widely divergent views on the nature of Indian sociology, ranging
between universalistic to completely particularistic positions. According to K. L.
Sharma (2019:11), ‘As such, the problematic of Indian sociology is whether it implies
mainly ‘sociology of values’ specific to Indian sociology or it is a part of sociology in
general, with emphasis on study of structure and change’. In the early decades after
Independence, some sociologists like A. K. Saran completely rejected the exoge-
nous perspectives and vociferously advocated a distinct Indian sociology having
indigenous approach to analyse and explain Indian society. Another set of sociolo-
gists did not reject but rather support indigenization (adaptation) of Euro-American
approach to make them appropriate to the study of Indian social reality. For instance,
Mukherji (2006:192) states, ‘It is my argument that all societies need to indigenise
their approaches in sociology and the social sciences—much the same way Western
social science had done historically and continues to do so’. Atal (2003:133) notes
the debate regarding indigenization mellowing down. Yogendra Singh (1986:24) ‘…
finds substantial continuity of concerns… specially on the issue of indegenization of
Indian sociology’. He states (ibid),
Yet, one also witnesses in these debates the emergence of new perspectives… The focus shifts
from a debate on sociological colonialism or dependency to the constructive formulation and
10 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

investigation of grounds on which the specific cognitive structure of Indian sociology could be
constituted… These viewpoints mark a departure from the early concern with the problem of
sociology’s indigenization. Not that this problem is not debated during the 1970s and 1980s,
but in most cases, indigenization is now identified with an emphasis on historicity, conceptual
relevance, and sensitivity to the distinction of levels (regional, national, and cross-national)
in attempts to make generalizations through theoretical abstractions in Indian sociology.

According to Patel (2016), ‘Over the decades Indian sociological research has
evolved from one with a distinct colonial intellectual dominance to a discipline
that has opened up its epistemology to involve the diversity of social experiences
both within and outside India, subaltern perspectives as well as one that reflects
upon dominant theories and practices’ (see Chaudhuri and Jayachandran in Singh,
2014:124).

1.1.3 Exogenous Influence and Weaknesses

The development of sociology in India, from the viewpoint of theory, methodology,

and research interests, has been significantly influenced by sociology in Western
countries. Initially, there was dominant impact of British anthropological tradition.
But the trend changed during the 2nd World war. Indian sociologists came in contact
with USA. They evolved a strong empirical positivistic orientation and applica-
tion of methods and techniques of scientific sociology in India. This exogenous
influence is quite understandable. Several Western scholars, most of them initially
from the United Kingdom and Europe, and later also from the United States, have
carried out studies in India, and many of the leading sociologists in India have been
trained in the United Kingdom and the United States. Partha N. Mukherji observes
three major theoretico-empirical influences over Indian sociology, especially in the
post-Independence period. He states, ‘Sociology in India, particularly after Inde-
pendence, in a larger measure, developed in an environment of tension between the
social anthropological heritage of Britain, sociology as canonized in the US, and
the Marxist intellectual tradition’ (Mukherji, 2006:175). But in the recent decades,
the European post-modernism and post-structuralism also have made their impact
felt globally, including in India. Chaudhuri and Jayachandran refer to ascendency in
global academia of ‘social constructivism’ in the recent decades, which goes against
historical as well as material analysis. It rejects positivism and challenges the very
notion of scientific ‘truths’ by holding that social reality is not stable and objective;
rather it gets recreated in the process of human discourse. So, it subverts the ‘Western
rationalist tradition of scholarly and scientific enquiry’ (Chaudhuri and Jayachandran
in Singh, 2014:125–26).
Indian sociology is considered weak on macro-level theorization. K. L. Sharma
(2019) observes, ‘In general, there is a good deal of theorising about Indian sociology,
but there is hardly any theorization of one’s own ideas and researches’. Chaudhuri
and Jayachandran observe a widespread view that Indian sociology has had little
to offer in theory and method (Chaudhuri and Jayachandran in Singh, 2014). They
1 Introduction 11

refer to the view of Frank Welz (2009) who notes lack of metatheory as India’s
weakness. However, Welz holds that ‘the discourse on indigenization of sociology
in India moved Indian sociology to centre stage, emphasizing its peculiarity’ (see
Chaudhuri and Jayachandran in Singh, 2014:126). Dhanagare finds both historical
sociology and material analysis very week currents in Indian sociology (ibid:125).
Further, globalisation has largely eroded the critical thrust of sociology (Chaudhuri
ed. 2010:25). Methodological nationalism has largely receded now (cf. Chaudhuri,
2020).
So, there has been continuing lack of development of general sociological theory
in India, though some sociologists have successfully attempted to formulate some
concepts and theories. Long back, Radhakamal Mukerjee gave a general framework
for studying social reality, but could not attract adherents. Ramkrishna Mukherjee
also provided a general framework for the study of Indian society, which also is
not in much practice. Srinivas’s concepts of sanskritization and westernization help
analysing and explaining some processes of social mobility and change. But appli-
cability of these concepts is largely confined to the Indian context, rather than being
applicable across societies like the general concept of acculturation. In his cele-
brated work titled Modernization of Indian Tradition, Singh (1973) made an impor-
tant contribution through providing a theoretical framework of modernization and
social change, which includes both the structural and processual dimensions of social
change, but seems to miss on the human agency aspect from a historical dialectical/
conflict perspective.
According to Lakshmanna (1974), an important reason for theoretical weakness
in Indian sociology is the insufficiency of scientific data, especially macro-level,
about the Indian society, which may be processed with logical reasoning to theorize.
Lot of studies, Ph.Ds. as well as research project findings are available but they are
mostly related to micro-level situations that may not help much in theorization unless
properly analysed and synthesized.
Indian sociology is weak on methodological contribution. It is also weak in inter-
disciplinary research, though some commendable efforts have been made in that
direction. The Euro-American priorities largely dominate in the choice of thematic
areas and issues of study making Indian sociology not as much relevant to over-
come the problems which the overwhelming mass of the Indian people have been
confronting.
On the whole, it can be held that influence of Euro-American conceptual and
theoretical paradigms and methodological orientations still continue to dominate
Indian sociology to a large extent, and also in thematic concern to a significant
degree, despite some attempts made to extricate it from that. In recent decades,
the influence of neoliberal globalization over Indian sociology, like other academic
disciplines, is quite visible in its conceptual, theoretical, ideological orientations and
thematic emphases. Buraway (2007) notes that sociology as a discipline is more
for upholding civil society, and at the same time keeping distance from both state
and market. But marketisation is destroying the very foundation on which sociology
develops (see Sharma 2009:16).
12 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

1.1.4 Way Forward

There are widely contrasting views expressed by sociologists regarding the direction
Indian sociology needs to take. N. Gupta (2007) supports ‘breaking the Western
hegemony’. B. B. Mohanty (2007) calls for ‘challenging Western paradigm on social
knowledge’. Hetukar Jha (2005:6) advocates giving a ‘regional orientation’ to Indian
sociology. He argues, ‘India is a subcontinent constituted by ninety-one ‘naively
given’ regions. Indian society under the circumstances is virtually a super organic
complex of regional societies. Hence the ‘naively given’ region is the appropriate unit
of the sociological studies, and the regional sociologists may be developed in order
to build an adequate and authentic Indian sociology’. Mukherji (2006:193) holds, ‘It
is my argument that all societies need to indigenise their approaches in sociology and
the social sciences—much the same way Western social science had done historically
and continues to do so’. A. K. Saran advocates a completely indigenous approach to
Indian sociology.
Contrary to Saran, Bailey (1959) does not support a particularistic sociology. In
his view, sociology is not confined to a sociology of values. Behaviour also forms an
equally important basis for abstractions/theorisation. Singh is in favour of a synthesis
of structural and cultural dimensions in the making of Indian sociology (see Sharma,
2019). Some other sociologists are in favour of keeping Indian sociology open to
concepts and theoretical perspectives ignoring their origin. Beteille (2006:204) does
‘…not see much merit in the argument that we should set about creating an alternative
sociology that will be an alternative to the existing Sociology that had its origins in
the west’. He considers it ‘now too late to make a new beginning and … [is] doubtful
of the outcome to which such a beginning might lead’. Sharma (2009:18) cites
Fletcher’s view (1974) who considers sociology as one, not many. Atal (2003:133)
talks of ‘a need to ‘deparochialise’ our theories—be they Western or Oriental—so
that they could compete for a universal status’.
Another set of sociologists also do not support a particularistic perspective on
knowledge production but raise the issue of relevance. For instance, Oommen (1983)
does not favour a particularistic perspective but raises the issue of relevance of
exogenous approaches in the study of Indian society. He observes,
At the present juncture one cannot exclusively depend upon one way of thinking to understand
the ignored regions and the ignored sections of a region or regions. Therefore, it is better to
combine both perspectives that is ‘neither a total rejection of the western knowledge without
knowing what it is, not putting restrictions on the knowledge flow but in developing a critical
capacity to discern what is good and relevant for us’ (ibid).

Indicating extreme complexity of Indian society, Thara Bhai (2012:xxx-xxxi)

largely echoes the position taken by Oommen. He emphsises the need of analysing
Indian society in depth from different perspectives and using tools and techniques
which are appropriate. He takes note of the non-positivist argument made by many
social scientists that conceptual, theoretical as well as methodological orientations
are social constructs and hence have universal relevance. However, he argues that as
1 Introduction 13

concepts and theories emerge from existential realities, their relevance in the Indian
context needs to be examined prior to using them.
So, the views of sociologists on Indian sociology widely differ. They range from
advocacy of a completely particularistic perspective (i.e. having a completely indige-
nous approach to study Indian society) to adoption of a completely universalistic
paradigm (sociology needs to be universally the same), and others taking position
in between. So, Indian sociology faces a dilemma. But it does not seem to be an
exception. In fact, Welz (2009) suggests the need of deconstructing the ‘West’. He
indicates that Western sociology is not homogeneous as assumed in Indian soci-
ology. There is a general fragmentation in contemporary sociology as a discipline.
Dilemmas and tensions faced by Indian sociology are also present in other soci-
ologies. He observes, ‘The distinction of theory and empirical research, the debate
on quantitative and qualitative approaches and the question of whether sociology
should follow the rational-actor model derived from economics or better contexu-
alize its models are important themes across the globe’ (ibid). The dilemma faced by
Indian sociology is also indicated by Baviskar (2008:431), who observes, ‘Global
sociology too is faced with broad questions of what ought to be the objective of
sociology today…The question however is which orientation will be promoted by
Indian sociology? Will it go towards the study of social problems, or will it seek to
analyse the larger social field that creates those problems and our knowledge of them’
(Baviskar, 2008:431, cited by Chaudhuri and Jayachandran in Y. Singh, 2014:127).
Further, in recent years, some sociologists have emphasized the need of critical
tenor in sociology. Chaudhuri (2010:25) takes note of privileging of skill development
and market competitiveness under globalisation that has eroded the critical thrust of
sociology. Hence, she indicates ‘an urgent need to reaffirm the critical possibility of
sociology… notwithstanding the banality that may mark the practice of sociology
in ours and in many other parts of the world’. Michael Buraway (2007) observes
that discipline of sociology is meant more for upholding civil society, and for this it
needs to keep distance from both state and market. He advocates ‘public sociology’
that would pave a way for a policy-oriented, critical and professional sociology (see
Sharma 2009:17). Sharma (2019) underlines the need for humanistic perspective to
probe the current social situation. In his view, ‘Perhaps the answer lies in the advo-
cacy of public sociology, incorporating time, myriad-social relationships at different
levels with structured and cultural ramifications’. This requires us to ‘interrogate
the established ideas and notions, and justify the new disciplinary agenda for Indian
sociology’ (ibid: 21).
In this context, it would be worth following Ramkrishna Mukherjee’s approach in
the study of Indian society. Mukherjee (1970) advocates adoption of a ‘diagnostic’
perspective in the study of development and change in contemporary Indian society.
His perspective of diagnostic study gives a sequential format to study Indian society,
which involves attempt to answer empirically five questions: what is it (enumeration
of the phenomenon)?, how is it (classification)?, why is it so (causality)?, what will
it be (probability)?, and what should it be (desirability)? related to development and
change (Mukherjee, 1977). So, this diagnostic approach to study involves descrip-
tive, explanatory, diagnostic and positivistic explanations and, we think, normative
14 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

dimension as well, related to social phenomena. Mukherjee advocates using both

Marxian and Weberian concepts of social dynamics (see Sharma, 2019:11).
Currently, there is observed a very strong nexus between the state and the private
sector, which is restructuring the post-Second World War architecture of growth and
welfare. The state is playing leading role in promoting a market-driven and private-
sector-led growth-centric model of development, which has adverse impact on the
large mass of marginalized sections of society globally, and more so in India. The
corporate sector has come centre state, which strongly support the neoliberal state
through different ways, including favourable media coverage and funding for running
political party and meeting electoral expenditures. This enables the big business
to exercise influence over making of favourable state policy. In such a situation,
‘We need [new] ‘sociological imagination’, specific to the present Indian society.
A renewed ‘reflexive sociology’ or demythologization/demystification needs to be
created. Knowledge cannot be independent of existence’ (Sharma 2009:18).
Social reality is multidimensional and, hence, needs to be studied from various
theoretical perspectives. India may require adoption of varied theoretical paradigms
to analyse and explain its societal complexity. However, in the present context of
corporate dominance over the state and cultural/religious tone of politics, it should
be epistemologically and socially more appropriate to follow political economy
perspective in combination with culture in the study of Indian society keeping in view
different sections of society and spatial levels. Interdisciplinary diagnostic approach
with a critical tenor would add to such an endeavour. The issues may be critically
analysed and explained using the theoretic frame of structure, ideology, history and
agency. Methodological pluralism may be preferable in place of methodological
nationalism which characterized the earlier growth of Indian sociology. Indian soci-
ology needs, both institutionally and at individual levels, to connect and collaborate
with sociologies in other countries, especially with the developing and underdevel-
oped countries who have similar historical experiences, to broaden and deepen its
epistemological horizons based on ancient civilizational depth and modern experi-
ences, which would enable it to overcome Euro-American intellectual hegemony and
fruitfully engage on equal footing in inter-civilizational conversations and dialogues
and thus enrich and contribute both epistemologically as well as in policy terms to
make the globalizing world a better place for all peoples within and across borders
to live in an environment of peace, happiness and dignity. Choice of strategy of
research—whether to use quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods—would always
depend on the problem of study.
Further, there various sociological themes and issues which have been identified
by sociologists for study in India at present. Sharma (2019:21,22) suggests study on
the themes of identity and culture, impact of new form of capitalism and modernity
on farmers, women, artisans and poor sections, new forms of social inequality and
resultant tensions, conflicts, crime and violence, new patterns of social mobility,
migration, education, diaspora, socio-economic repercussions of new technology,
trade and commerce, divides between the rich and the poor, the resourceful and the
resourceless, the highly educated and the less educated/uneducated, structuring of
social inequalities, reproduction of elites and middle classes, the urban and rural poor,
1 Introduction 15

India’s pluralism, and change from both below and above. Thara Bhai (2012:xxviii)
lists out some areas that require immediate attention, which include urban working
class, elderly population, youth, decentralization of powers in family, growing self-
identity and individuality, reassessment of culture and tradition. Additional themes of
study may include sociology of globalization, religion and secularism, mass media
and communication, social media, democracy, authoriatarianism and dictatorship,
social equity, inequality and oppression, welfare policy of the state, violence and
terrorism, cyber crimes, social protests and movements, migration, displacement and
refugeehood, peace, security and development, environment and climate change,
ecology and sustainable development, global warming, disaster management, and
planning and policy issues. Moreover, there is acute paucity of study particularly on
the OBCs and the ruling class/elites which need serious attention. It may be mentioned
here that the themes and issues listed here are not in a particular order of priority.
Moreover, studies on many of these thematic areas and issues have already begun, but
they need to be pursued further preferably using the theoretical perspective already
indicated above. The outcome of such studies would enrich our understanding of
contemporary Indian society and may also provide useful inputs to policy makers
and implementers in India in particular and at international level in general. Moreover,
output of such studies may be incorporated in framing and formulating courses of
study to keep them relevant in the present time. With this, it may be hoped that Indian
sociology would be able to occupy its rightful place in world sociology.

1.2 About the Book

The present volume is dedicated in the memory of eminent sociologist (late) Professor
Yogendra Singh. The papers in the volume are contributed by sociologists mostly
from India and some from abroad. It may be worth noting that the writings of
Professor Singh are in many ways sociology of Indian sociology. It is evident from his
authoritative periodic analysis of the developments in Indian sociology as indicated
in the foregoing section. They offer a critical analytical profile of Indian sociology
exposing foundations of concepts and theories on which most Indian studies on
different themes are based (Nagla 2023). It is clear from the preceding brief discus-
sion that Indian sociology has a vast landscape encompassing varied theoretical
orientations, substantive domains, and continual debates on newer concerns. In fact,
no single volume would be able to provide a comprehensive picture of Indian soci-
ology in detail. The present volume provides a very limited glimpse of only certain
aspects of these dimensions of Indian sociology, which are worth attention in the
current context. It does not make any distinction between sociology and anthropology
is respect of Indian sociology. The volume is divided into three parts, comprising
total fourteen papers. Part I critically analyses some of the theoretical orientations
of Indian sociology. Part II focuses on some thematic areas of study. Finally, Part III
concentrates on certain emerging concerns.
16 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

1.2.1 Theoretical Orientations

Part I critically examines some of the important theoretical approaches used in Indian
sociology, viz. Indological approach, civilizational approach, indigenous approach
and Ambedkarist biographical approach, to study Indian society. Moreover, it specif-
ically examines the theoretical contributions of Professor Yogendra Singh, in whose
memory the volume is dedicated, to Indian sociology with reference to sociology of
knowledge, liberal democracy, and concept of Islamization. The section consists of
six papers.
First, in his paper on ‘Indology and Sociology’, P. K. Bose notes that early Indian
sociology had strong affinities with Indology which rested on the assumption that
historically Indian society and culture are unique, and that this contextual specificity
of Indian social reality could be better grasped through the ‘texts.’ He takes a critical
look at the history of this relationship and argues that the search for the so-called
enduring principle of Indian civilization by combining Indology and sociology has
given the impression of a society which has yet to enter history. This sociology
presented India as a timeless civilization but concealed within was an ideology of
Hindu nationalism that is still working strong in contemporary India. For much of
the academic sociology in India Indology replaced history and has been used to de-
historicize both India and sociological practice in India. Hence, Bose suggests that the
excavation of sociology’s past can provide us not only a better understanding of the
development of its key ideas and ideology, but also contribute to the development of
reflexivity about the discipline and its role in production of knowledge about society.
Secondly, Biswajit Ghosh, in his paper, critically analyses the Civilizational
perspective of Indian society and culture in general and that of Surajit Sinha in
particular. He observes that the followers of this approach, like many other pioneers
of Indian sociology, provided a powerful critique of the Western and colonial cate-
gories and explanation and proved that Indian society far from being ‘segmentary,
isolated and despotic’ is a product of ‘syntheses’ of a number of indigenous cultural
patterns. This approach, first developed by Robert Redfield, placed folk and urban
societies in an evolutionary ‘continuum’. The conceptual framework of the ‘Little
and Great traditions’ was used in the Indian context to argue about circulation of
cultural elements at two levels. Nirmal Kumar Bose applied this approach to argue
about continuity of Indian culture through cultural assimilation, accommodation,
or unification. While Bose followed a cultural model of ‘tribe-Hindu continuum’
to explain ‘assimilation’, Sinha’s ‘tribe-caste-peasant continuum’ model introduced
structural factors and flexibility to explain ‘integration’. Such an understanding led
us to conclude that civilization as a social process transcends religious traditions and
does not work in similar fashion for all. Hence, it is possible to challenge the volun-
tary nature of tribal absorption and accept the fact that exploitation and coercion are
built even within the system of so-called integration.
Third, Ajit Kumar Pandey delves into the approach adopted by A. K. Saran to
modernity, Indian tradition and sociology in India. He critically analyses Saran’s
critique of modernity which is entirely distinct . He notes Saran’s position that holds
1 Introduction 17

incompatibility of modernity and tradition, like ‘if Hinduism [tradition] is alive,

modernity and modernization will not be accepted’. The dominant stream of Indian
sociological tradition has continued to pursue the course where Hinduism [tradition]
has been unwittingly subjected to a condescending judgement: Hindu tradition is
good, it has all kinds of rationality, but let India modernize by adopting Western
institutions; keep criticizing Westernization but do not spell out a genuinely Indian
alternative. Pandey finds Saran’s paradigm signifying a break from this model of
self-understanding and social change. Yet, he does not find Saran’s attempt going far
enough to produce a viable explanation of Hindu tradition, either sociologically or
historically. The paper addresses Saran’s critical understanding of Indian tradition
reflecting on the tradition of Indian sociology.
Fourth, in his reflections on sociology and public life, Dipankar Gupta underlines
contribution of Professor Yogendra Singh to liberalism and democracy. He rightly
affirms that liberalism offers choice to the citizens and at the same time enjoins
the state to enable even those at the bottom to avail of opportunities that would
enhance their life chances. In the same vein, sociology is a study of choices, of
options available, of futures unexplored. It helps in advancing citizenship for the
destinies and fortunes of people are differentiated. So, in essence, sociology and
democracy are twins. Without room for discussion, debates and acceptance of the
other, sociology would shrivel and so would democracy. Gupta notes that Professor
Yogendra Singh was very conscious of sociology’s responsibility in forwarding the
ideals of liberalism. With a view to enhance democratic academic culture of openness,
choice, debates and discussion, Professor Singh encouraged a trend to bring not only
Weber and Parsons, but also Marx, Habermas and others to Indian sociology. He
stood for social change in a democratic way. His Modernization of Indian Tradition
clearly shows how tradition is overwhelmed when agency, history and structure are
allowed to freely interact. He held that learning from comparative sociology and
harnessing theory and history can enlarge a non-partisan liberal consciousness.
Fifth, in his paper, K. M. Ziyauddin credits Professor Yogendra Singh for giving a
new historical and pluralist paradigm to understand social change in India in his book
Modernization of Indian Tradition, where he first introduced in Indian sociology the
concept of Islamization referring to the impact of Islam on Indian society. Ziyauddin
analyses the concept critically to understand social change in India. According to
him, Singh does not find broader inclusivity of Islamic influence on Indian society.
He cites Irfan Ahmad who holds that Singh’s Modernization… treats Muslims as
alien to India and Islam as orthogenetic, outsider. ‘By calling it heterogenetic, Singh
cast Islam outside the body politic of India’. He affirms that the forms and processes
by which Islamic tradition has gone through demand a revisit to the concept of
Islamization in contemporary social processes. Ziyauddin also seeks to explore how
the different processes of Islamization have influenced the life of Muslims in the
background of Islamization in India. Whether Islamization is a process that has
brought changes in the life of Indian Muslim or there is also a macro structural factor
that brings changes either desirable or less wanting, which he seeks to understand by
the process of modernization. He avers that there has been a change in understanding
of Islamization due to the multiple impacts and influences Muslims have globally
18 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

accepted into their community life despite the challenges of reading Islam in its real
sense. He considers it important to revisit Islamization as a process of change and
how far other factors have influenced Islamic tradition and the Muslim practising
their faith in India.
Sixth, Swapan Kumar Bhattacharyya applies in his paper a biographical approach
to explore B. R. Ambedkar’s sociology, which has so far been denied a rightful place
in the development of Indian sociology. In his perusal of Ambedkar’s ideas and
course of action, he clearly demonstrates the utilities of Ambedkar’s sociology as
social criticism., and unravels the problems of (a) analyzing the nature of interface
of tradition and modernity in India; (b) assessing the nature of ‘social exclusion’
(a concept innovated by Ambedkar before anybody else in India or abroad) prac-
ticed by the savarna, following Brahminical injunctions, against the numerous (ex-)
untouchables of India; (c) adequately realizing the nature of ‘lived experience’ of the
socially ostracized by those who lack in the taste of the lived experience. Associated
with it is the problem besetting attempts at theorization of ‘distinctive’ predicament
of the Dalits. Bhattacharyya notes that the dilemma, hitherto neglected by scholars,
confronting Ambedkar and other Dalits in facing the ‘two leeches’ then tormenting
the Indian/Hindu society, viz., the British and the Brahminical rule, merits attention.
He finds that Ambedkar’s analysis of inequality in Indian society clearly exposed
the interconnections of religion or ethnic component, society, power system and the
economic structure where status-power grounded in collective caste-psyche chal-
lenged the very elemental trait of dignified human existence, i.e. fraternity. Frater-
nity is challenged quite often all over and Ambedkar’s intellectual tirade and actions
sought to squarely face this challenge.

1.2.2 Thematic Domains

Part II includes five papers concerned with certain substantive themes of studies in
Indian sociology. Indian sociology has dealt with a variety of themes and issues in
the course of its development which reflect some degree of thematic continuity as
well as change with changing contours of Indian society. Yogendra Singh (1986,
2014) clearly delineates the changing concerns of Indian sociology through various
stages of its growth. In their recently edited book, Srivastava et al. (2019) list out
some critical themes in Indian sociology, such as class, caste and village, besides
others. This section presents a nuanced contemporary analysis of some of the themes
like caste, class, village, and also trends of research in the areas of tribal studies,
population studies, and a new area of disability studies.
Here, adopting a diachronic Marxian intersectionalist approach, Hira Singh criti-
cally analyses in his paper the process of decline of a dominant caste in a multi-caste
village, Mahuari, in Eastern Uttar Pradesh since the 1950s. He notes that due to their
monopoly landownership, the Rajputs were for over three centuries economically,
politically and culturally the dominant caste in the village. However, as a result of the
1 Introduction 19

juridical abolition of zamindari (landlordism) in the early 1950s, the age-old domi-
nance of the Rajputs was challenged for the first time by the lower castes in the history
of the village. He argues that the abolition of zamindari ended the monopoly landown-
ership, the foundation of economic, political and cultural power of the Rajputs as
the dominant caste. His findings convincingly refute Weber’s concept of caste as
‘status’ (cultural power) autonomous of economic and political power so commonly
used in mainstream sociology, including subaltern studies. He affirms that the case of
Mahuari village is not a stray incident, but rather presents in microcosm the macro-
cosm of the reality of caste in India as the intersection of economic, political and
cultural power.
It is commonly believed that home is the place where we live. But is that always
the case, especially for the poorer urban migrants? In this context, Tulsi Patel, in
her paper, revisits the rendering of a village in historical and present discourse to
arrive at the Indian village in the Covid-19 lockdown. She recalls Professor Yogendra
Singh who suggested that a new way of seeing and describing the world would be
required in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic. During the Covid lockdown, social life
changed drastically; the world over human beings got helplessly isolated from each
other to stay alive without being infected by this deadly virus. In India, crores of
skilled and unskilled workers who had migrated from rural to urban areas for better
wages lost their jobs, and not many had savings to pay rents and sustain them and
their dependents, especially children in the city. The mass exodus of several crores of
Indians rendered unemployed suddenly owing to a complete countrywide lockdown
in March 2020 is termed as a major tragedy of the century. The large volume of
people rendered jobless in the city turned towards their villages to get back home.
Having to walk with meager belongings, small children, and infants with little or
no money on them in the scorching heat of May and June 2020, they were leaving
their urban residences to reach home far away. Many died along the way before
reaching their home in villages, despite the village not being a safe haven because of
prevailing inequalities, hierarchies, conflicts and factions. So, the village continues
to hold value to most rural–urban migrants as witnessed in the huge exodus of a
massive mass of jobless and homeless humanity forced to walk thousands of miles
to return to their native village home.
Now, having covered the themes of caste, class and village, the section deals with
trends of research in some conventional and new areas of studies.
Here, starting with the epistemological position that knowledge is a social
construct, Vidyut Joshi analyses in his paper tribal studies in India and shows that
whenever there was a change in the broader context, there was a change in nature
of tribal studies (i.e. the text). Using this frame he divides the entire gamut of tribal
studies in four phases, viz. (i) The Ethnographic study phase (1774–1920), (ii) The
Constructive phase (1920–1950), (iii) The Development study phase (1950–1990),
and (iv) The Identity study phase (1990 onwards). The first phase is identified with
the influence of British anthropology. It is devoted to ethnographic studies to under-
stand tribal communities to administer them. The second phase is marked by national
movement where Indian scholars debated whether tribals should be isolated, assim-
ilated or integrated with the Indian mainstream. In the third phase, the Indian state is
20 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

committed to tribal development and, hence, most of the studies pertain to various
aspects of tribal development/modernization. The fourth phase is marked by some-
what disenchantment with the pattern of modernization and, hence the studies deal
with emergence of a strong sense of tribal identity: (a) by anthropologists speaking
for tribal autonomy, (b) by tribal scholars who are in search of tribal identity, and (c)
by TRTIs devoted to certification of tribal status. Thus, on the whole there are found
four different trends of tribal studies in four different phases.
In his paper, A. K. Sharma focuses on changes occurring in research issues and
theories in the field of population in India during the last 100 years. An attempt has
also been made here to explain these changes in the light of changing socio-economic
milieus and political approaches to nation building. As a sub-field of sociology,
sociology of population deals with social aspects of five demographic processes:
nuptiality, fertility, mortality, migration, and social mobility. These social aspects
appear as both determinants and implications of population trends. For example, in
certain contexts migrants are found to be having lower fertility than the vast majority
and this in turns helps the minority community in improving their social status.
However, in India among the five demographic processes, social mobility is less
studied than the other four processes. This is largely due to greater international
interest in mortality and fertility, and stress on implementing national population
policy issues. Since the beginning of the planned era state has promoted exploration
of fertility and determinants of family planning acceptance. No wonder, therefore,
that there is a lack of data on social mobility in general and occupational mobility
in particular. Finally, Sharma identifies the major gaps in population research and
suggests certain specific issues for further probing.
In their paper, Ritika Gulyani and Nilika Mehrotra critically discuss the issue of
disability, social inequalities and intersectionality with a focus on India by way of
review of available literature on how the disabled worlds are viewed and the approach
needed to go forward. They note that disability is a familiar yet a contested terrain in
the society today. It is a term that is often employed using common sense to explain
a variety of impairments, yet the nuances of how disability may be defined cross
culturally is very varied. The understandings of disability is framed either as a divine
intervention or with a notion of charity and pity. Disability movements emerged in
the global north since 1960s to contest these understandings of disability as well
as lay claims on rights, accessibility and representation that had so far been denied
to them. Knowledge emergent from these movements helped research deeper in
humanities and social sciences and construct academic and disciplinary perspective,
which came to be known as disability studies. However, these understandings have
emerged primarily in the west, where the lived realities as well as the social, political,
economic, and cultural situations are very different from the global south. Many
intersecting factors such as caste, class, gender, religion, and region among others
give rise to a very diverse understanding of disability. Given such a context, the
authors note that disciplines such as sociology and social anthropology play an
important role to uncover this. They affirm that using the lens of society and culture,
language, family, law and policies, identity, education and social lived spaces can add
very significantly to the discipline of disability studies. The paper attempts to uncover
1 Introduction 21

and sharpen these understandings and holds that an interdisciplinary approach is the
way forward in this matter.

1.2.3 Emerging Concerns

Finally, Part III deals with some of the contemporary concerns in Indian sociology,
particularly in the context of globalisation. It has three papers by scholars from India
and other countries. They reflect on certain contemporary issues, viz. future of Indian
and South African sociologies, shift from globalisation of sociology to sociology of
globalisation, and rethinking on Area Studies and Indian Studies underlining need
of planetary conversations and planetary realizations.
Here, Kiran Odhav and Jay Govender reflect in their paper on the orientations and
futures of Indian and South African sociologies. They raise the issue of a universal
sociology. They do not observe any form of consensus on a universal sociology
evident in debates and the literature, but note that in some cases they are nascent
as in the case of India. They rightly indicate that sociologists are quite familiar
with different socio-cultural variables and different forms of scientific knowledge.
However, they have not attempted to test the bodies of work, including major theo-
retical foundations. As a result, a sociology of sociology remains only an emerging
study area. The authors note that Indian and South African sociologies came together
in the first decade of the 2000s. In recognition of common interests, debate and the
fact that scientific knowledge is dominated by Euro-American world, an agreement
was signed between the Indian Sociological Society and the South African Soci-
ological Association in 2008. They find characteristics between the sociologies of
the two countries, which lend credence towards convergence given their respective
histories, ideological positions and prospects for cooperation in future. Given that
not much progress has happened yet in realizing the objectives of the agreement,
the authors emphasize the need of revisiting its provisions for mutually enhancing
and advancing the sociologies in the two countries. They hope that their effort here
would inform any future pursuit of cooperation institutionally, educationally and
sociologically.
Habibul Haque Khondker discusses in his paper the trajectory of globalization
of sociology (i.e. gradual spread of sociology from Europe to the whole world)
to the latest phase of sociology of globalization. He talks of multiple origins of
sociology. He argues that there are, at least, three histories of sociology. In his view,
the variations of the multiple historical narratives are due to the definition and scope
of sociology. He questions the notion that sociology is a peculiarly modern cognition
which would imply relativism and makes the rise of sociology dependent on the rise
of modernity. In his paper, first, he briefly summarizes the complex stories of the
rise of sociology as an academic field. Second, in tracking the spread of sociology
as an academic field globally, he confines to selected countries drawn from three
regions: East Asia, South Asia, and Latin America and also touches on Egypt to add
a comparative perspective to the discussion. He does not dwell on the globalization of
22 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

sociology in the European continent mainly for two reasons: one, sociology emerged
in Europe and competent studies are available on the subject; second, limitation of
space. He divides the contemporary challenges of sociology into two sub-categories:
one, the challenges of globalization, and two, how sociology as a field is changing
as it tries to grapple with global and glocal transformations. By way of conclusion,
he offers some plausible directions or roadmaps using the concept of glocalization
to help revamp and refocus sociological inquiries to be in tune with the complex
processes of global social transformation that may be of relevance beyond specific
regions of the world. His paper examines the potential of sociology as an academic
discipline as a global enterprise with claims of universality and the challenges it
faces around the world. It also examines the challenges and possibility of bridging
the two competing demands of universalizing and indigenizing sociology. It is argued
here that ‘glocal’ rather than ‘global’ sociology which supersedes and synthesizes
‘national sociologies’ provides a framework for incorporating both universal tenets
of global sociology and the programmatic concerns of indigenized, local sociology.
Finally, Ananta Kuamr Giri, in his paper, shares his thoughts on rethinking and
transforming area studies for developing a new cosmopolitanism to deal with the
challenges of planetary realizations. He notes that area studies was an important way
of studying different areas of the world after the Second World War by US-European
academic establishment. It emerged after the end of the Second World War, and it then
reflected geopolitical construction of the world into different areas of the world. It
was also part of the then cold war to apply American social science tools to different
parts of the world. The paper tries to rethink and transform such a geopolitical
construction of area studies. It also critically engages with the epistemologies of the
Euro-American world behind such area studies projects and strives to reconstitute
areas with epistemologies and ontologies of the areas studied. It strives to decolonize
area studies. It then engages with Indian studies and critically discusses the prevalent
conceptions of book views and field views of India. It offers a plural realization of
book views of India as part of a global dialogues of civilizations. It tries to transform
fieldwork into footwork and calls for a trigonometry of footwork, philosophy, and
history for understanding India. It pleads for making area studies and Indian studies
part of a new cosmopolitanism where it tries to put our area studies in dialogue
with studies of other parts of the world. It also strives to make both area studies
and Indian studies part of planetary conversations and planetary realizations which
involve dialogues and footwork across borders.

References

Atal, Y. (2003). Indian sociology. Rawat Publications.

Bailey, F. G. (1959). For a sociology of India. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 3.
Baviskar, A. (2008). Pedagogy, public sociology and politics in India: what is to be done. Current
Sociology, 56(3).
Buraway, M. (2007). The future of sociology. Sociological Bulletin, 56(3).
Beteille, A. (2006). Sociology and current affairs. Sociological Bulletin, 55(2).
1 Introduction 23

Chaudhuri, M. (ed.) (2010). Sociology in India: Intellectual and institutional practices. Rawat
Publications.
Chaudhuri, M. (2020). Between invisibility and hypervisibility: Globalization in Indian sociology,
(tr. from English by Lionel Obadia), Diogenes.
Chaudhuri, M., & Jayachandran, J. (2014). Theory and methods in indian sociology. In Y. Singh (ed.)
(2014), Indian Sociology, vol 1, ICSSR Research Surveys and Explorations. Oxford University
Press.
Desai, I. P. (1981).The craft of sociology and other essays. Ajanta Publications.
Dhanagare, D. N. (1985). India. In Sociology and social anthropology in Asia and the Pacific.
UNESCO. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern.
Dumont, L., & Pocock, D. F. (ed.) (1957). For a sociology of India. Contributions to Indian
Sociology, 1.
Gupta, N. (2007). Universalizing and indigenizing social knowledge: Breaking the Western
hegemony. Sociological Bulletin, 56(3).
Jayaram, N. (1998). Social construction of the other Indian: Encounters between Indian nationals
and diasporic Indians. Journal of Social and Economic Development, 1, 46–63.
Jha, H. (2005). Indian sociology in crisis: The need for regional orientation. Sociological Bulletin,
54(3).
Lakshmanna, C. (1974). Teaching and research in sociology in India. Sociological Bulletin, 23(1).
Lele, J. (1981). Indian sociology and sociology in India: Some reflections on their beginning.
Sociological Bulletin, 30(1), 39–53.
Mohanty, B. B. (2007). Challenging Western paradigm on social knowledge. Sociological Bulletin,
56(3).
Motwani, J. K., Gosine, M., & Barot-Motwani, J. (eds.) (1993). Global Indian diaspora: Yesterday,
today and tomorrow. Global Organization of People of Indian Origin.
Mukerji, P. N. (2006). Sociology for what? Rethinking sociology in an era of transformatory changes.
Sociological Bulletin, 55(2).
Mukherjee, R. (1970). Study of social change and social development in the developing societies.
Economic & Political Weekly, 5(29–31).
Mukherjee, R. (1973). Indian sociology: Historical development and present problems. Sociological
Bulletin, 22(1).
Mukherjee, R. (1977). Trends in Indian Sociology. Current Sociology, 25(2).
Mukherjee, R. (1979). Sociology of Indian sociology. Allied Publishers.
Mukherji, P. N., & Oommen, T. K. (1986). Indian sociology: Reflections and introspections. Popular
Prakashan.
Nagla, B. K. (2008/2023). Indian sociological thought. Rawat Publications.
Nagla, B. K. (2017). Indian sociology: Indianization and challenges. The Assam Kaziranga
University National Journal of Social Science Research, vol. I, 9–23.
Oommen, T. K. (1983). Sociology in India: A plea for contextualization. Sociological Bulletin,
32(2), 111–136.
Patel, S. (ed.) (2016). Doing sociology in India: Genealogies, locations, and practices. Oxford
University Press.
Rao, M. S. A. (1978). Introduction. In Report on the Status of Teaching of Sociology and Social
Anthropology, Part I: Recommendations. University Grants Commission.
Srivastava, S., Arif, Y., & Abraham, J. (eds.) (2019). Critical themes in Indian sociology. Sage
Publications.
Shah, V. P. (2000). Indian sociology. In E. F. Borgatt, & R. J. V. Montgomery (eds.), Encyclopaedia
of Sociology, (2nd edition). Macmillan Reference USA: An imprint of The Gale Group.
Sharma, K. L. (2019). Indian Sociology at the threshold of the 21st Century: Some observations.
Sociological Bulletin, 68(1), 7–24.
Sharma, S. (1985). Sociology in India: A perspective from sociology of knowledge. Rawat
Publications.
Singh, Y. (1973). Modernization of Indian tradition. Thompson Press.
24 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary

Singh, Y. (1986). Indian sociology: Social conditioning and emerging concerns. Vistar/ Sage
Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Singh, Y. (ed.) (2014). Indian sociology, 3 vols, ICSSR research surveys and explorations. Oxford
University Press.
Srinivas, M. N., & Panini, M. N. (1973). The development of sociology and social anthropology in
India. Sociological Bulletin, 22, 179–215.
Thara Bhai, L. (ed.) (2012). Introduction. Indian sociology: Issues and challenges. Sage publica-
tions.
Unnithan, T. K. N., Singh, Y., Singhi, N., & Deva, I. (eds.) (1967). Sociology for India. Prentice
Hall.
Welz, F. (2009). 100 Years of Indian sociology: Social anthropology to decentering global sociology.
International Sociology, 24(5).
 Part I
Theoretical Orientations
Chapter 2
Indology and Sociology

Pradip Kumar Bose

Abstract Early Indian sociology had strong affinities with Indology which rested
on the assumption that historically Indian society and culture are unique and that
this contextual specificity of Indian social reality could be better grasped through the
‘texts.’ This paper takes a critical look at the history of this relationship and argues
that the search for the so-called enduring principle of Indian civilisation by combining
Indology and sociology has given the impression of a society which has yet to enter
history. This sociology presented India as a timeless civilisation but concealed within
was an ideology of Hindu nationalism that is still working strong in contemporary
India. For much of the academic sociology in India Indology replaced history and
has been used to DE-historicise both India and sociological practice in India. The
excavation of sociology’s past can provide us not only a better understanding of the
development of its key ideas and ideology, but also contribute to the development
of reflexivity about the discipline and its role in the production of knowledge about
society.

Keywords Cognitive structure · Hindu categories · Methodological nationalism ·

Orientalism · Anti-behaviourism

2.1 Indological Perspective

The Indological approach to Indian sociology rested on the assumption that histor-
ically Indian society and culture are unique and that this contextual specificity of
Indian social reality could be better grasped through the ‘texts.’ It may also be viewed
that the Indological approach refers to the historical and comparative method based
on Indian texts in the study of Indian society. The texts basically include the classical
ancient literature of India and the Indologists analyse the social phenomenon by inter-
preting the classical texts. Therefore, this approach is often called the ‘textual view’
or ‘textual perspective’ of the Indian society. Although the relation between history

P. K. Bose (B)
Former Professor of Sociology at Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Kolkata, India
e-mail: taptibose@gmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 27
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_2
28 P. K. Bose

and sociology was foregrounded in many important studies by Indian sociologists

and historians, especially in the Bombay school of sociology, there was a somewhat
uncritical acceptance of such texts as providing the historical sources for the nature
of Indian society and culture. The appeal of history was limited in the writings of
Indian sociologists and anthropologists till 1960s, to showing the continuities of the
civilizational categories, especially Hindu categories, in the social life of Indians (see
Kapadia, 1955; Kosambi, 1965; Karve, 1968; Bose, 1971).

2.1.1 Dumont and Pocock

In the inaugural issue of Contributions to Indian Sociology (1957) Louis Dumont

and David Pocock appealed for a particular kind of sociology for India, which was
basically a combination of Indology and sociology. Dumont and Pocock’s theoret-
ical construction of Indian society and their methods for establishing a sociological
paradigm for its study derives from their classic statement that ‘a sociology of India
lies at the point of confluence of Sociology and Indology’ (1957:7). They began their
argument by declaring:
In our opinion, the first condition for a sound development of a Sociology of India is found in
the establishment of the proper relation between it and classical Indology. We wish to show
how on one side the construction of an Indian Sociology rests in part upon the existence
of Indology and how, on the other hand, …it can hope in its turn to widen and deepen the
understanding of India, present and past, to which Indology is devoted (ibid:7).

In particular they argued that ‘the necessity for the sociologist to be acquainted
not merely with the living language but also with Indian literature and with classic
Indology in general’ (ibid:9). The specific meaning of Indology for Dumont and
Pocock implies the study of ‘classical’, ‘traditional’ or ancient India. They claimed
that
By putting ourselves in the school of Indology, we learn in the first place never to forget
that India is one. The very existence, and influence, of the traditional higher, sanskritic,
civilisation demonstrated without question the unity of India (ibid:9, italics in original).

Their programmatic essay very clearly prefers textual sources as the point of
departure. Though Dumont and Pocock pay attention to the work of French scholars
such as Bouglé, they do not pay sufficient attention to the attempts by Indian scholars
to combine historiography and Indology. For example, in the programmatic state-
ment, they ignore the important research of Kosambi, Ghurye, Karve and others
who have all used Indological methods. The crucial question is why a combination
of Indology and sociology should be considered more productive for an adequate
understanding of ‘Indian society as a whole’ than a combination of say, history and
sociology? Dumont and Pocock do not however address themselves to this question.
It follows that the sociology of India is for Dumont and Pocock, in effect, the soci-
ology of ‘traditional’ Hindu society. Hence, they make the choice of Indology rather
2 Indology and Sociology 29

than history as the partner of sociology for an adequate understanding of Indian

society.
By proposing in the inaugural volume of the Contributions the necessity for
establishing a proper relation between sociology and Indology and proclaiming India
is one, Dumont provided a theoretically rigorous and all-encompassing theory of the
caste system that based its argument on the idea that India was one, across both
time and space. The proposals of Contributions anticipated the publication of Homo
Hierarchicus in 1966, an ambitious book that was hailed as a major work of theory and
insight by anthropologists and Indologists alike and was immediately installed as the
benchmark for debates on Indian society and culture for years to come. The journal
Contributions to Indian Sociology (1971) brought out a special issue felicitating
Dumont.
Yogendra Singh called this approach as cognitive historical mode of under-
standing, where the Indian society is conceived not in terms of systems of rela-
tionship but as systems of ideational or value pattern or cognitive structure (Singh,
1986 [1972]: 290). Here sociology attempts to place each simple fact of social life
in the complex texture of society’s collective representation. Singh interprets Louis
Dumont as affirming that the focus of social change study of India should interpret
the ways the cognitive system of Indian tradition is reacting with rejection or accep-
tance, to the cognitive elements of western culture such as individualism, equality,
freedom, etc. Dumont claims that in the traditional social structure of India principle
of holism was perpetuated by the hierarchy of castes, which was based on the concep-
tion of moral order of dharma, which reinforced the principle of hierarchy. Singh
maintains that the primary focus of Dumont’s cognitive historical view is on changes
in the basic themes of Indian cultural structure and not on the dynamics of social
groups or structures as such. He writes that for Dumont sociological study should
be concerned with deeper aspects of change in the ‘ideo-structures’ of a society and
with expedient issues which are finally trivial. He writes:
The cognitive historical approach has also the advantage of formulating a series of abstrac-
tions on cultural themes for comparative study, generally on the model of ideal types. This
flexibility of abstractions on concepts renders it possible through this approach to study the
various historical stages through which cultural changes have followed in India…. Despite
this, the approach is mainly culturological and, therefore, limited in scope (ibid:21–22).

Singh is also concerned that Dumont’s sociology does not provide any scope for
the study of ‘formal organisations, industrial systems, labour and agrarian social
relations’ thereby indicating a concern with cultural integration and continuity than
with ‘change and conflict’ (1970:142). It is quite obvious that what Singh thinks has
been left out are problems that emerge largely from a developing India. But this has
never fallen within the purview of Dumont’s analysis as his main concern has been
with traditional India.
Bailey (1959) had in fact argued that Dumont’s sociology of India is applicable
only to the study of Hinduism and Hindu society. In contrast to Dumont and Pocock,
F. G. Bailey postulated that Indian sociology was the study not of ‘representations’ but
of actual behaviour patterns, social roles and structures from an empirical perspec-
tive (Bailey, 1959). In a critical argument Bailey pointed out that in Dumont and
30 P. K. Bose

Pocock’s logic the reader is invited to make a careful distinction between two levels
of abstraction: between the peoples’ own concept about their society and at a higher
level, concepts supplied by sociologists, so that a system may be constructed of
popular concepts. The first are a set ideas or beliefs, for which vernacular terms
exist, and which can be easily communicated to the sociologist by members of the
society. The higher set of relationships is perceived by the sociologist alone. Against
Dumont and Pocock Bailey, who would call himself a comparative sociologist, puts
the argument in the most extreme form:
To the Indologist what is unique in India is his interest. The comparative sociologist on the
other hand, wants to find out what India has in common with other societies – or, to phrase
more accurately, he wants to find out what, in the particular society in India he happens to
be studying and which he has limited on a criterion of interaction, is found also in other
societies. A definition of caste which rules out comparison with, for instance, the Southern
States of America or even with South Africa is useless for comparative sociology. The
unique is scientifically incomprehensible. The unique can be comprehended only intuitively
or through a mystical experience. …There can be no ‘Indian’ sociology except in a ‘vague
geographic sense’ any more than there are distinctively Indian principle in chemistry or
biology (1959:97–98).

Bailey’s position is extreme, but the point is unavoidable. Unless the scholar is to
reproduce texts written by members of the society with which he is dealing, he must
have concepts, organising principles, and theories of human behaviour. The question
that Bailey leaves unanswered is whether the concepts, organising principles, and
theories that may underlie comparative sociology are so precise, so encompassing,
so powerful in explanation that they warrant the apparent ignoring of phenomena
that are part of Indian civilisation in its own terms.

2.2 Formative Period of Indian Sociology

If we go back in history, we find that sociologist and anthropologists in the early

formative years of Indian sociology attempted to integrate the findings of the classical
studies with their work on contemporary India much more widely and actively than
what could be observed in the sociological studies of the contemporary western
societies. The important names in this regard are G. S. Ghurye, N. K. Bose, Irawati
Karve, B. K. Sarkar, D. D. Kosambi and others. Several prominent members of
the early phase like Benoy Kumar Sarkar, G. S. Ghurye, K. P. Chattopadhyay, K.
M. Kapadia, and Irawati Karve, were either trained as sanskritists or well versed
in classical literature. They tried to use their familiarity with that literature in their
investigation of contemporary forms of family, marriage, kinship, clan, caste, sect
and religion. These sociologists and social anthropologists drew upon with ease the
heritage of Sanskrit in their research. Much before Louis Dumont and David Pocock
argued for the synthesis of Indology and sociology in their programmatic essay in
Contributions to Indian Sociology (1957) or Marriot (1990) announced his idea of
sociology of India through Hindu categories, many early sociologists and social
2 Indology and Sociology 31

anthropologists were naturally inclined to combine Indology and sociology in their

studies. It has been aptly noted:
Thus, Benoy Kumar Sarkar discovered ‘positivism’ in an obscure (presumed spurious)
Sanskrit classic, the Sukraniti, for which his book on positivism in Hindu social thought
was originally an introduction (cf. Seal, 1915), and N. K. Bose had recourse to classical
architectural manuals to understand the architecture of Orissa temples. G. S. Ghurye, trained
in anthropology at Cambridge under W. H. R. Rivers, was also a Sanskrit scholar of recog-
nised accomplishment who turned routinely to classical texts for understanding all manner of
contemporary phenomena – costume, architecture, sexuality, urbanism, family and kinship,
Indian tribal cultures, the caste system, ritual, and religion – and many of his colleagues
and pupils (K. M. Kapadia and Irawati Karve, for instance) did likewise (Uberoi et al.,
2007:36–37).

2.2.1 The Bombay School

Analyses of Indian society from an Indological perspective began among the Bombay
School of sociologists, prominent among them, as already mentioned, were G. S.
Ghurye, K. M. Kapadia, and Ghurye’s student Irawati Karve. However, as we have
seen Louis Dumont and David Pocock in 1957 argued that for a sound development
of sociology of India, establishment of the proper relationship between sociology and
classical Indology was necessary. They affirmed that the construction of an Indian
sociology rested in part upon the existence of Indology and the project of establishing
new sociology of India lay at the ‘confluence of sociology and Indology’ (Dumont &
Pocock, 1957). Dumont’s project was grounded in a structuralist methodology for
the treatment of Indian social reality. Dumont and Pocock understood social reality
in the contexts of ideology and ideology to them designates social set of ideas and
values. They write: ‘Because our primary object is a system of ideas. It is a matter
then, broadly speaking, of a sociology of values: first we must describe the common
values and take care does not mix up facts of “representation” with facts of behaviour’
(ibid:11). It is useful to mention in this context that Dumont is anti-behaviourist in his
general approach, and he stresses the importance of ideology in human behaviour.
Ideology is a ‘complex of conscious ideas’ (Dumont, 1970:152), and it is contrasted
with the merely factual of empirical. Further, ‘ideology is constitutive’. Any concrete,
localised whole, is found to be decisively oriented by its ideology, and also extends
far beyond it. Singh, therefore, asserts: ‘Indian sociology according to Dumont and
Pocock to be a sociology of Indian civilisation. Its constituents are Indology on the
one hand and on the other social “structures” which as “representations” articulate
the specific principle of “hierarchy”’ (1986:23).
Another important aspect of Dumont and Pocock’s argument, as I have mentioned
above, was that they posited the idea of India as a unity and were keen to preserve the
distinctive character of Indian social phenomenon. This was Dumont and Pocock’s
way of expressing the relation between civilisational values and the project of nation
building. As I have already mentioned that the vision of combining sociology with
32 P. K. Bose

Indology was not a new idea but with Dumont and Pocock it was presented theoret-
ically as one which would provide the grounds for treating India as having a unity.
Further this unity was not only conceived as deriving from its newly emergent status
as a nation but also from its values of hierarchy embodied in the caste system. As
I shall discuss later this position was closely linked to the ideology of methodolog-
ical nationalism which became prominent ideological apparatus of Indian sociology
following Independence. It is also necessary to mention at this point that Dumont’s
characterisation of Indian society has been challenged on many grounds—the most
important critiques have pointed out that what Dumont saw to be timeless ideology
replicated at every level of the Indian society and culture, was itself, a result of
certain practices of classification and enumeration instituted in the context of colonial
administration, which gave a dominant place to Brahmanical texts as representative
of Indian society (Dirks, 1989). Burghart (1990) characterised Dumont as European
Brahmin and argued that his theories mimicked the Brahmanical categories. I shall
argue later that this position is closely associated with orientalism.
The problem and predicament of Indological form of sociology can be best illus-
trated by the sociology of G. S. Ghurye. The hallmarks of Ghurye’s sociology—an
Indological approach to the study of Indian society combined with empiricism and an
emphasis on fieldwork—were reflected in the works of his students as well. Histori-
cising sociology often gives us the clues about what is wrong with the discipline.
The early sociologists of India almost all have followed the empirical tradition of
sociology, however, some have shown exceptional talent in critiquing the western
sociological paradigm and theoretic structure, while others have shown no special
interest in theoretical critique and confined themselves to the empirical studies of
micro-social systems. Ghurye, for instance, contributed to sociological writings over
several decades and his works cover a vast range of themes relating to the study
of rural and urban communities, a tribal community called Mahadev Kolis, Rajput
architecture, problems of North-East India, Indian costumes, Bharatanatyam and its
costume, Indian sadhus and so on. Ghurye, in brief, expressed through his writings
a unique sensitivity to Indian civilisation and explored field-level knowledge on the
processes of social change and conflict, cultural styles (dress and fashion) and tradi-
tional social formations and sects such as the sadhus and sampradayas (Ghurye,
1951, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963, 1968). However, Ghurye remained an empiri-
cist and never showed much interest in abstract theorisation. His empiricist bias is
reflected in the syllabus he prepared for the Bombay university post-graduate course
where he completely neglected theory and even research methodology (Upadhya,
2007:223). The imprint of Ghurye’s sociology can be described as an Indological
approach to the study of Indian society combined with empiricism and an emphasis
on fieldwork. Ghurye made use of varied methodologies in his empirical studies
ranging from empirical surveys to uses of historical materials and traditional Indo-
logical texts. Ghurye was a Sanskrit scholar and he turned routinely to classical texts
for understanding all manner of contemporary phenomena—costume, architecture,
sexuality, urbanism, family and kinship, Indian tribal cultures, the caste system, ritual
and religion—and many of his colleagues and pupils (K. M. Kapadia and Irawati
Karve, for instance) did likewise. Apart from his individual researches Ghurye trained
2 Indology and Sociology 33

his students to follow his approach to sociology and either encouraged them to study
social customs and norms through the study of classical texts (Srinivas, 1973:138)
or he sent students to various regions of India to conduct fieldwork on a wide range
of topics, usually on a minimal budget. As Srinivas put it, from his chair he ‘directed
a one-man ethnographic survey of India’ (ibid.).

2.2.2 The Calcutta School

Nirmal Kumar Bose’s book The Structure of Indian Society (1975 [1949]) refers to
the abiding cultural unity of India through religious beliefs and practices. The sacred
temples situated in different parts have attracted pilgrims from all over India and
thereby contributed to this common heritage. He also referred to the inter-linkage
among tribes, castes and regions through the sharing of common Hindu values.
According to him there are many ritual and cultural ties between castes and tribes
which are reciprocal. In turn they are linked to the region which has distinctive ethnic
and cultural characteristics, While Bose referred to the reciprocity between castes
and tribes; at the same time, he stated that the Hindu normative system provided a
broad framework to accommodate India’s ethnic diversity.
Another important contributor to Indology is Benoy Kumar Sarkar. Sarkar’s soci-
ology was shaped by his nationalism, more specifically by his membership of the
Dawn Society and by his participation in the swadeshi movement. He rejected the
idea that the East and the West are different in an essential way. He never accepted
the dichotomy that the Eastern civilisation was founded on spirituality while the
West was materialist. Therefore, he relied on positivism as a frame of reference
through which he could demonstrate that the Hindu heritage was as materialistically
grounded as the West. In his early days Sarkar accepted the division between the
East and the West, but later he realised that this was a trap to establish the rationality
of colonialism. He concluded that the logic of difference actually states that Indians
are not capable of self-government because they completely lack experience in this
respect. Hence Sarkar picked up an obscure text known as Nitisar of Sukracharya or
Sukraniti and began translating the text in years 1911 to 1913. He believed that to
understand the sociology of ancient India, this text was extremely valuable. During
translation of this text new light was revealed to him about the structure and nature
of Indian civilisation. He realised the irrationality of the belief that Indians are by
nature spiritual.
Sarkar began his research on the material foundation of Hindu sociology soon after
the publication of Sukraniti. Subsequently he published The Positive Background of
Hindu Sociology (1914). The word positive borrowed from Comte’s sociology means
this-worldly, materialistic, it concerns itself with ‘brute facts’, that is, whatever is
given to us through experience. Hence positivism is used to designate a worldview,
which is conceived of as being in tune with modern science, and which accordingly
rejects superstition, religion and metaphysics as pre-scientific forms of thought. In
this book Sarkar has stressed the scientific, materialistic, power-oriented practices
34 P. K. Bose

of the Hindus. India was generally known as a country which valued religion, spir-
ituality, and other-worldly concerns. Very briefly, in this book Sarkar argued that
Indians were as much materialistic, war-loving, and imperialistic as the West was;
at the same time the West was as much moral and spiritual as Indians. The European
Indology selectively interpreted India as a pessimistic or other worldly civilisation.
He used to say that it was generally believed and publicised that India was a country
of non-violence, but he argued the violent practices in India was not less than any
other nations and Indians’ love for war was very powerful. The culmination of this
argument can be seen in his book Futurism of Young Asia (1922), where he uses
comparative method to show the errors and shortcomings of the western theories in
this respect.

2.2.3 Ghurye and Bose

There are similarities between Nirmal Kumar Bose’s approach to sociology and
social anthropology and Ghurye’s empirical approach. André Béteille points out
that, much before Dumont and Pocock, Bose realised the importance of combining
ethnology and Indology in the study of the Indian society (Béteille, 1975). But for
him anthropology of tribes that merely confirmed the Indological perspective was
not sufficient since the tribal society had changed following the advent of colo-
nialism. Bose’s description of caste was reworked and systematized through certain
normative ideals of Hinduism which were typically Brahmanical in nature. Though
Bose expressed his faith and conviction in diffusion and acculturation, his depiction
of Hinduism describes a process which vertically integrates different groups into
a social structure administered and guided by Brahmanical ideals and values. The
same vision of the absorptive power of Hinduism explains his argument that tribals
were successfully assimilated into the Hindu fold (Bose, 1967:203–15). In a way
Bose, like early orientalist writers, projected Indian social history as essentially the
history of Hinduism.
Another similarity between Ghurye and Bose was that both were nationalists,
though their nationalism varied in intensity and character. As Singh (1986:5–6) has
argued, nationalism provided an ideological basis for thought of most of the early
sociologists, who attempted in different ways, to demonstrate the organic unity of the
Indian society. Ghurye’s sociology provides a prime example of this quest. Ghurye’s
principal concern in sociology was to demonstrate the unity and antiquity of Indian
civilisation. The important point is that Ghurye recognised the ‘sociology of Hindu
society’ as a legitimate concern for a sociology of India. And this calls for different
theoretical and methodological standpoints in relation to Hinduism and different
aspects of the Hindu society. In that sense it is very ‘exclusive orientation’ within
the sociology of India. The impact of this exclusive orientation is reflected in the
work of Indian sociologists. Consider, for example, Venugopal’s paper on Ghurye’s
‘ideology of normative Hinduism’ (1986:305–14). As Ghurye is one of the pioneers
2 Indology and Sociology 35

of the sociology of India, his work may also be seen as constituting an impor-
tant phase in its development. It is therefore of great interest to note that Ghurye’s
perspective on the Indian society is commended on the ground that ‘the projection
of a role model such as Hinduism is only to be expected in India’ as ‘it has shown
not only a great capacity for survival but also made way for a humane existence
of diverse groups by its tolerant gesture’ (ibid:312). Even more disconcerting is his
statement that ‘as a major religion, Hinduism represents a higher synthesis. A higher-
level culture naturally tends to dominate the less developed groups’ (ibid.). Ghurye
believed that Hinduism formed the civilisation unity of India and Brahmanical ideas
and values which constituted the core of Hinduism were essential for the integra-
tion of the society. Ghurye’s orientalist inclinations influenced his thinking that it
was through religion that Indian civilisation was formed, as diverse groups were
assimilated to Brahmanical Hinduism and incorporated into the caste system. Like
Bose, Ghurye also believed that Indian culture developed as the product of accultur-
ation process where the non-Hindu groups were absorbed into Hindu society. Bose
called this acculturation process as the Hindu method of tribal absorption. Upadhya
(2007) views Ghurye’s sociology as the progenitor of Hindu nationalist sociology.
She writes: ‘In short, following the orientalist view and some streams of nationalist
discourse, Ghurye defined Indian society as essentially Hindu society and its cultural
and religious unity as the basis of the nation—a sociological view that underwrote
his later political writings’ (Upadhya, 2007:215). Ghurye thus played a major role
in the institutionalisation of a sociology that reproduced his vision of the nation
rooted in Hindu tradition. His sociology was shaped by a complex mix of nation-
alist, orientalist, reformist ideals systematised through the diffusionist and empiricist
framework.

2.3 Concluding Remarks

The combination of Indology, empiricism, orientalism, and reformism produced a

type of sociology in India which can be viewed as more significant as a sign of western
power over orient than as a scientific discourse corresponding with reality. Academic
sociology of cultures, ideas, institutions, hence, must interrogate and examine the
hidden power configurations in the studies produced. Knowledge is not innocent
but profoundly connected with the operations of power. This Foucauldian insight
informs Edward Said’s foundational work Orientalism (1978), which points out the
extent to which ‘knowledge’ about ‘the Orient’ as it was produced and circulated was
an ideological accompaniment of colonial power. In his discussion on orientalism
Said also describes Romantic orientalism that sought to regenerate materialistic and
mechanistic Europe by Indian culture, religion and spirituality. Thus, there was a
new twist to orientalism, a ‘metaphysical thirst’ and India begun to be seen as ‘the
realm of spirit’. The unity of Indian civilisation to which the Indologists believed
had the capacity to teach the West about the reunification of religion, philosophy
and art which was sundered in the modern western world. Using two centuries of
36 P. K. Bose

Indological knowledge social scientists such as McKim Marriot and Ronald Inden at
Chicago developed a comprehensive theory of caste society that was based on Indian
conceptual categories. In Inden’s exposition, the discourse is largely a product of
hegemonic texts such as Hegel’s The Philosophy of History (1837) and James Mill’s
History of India (1817) (Inden, 1990). The widely held orientalist view of caste
as the underlying ‘essence’ of Indian society is derived from the key hegemonic
texts. In depicting Indian society as timeless and unchanging, Dumont also ironically
reproduces the orientalist vision.
David Kopf has argued that Nehru was much impressed by the work of orientalists
and used their knowledge to build up a nationalistic new India (Kopf, 1980:496). The
fact remains that orientalism has been the grist for the mill of nationalism. It is also
interesting to note that in contemporary times orientalist ideas of ‘Indianness’ have
been adapted to the self-identities of Indians. Ideas like Vedic times as the golden
age, spiritual India, caste-centricity and Hinduism as one religion are, at least to some
extent, orientalist inventions and largely accepted by Indians or reworked to serve
Indian nationalism. Influence of orientalist ideas in social thinking consequently has
produced ‘internal orientalism’ which seems to be the most problematic issue in
postcolonial scholarship in India. The orientalist ideas and categories still have such
power that it is exceedingly difficult for either Indians or outsiders to view India
without reversing to the out-dated discourse. The orientalist ideas of difference and
division for long have infected the foundations of public life in India. It has been
rightly observed that in the postcolonial era,
Orientalism without colonialism is a headless theoretical beast, that [is] much harder to
identify and eradicate because it has become internalized in the practices of the postcolonial
state, the theories of the postcolonial intelligentsia and political action of postcolonial mobs’
(Breckenridge & van der Veer, 1994:11).

When the Indian independence movement gathered momentum, orientalist texts

were used to evoke national self-identity. For example, Bhagavad Gita was respected
as the core or uniting the holy text of whole of India. Consequently ‘internal orien-
talism’ seems to have become the most problematic issue in postcolonial scholarship
in India. The orientalist sociological categories still have such power that it is exceed-
ingly difficult for Indians to view India without reverting to the out-dated discourse.
The Indological and orientalist ideas of difference and division from the colonial
times have affected—or perhaps, infected—the foundations of public life in India.
I have already pointed out that Dumont and Pocock framed their Indological
project by positing that India is one. They thought that the very existence, and influ-
ence, of the traditional higher, sanskritic, civilisation demonstrates without ques-
tioning the unity of India. More generally it is possible to say that following Inde-
pendence, the epistemic structures and programmes of mainstream social sciences
have been closely attached to, and shaped by, the experience of modern-nation state
formation in India. It is in this context that the assumption of methodological nation-
alism becomes important; this is the assumption that considers the nation/state/
society as the natural social and political form of the modern word (Wimmer &
Glick Schiller, 2002). At its simplest methodological nationalism is found when
2 Indology and Sociology 37

the nation-state is treated as the natural and necessary representation of the modern
society. Wimmer and Schiller have explicitly reflected upon different versions of
methodological nationalism in the social sciences and distinguish between three
different strands that they call:
Ignorance, naturalisation and territorial limitation. The three modes intersect and mutually
reinforce each other, forming a coherent epistemic structure, a self-reinforcing way of looking
at and describing the social world. The three variants are more or less prominent in different
fields of enquiry. Ignorance is the dominant modus of methodological nationalism in grand
theory; naturalisation of ‘normal’ empirical science; territorial limitation of the study of
nationalism and state building (2002:308)

Theoretically, methodological nationalism is associated with, and criticised for,

its explanatory reductionism. The insidious effects of methodological nationalism
were visible, for example, in the fields like anthropology and sociology in India as
the discipline turned towards functionalism from the 1950s. Anthropologists and
sociologists assumed that the cultures to be studied were unitary and organically
related to, and fixed within territories, thus reproducing the image of the social world
divided into bounded, culturally specific units typical of nationalist thinking. The
empiricist fact-finding project of village studies fulfilled such ambitions. While the
efforts of the Lucknow sociologists demonstrated that it was perfectly possible to
explore, and aspire for, a universal language of social science from within the tradi-
tion, to work out a synthetic integrated model, which could both retain the ‘Eastern’
tradition and yet surpass the West’s modernity, the naturalisation of the nation-state in
different disciplines compartmentalised the social science project. Under the circum-
stances sociology became obsessed with describing the process within nation-state
boundaries and lost sight of its international dimension. For Srinivas, for example,
sociology meant study of Indian society, and everything extending its borders was
cut off analytically. The container society encompasses a culture, a polity, and a
bounded social group. This particular perspective produced adverse consequences
because of the methodological limitation of the analytical horizon—thus removing
trans-border connections and processes from the picture.
The search for the so-called enduring principle of Indian civilisation by combining
Indology and sociology has given the impression of a society which has yet to enter
history. This sociology presented India as a timeless civilisation but concealed within
was an ideology of Hindu nationalism that is still working strong in contemporary
India. The prominence of Indologist and Indology in sociological and anthropolog-
ical discourses on India has not only elided the monumental role of Islam in the
history of the subcontinent, it has also worked to secure a specialised scholasticism
for India. For much of the academic sociology in India Indology replaced history
and has been used to dehistoricise both India and sociological practice in India. Not
only has Islam been erased and the state been ignored as a potent force in the consti-
tution and transformation of Indian society, but the colonial history of India has been
rendered entirely insignificant. The excavation of sociology’s past can provide us
not only a better understanding of the development of its key ideas and ideology, but
also contribute to the development of reflexivity about the discipline and its role in
production of knowledge about society. This task is more necessary because Indian
38 P. K. Bose

sociology is often characterised as being in a state of crisis. In my view perhaps by

historicising Indian sociology and its representations of Indian society, we can begin
to understand the reasons for this impasse and search for ways out.

Note

This paper is published posthumously as (Late) Professor Pradip Kumar Bose contributed it to the
volume before his demise.

References

Bailey, F. G. (1959). For a sociology of India. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 1, 7–22.

Béteille, A. (1975). Introduction. In N. K. Bose, The Structure of Hindu society (A. Béteille, trans.)
(1–21). Orient Longman.
Bose, N. K. (1967). Culture and society in India. Asia Publishing House.
Bose, N. K. (1971). Some aspects of Indian civilisation. Man in India, 51(1), 1–14.
Bose, N. K. (1975/1949). The structure of Hindu society (A. Béteille, trans). Orient Longman.
Breckenridge, C. A., & van der Veer, P. (1994). Orientalism and postcolonial predicament. In C.
A. Breckenridge, & P. van der Veer (eds.), Orientalism and Postcolonial Prediacament, (1–22).
Oxford University Press.
Burghhart, R. (1990). Ethnographers and their local counterparts in India. In R. Fardon (ed.), Local-
izing Strategies: Regional Traditions of Ethnographic Writing (260–79). Scottish Academic
Press.
Dirks, N. (1989). The invention of caste: Civil society in colonial India. Social Analysis, 25, 42–53.
Dumont, L. (1970). Homo Hierarchicus: The caste system and its implications. Vikas.
Dumont, L., & Pocock, D. F. (1957). For a sociology of India. Contributions to Indian Sociology,
1, 7–22.
Ghurye, G. S. (1951). Indian costume. Popular Prakashan.
Ghurye, G. S. (1953). Indian Sadhus. Popular Prakashan.
Ghurye, G. S. (1957). The Mahadev Kolis. Popular Prakashan.
Ghurye, G. S. (1958). Bharatanatya and its costume. Popular Prakashan.
Ghurye, G. S. (1960). After a century and a quarter. Lonikand then and now. Popular Prakashan.
Ghurye, G. S. (1963). Anatomy of a Rurarban community. Popular Prakashan.
Ghurye, G. S. (1968). Rajput architecture. Popular Prakashan.
Inden, R. (1990). Imagining India. Hurst and Company.
Kapadia, K. M. (1955). Marriage and family in India. Oxford University Press.
Karve, I. (1968). Hindu society: An interpretation. Deshmukh Prakashan.
Kopf, D. (1980). Hermeneutic versus history. Journal of Asian Studies, 3, 496–506.
Kosambi, D. D. (1965). Culture and civilisation of Ancient India in historical outline. Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Marriott, M. (1990). India through Hindu categories. Sage.
Sarkar, B. K. (1914). The positive background of Hindu Sociology. Panini Office.
Seal, B. N. (1915). The positive sciences of the Ancient Hindus. Longmans, Green and Co.
Singh, Y. (1970). For a sociology of India. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 4, 140–144.
Singh, Y. (1986). Indian sociology. Current Sociology, 34(2), 1–155.
Singh, Y. (2017). Modernisation of Indian tradition. Rawat. (Original work published 1972).
Srinivas, M. N. (1973). Itineraries of an Indian social anthropologist. International Social Science
Journal, 25, 129–148.
2 Indology and Sociology 39

Uberoi, P., Sundar, N., & Deshpande, S. (2007). Introduction: The professionalization of Indian
anthropology and sociology—people, places and institutions. In P. Uberoi et al. (eds.), Anthro-
pology in the East: Founders of Indian sociology and anthropology (1–63). Permanent
Black.
Upadhya, C. (2007). The Idea of Indian society: G.S. Ghurye and the making of Indian sociology.
In P. Uberoi, N. Sundar and S. Deshpande, (eds.), Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian
sociology and anthropology, (194–255). Permanent Black.
Venugopal, C. N. (1986). G. S. Ghurye’s ideology of normative Hinduism: An appraisal.
Contributions to Indian Sociology, 20(2), 305–314.
Wimmer, A., & Glick Schiller, N. (2002). Methodological nationalism and beyond: Nation-state
building, migration and the social sciences. Global Networks, 2(4), 301–334.
Chapter 3
The Civilizational Approach:
Contributions of Surajit Sinha

Biswajit Ghosh

Abstract This paper critically analyses the Civilizational perspective of Indian

society and culture in general and Surajit Sinha in particular. Providing a powerful
critique of the Western and colonial categories and explanation, followers of this
approach, like many other pioneers of Indian sociology, proved that Indian society, far
from being ‘segmentary, isolated and despotic’ is a product of ‘synthesis’ of several
indigenous cultural patterns. This approach, first developed by Robert Redfield,
placed folk and urban societies in an evolutionary ‘continuum’. The conceptual
framework of the ‘Little and Great traditions’ was used in the Indian context to
argue about the circulation of cultural elements at two levels. Nirmal Kumar Bose
applied this approach to argue about the continuity of Indian culture through cultural
assimilation, accommodation or unification. While Bose followed a cultural model
of ‘tribe-Hindu continuum’ to explain ‘assimilation’, Sinha’s ‘tribe-caste-peasant
continuum’ model introduced structural factors and flexibility to explain ‘integra-
tion’. Such an understanding led us to conclude that civilization as a social process
transcends religious traditions and does not work similarly for all. Hence, it is possible
to challenge the voluntary nature of tribal absorption and accept that exploitation and
coercion are built even within the system of so-called integration.

Keywords Civilizational approach · Caste-tribe continuum · Tribe-caste-peasant

continuum · Great and Little traditions · Hinduization · Tribalization

3.1 Introduction

Through this article, I am privileged to express my tribute to my former teacher

Professor Yogendra Singh. I choose to concentrate here on one area of his interest,
namely approaches to the study of Indian society and culture. Herein, I have opted
for the civilizational perspective of Surajit Sinha because my esteemed teacher did
not write on him or Nirmal Kumar Bose in detail, notwithstanding recognising their

B. Ghosh (B)
The University of Burdwan, Burdwan, West Bengal, India
e-mail: bgoshbu@gmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 41
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_3
42 B. Ghosh

contributions in the study of ‘orthogenetic processes of cultural change’ in India.

He also wrote about the core arguments of the Civilizational perspectives in several
books and articles. While discussing the primary structure of the Indian tradition,
Prof. Singh agreed with Sinha (and others) that it is a product of the ‘synthesis’ of
several indigenous cultural patterns. Being a believer in such an argument, he wrote,
This interlinkages of the processes in the Little traditions of the Indian culture with its Great
tradition, contributing to the processes of transformations and synthesis in the latter, is a
historical reality. (Singh, 1977: 28)

Prof. Singh (1986) noted that a critical understanding of the Western approaches
to the study of Indian society and culture was a prime objective of most of the
pioneers of Indian sociology. This is because the journey of ‘Sociology of India’,
which began with ‘colonial Anthropology’, had prepared the ground for many of our
pioneers involved in the nationalist struggle against the British to offer alternative
explanations about Indian society and culture (Ghosh, 2019:13). Our pioneers are
credited to establish the discipline quite differently from that of Western heritage
and one explanation that prioritized the demand for ‘Indian Sociology’ was Civi-
lizational approach. This and many other approaches came up with illuminating
alternatives to the European notion of a ‘segmentary, isolated and despotic’ Indian
society. As against the ‘Colonial Paradigm’, these pioneers developed the counter
model of the ‘People’s Paradigm’ (Singh, 1986). Surajit Sinha, one of this tradition’s
spokespersons, had quite succinctly provided us with new insights and thoughts to
negate the European categories and explanations. He was firmly against those who
saw ‘their society and culture through English speaking Western eyes…’ (Sinha,
1971:9). Improvising the arguments of Bose, Sinha went a step further to argue
about diversity in our cultural systems despite unity.
This paper critically analyses the Civilizational perspective of Indian society and
culture in general and the views of Surajit Sinha in particular. It is divided into four
parts. The first part begins with the major arguments of the approach. The second
part introduces the ideas of Nirmal Kumar Bose, in brief, who profoundly influenced
the thinking of Surajit Sinha. The third part deals extensively with the arguments of
Surajit Sinha. The article ends with a critical evaluation of the ideas of both Bose
and Sinha.

3.2 The Civilizational Approach and Its Major Tenets

Famous American anthropologist Robert Redfield (1930) of Chicago University first

developed the Civilizational approach. While studying the Mexican village commu-
nity, he witnessed the existence of a new theoretical paradigm of folk society or little
community (1955a), which is characterised by (a) distinctiveness, (b) smallness, (c)
homogeneity, and (d) self-sufficiency. This ideal–typical construction characterised
urban society as a reverse entity being (a) heterogeneous, (b) disorganized, (c) secular,
(d) individualized, and (e) connected. Redfield’s (1955b) field experience led him to
3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha 43

argue that urban-based civilization can transform folk societies; hence folk and urban
communities may be placed in an evolutionary ‘continuum’. Later, Milton Singer
and McKim Marriott of the same University made the model viable in understanding
the continuity between folk and urban societies in India. Following Redfield, they
constructed the conceptual framework of ‘Little and Great traditions’, implying that
the social structure of human civilizations operates at two levels. The local/folk level
cultural processes comprise the Little tradition, and those in the elite/literate level
constitute the Great tradition. As there is a constant interaction between the two
levels of traditions, a civilization remains vibrant and can maintain its unity and
develop a worldview through cultural performances and its products. Singer (1959)
also believed that the nature of changes causing societal differentiations is unilinear
and it proceeds from the primary level to a complex heterogeneous one.
Summarising the major argument of this approach, Yogendra Singh (1977: 13)
wrote that all societies start from a primary or orthogenetic level of cultural orga-
nization and, over time, are diversified not only through internal growth but, more
importantly, through contact with other civilizations—a heterogeneous process. The
term ‘civilization’ is used here to refer to a highly complex culture against a relatively
simple one. In other words, a ‘civilization’ having a glorious past gradually becomes
complex. Using this perspective in the Indian context, one may argue that from its
folk or tribal past to the present urbanised state of condition, India represents conti-
nuity through the growth of inter-linkages and complexities in its social and cultural
organisations over time. Singer also assumed that such inter-linkages in the final stage
result in a global, universalised pattern of culture, primarily through increased cross-
contacts among civilizations. Going a step further, Marriott (1955) argued that in the
Indian context, Little and Great traditions are interdependent, leading to a process of
modernization of the traditional culture. To refer to the process of upward circulation
of cultural elements of Little tradition to the level of Great tradition, Marriott used the
term ‘universalization’, and to refer to the opposite course of descending circulation
of cultural elements, he used the term ‘parochialization’.
The Civilizational approach argues for the continuity of Indian culture through
cultural assimilation, accommodation or unifications. Bose and Sinha (along with
Bernard S. Cohn, D. N. Majumdar, P. K. Bhowmick, L. P. Vidyarthi and others)
believed that Indian civilization differs from the European civilization (Ghosh, 2009).
They stressed the creative potentialities of the traditional social structure of Indian
civilization to develop resilience and commonality despite certain differences. To
Bose, the Indian civilization, unlike Europe, grew out of relatively peaceful condi-
tions leading to the growth of cultural pluralism within the broad Hindu social struc-
ture. Hence, it weaved all communities into a network of interdependence through
economic organizations. Bose has attempted to explain how different regions (like
North/South) in India share many common elements of material culture, notwith-
standing linguistic or ecological differences. Hence, for Bose, the cultural unity of
India reflected through its varied customs, rituals, institutions, and practices is like
a pyramid where differences are more prominent at the material base of life and as
one mounts higher and higher such differences become progressively less.
44 B. Ghosh

Bose and Sinha used historical and inductive methods to understand the nature of
the Indian society in different phases of its history. While the historical-civilizational
frame allowed them to focus on the traditional aspects, they have also conducted
ethnographic studies to understand caste, tribe, village, and land relations. The trian-
gulation of such valued and rich sources of knowledge is praiseworthy at a time when
Indian sociology was trying to converge between sociology and Indology.
Before I examine the arguments of Bose and Sinha, let me argue that notwith-
standing certain uniformities, Bose and Sinha developed their approach from diver-
gent and contrasting points of view. While Bose followed a slightly different ‘tribe-
Hindu continuum’ model, Sinha went ahead with the ‘tribe-caste-peasant continuum’
model and offered new insights into the whole argument.

3.3 Major Arguments of Nirmal Kumar Bose

Bose (1901–1972) evolved a Civilizational approach in his magnum opus Hindu

Samajer Garan2 . In this book, Bose first identified the major principle that orga-
nizes the Hindu society. Additionally, he showed us the reasons ensuring continuity
of Indian culture for centuries. Finally, Bose recognised the forces which weak-
ened Indian social organization. Following the evolutionary model of growth of folk
communities through certain broad stages, he argued that the tribes in India, too, are
a part of the wider Hindu social structure, notwithstanding certain differences. Bose
gave importance to two central factors in determining such relation: (a) the extent
of development of technology that a community has experienced, and (b) the level
of their isolation, both geographic and social. Using these two indicators, he argued
that the more a tribe lives near the Hindu caste neighbours, having better produc-
tion technology, the more it comes closer to the neighbour. Bose considered this
method distinctiveness because marginal communities could become a part of the
Hindu social structure without abandoning their particular customs. He called this
process of accommodation of marginal communities within the varnashram system
the ‘Hindu Methods of Tribal Absorption’. Hence, for him, the best way to classify
tribal groups in India is by the mode of livelihood and not by language, religion or
race. Such an analysis provided a strong counter-narrative to the arguments of Verrier
Elwin and many colonial administrator-ethnographers. They argued for a policy of
isolation for the tribes because of their non-Hindu cultural identity and autonomous
way of life.
Interestingly, when Bose was arguing for the absorption of even the Hilly tribes,
Elwin’s ethnography in Keonjhar and Pal Lahara did not reveal any such picture.
Contrarily, Elwin showed all kinds of non-Hindu culinary practices, including beef-
eating among the Juangs (Elwin, 1948:46–49). Yet, Bose tried to present a holistic
view of Indian society and culture. In the context of the nationalist movement in
the country during the late 1940s, Bose’s arguments became popular among Indian
scholars and nationalists (Ghosh, 2009). His role as the one-time personal secretary
of M. K. Gandhi might have played a vital role here.
3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha 45

Bose used his knowledge of Vaishnava literature as well as distribution of temples

to claim that the ‘tribal’ and ‘non-tribal’ groups have lived together and recognized
each other for centuries in India. Bose called the non-tribal mode of social organiza-
tion ‘Brahminical’, which had a superior technological base, more complex organi-
zation and much larger scale than the tribal mode of social organization. As the tribes
gradually met people living in the plains, they became impressed by their superior
technological power of production to cope with the pressure of population on the
land.
It is worth noting here that higher technical and economic efficiency of the Brah-
minical civilization attracted Bose, unlike Ghurye. He did not believe that Brah-
minical civilization influenced tribes because of its superior political power or reli-
gious strength. He also did not subscribe to the view that ‘tribes were backward
Hindus’. Bose added a non-economic consideration to explain the process of tribal
absorption: the right to pursue their distinctive customs and occupations within the
hierarchical Hindu social order. In other words, any understanding of the Hindu
society must consider its level of technology and the design by which economic
relations are organized. Thus, Bose rejected all forms of technological or economic
determinism and sought instead to explain social life in terms of certain economic
and social organization principles.
Showing the social and cultural life of some isolated tribes like Juangs, Savaras
and Pauri Bhuiyas, who live in the hills of Odisha, Bose showed that despite main-
taining a degree of geographical and social isolation, these communities too lived
under the shadow of Hindu civilization for centuries. He traced both ‘Sanskritic’ and
‘non-Sanskritic’ elements among the rituals of these tribes. For instance, the Juangs
worshipped a Hindu Goddess, though in a distinctive tribal way. Many ceremonies
of the rural Juangs also reveal the imprint of Brahminical culture. Thus, in any reli-
gions occasion, they first take bath, maintain fast until the end of the ceremony, use
turmeric, incense and sun-dried rice. Additionally, they worship Hindu goddesses like
Lakshidevata, Rishipatni. Notwithstanding such similarities, they typically follow
an autonomous, non-Hindu folk culture. Thus, a separate category of priests and
formalised prayers are not found among them. Also, practices like cock sacrifice,
beef eating, worship of tribal gods/goddesses like Burambura/Buramburi, the exis-
tence of a separate language, different marriage and funeral customs, separate them
from the Hindu culture.
Compared to the hilly tribes, Bose found the influence of the Aryan or Brahminical
civilization greater and more depth among the Mundas and the Oraons. Not only these
tribes have learned the use of advanced productive technology, the structure of their
village organization is also complex. Bose argued that though Munda language is
not a part of the Aryan family of languages, due to long association, many Hindi
words in modified form got incorporated into it. Similarly, Mundas have accepted
the system of productive organization of the Brahminical society. Similar to those of
the Juangs, the Mundas also use turmeric and vermilion. Moreover, during religious
festivals, they prefer fasting and bathing. Interestingly, Bose noticed the presence
of caste-like distinctions among the Munda residents of Panch-Parganas who joined
the Vaishnava faith. They call them ‘pure Munda’ as they belong to Sandil clan.
46 B. Ghosh

Claiming to be a peasant caste, these Mundas either withdraw from the low-caste
trades like Oil presser, Carpenter and Blacksmith or modified the work process for
fear of losing their caste. They also called the beef-eating Mundas ‘Mundari’ or
‘Uram-Munda’. The Munda cultivators also regard themselves as equal to the other
cultivating castes differentiating from the inferiors. The Munda king also claimed
the Kshatriya status. Thereby, the Kol-speaking Mundas became a part of the Hindu
society despite differing considerably from the Hindu castes on questions of land
rights or social arrangements. They also continued to worship ancient village deities
and follow a non-Brahminical custom of animal sacrifice to Mahadeva. Moreover, the
Munda members of the Sandil clan could marry members of other clans, a practice
prohibited by the Hindus.
Like the Mundas, Bose noticed the existence of devotional sects known as Bhuin-
phut Bhagats, Nemha Bhagats, Bishnu Bhagats and Kabirpanthis among the Oraons.
These devotees follow the Hindu rules of ceremonial purity, like offering sun-dried
rice, flowers and molasses to the deity on the one hand and abjure the use of meat and
drink on the other. Bose found that in the Ranchi district, along with the Oraon and
the Munda, several poorer Hindu castes like Lohar and Ahir join a ceremony called
Manda Parab to worship Siva. Bose referred to the rise of the revivalist Tana Bhagat
Movement in Ranchi. It was directed not only against the spirits and goblins but
equally against widow remarriage, divorce, and the free mixing of young men and
women. The Tana Bhagats altered and purified all their social rites and sacraments.
Yet, they established marriage ties with those who retained traditional customs.
Bose also wrote on the influence of Christianity3 , or a western way of life among
certain tribes. Though Bose was initially disturbed by the destruction of the old
pattern of unity and balance developed among diverse segments of the population,
he later revised his argument about the nature of tribe-non-tribe interaction after
independence. In his last book, Bose came out with a new argument. He then wrote,
… altogether three to four different modes of production are current in India, and practically
all tribes, except the Jarawa and North Sentinelese of the Andaman Islands, have adapted
themselves in one way or another to one of these productive systems. Some have given up
hunting and gathering and settled down as peasants using the plough or as lowly artisans.
Others continue to rely on their ancient system of shifting cultivation and gathering in
marginal areas where this is possible. A third section has been practically transformed into
labourers working in plantations, mines and factories, where they are usually employed in
unskilled jobs. (Bose, 1972: Preface)

Notwithstanding recognition of tribal attachment with diverse modes of produc-

tion, his model is argued to be ‘Brahminical’ in general (Bose, 2007; Guha, 2018a).
Pradip Bose (2007:326) argues that, like early Orientalist writers, his account of caste
is structured as per the normative ideal of Hinduism and particularly Brahmanism,
though theoretically, he believed in diffusion and acculturation. Despite his recogni-
tion of reciprocity among multiple cultural and productive systems in India, Bose did
not bother to recognise critical issues linked to conflict, oppression and hegemony.
He also did not introspect into the counter process of tribalization even though he
noted the rise of pride associated with the indigenous Adivasi culture. Bose noticed
that even the ‘advanced’ tribes like Munda or Oraon did not entirely fuse their ethnic
3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha 47

distinctiveness with those of the Hindus. They have preserved their linguistic iden-
tity intact even to this day and continue with their local customs and habits. There
was enough ethnographic evidence about the parallel existence of tribal and Hindu
modes of social organizations in India. Yet, Bose claimed that the Hindu religious
ideas have infiltrated into the tribal culture, and the ‘Juang seem to be losing pride in
their own culture and are adopting Hindu culture with a certain amount of avidity’
(Bose, 1953: 157). Such contradictions, according to Guha (2018a), generate incon-
sistencies. Again, Bose’s argument that ‘the Juangs were forced to adopt wet rice
cultivation in the valleys between the hills’ (Bose, 1953: 157–58) generates contra-
diction. Because his model of absorption did not stress ‘force’ for adopting Hindu
practices. Guha believed that these contradictions have risen because Bose ‘accepted
Hinduization of the tribals’ as an ‘obvious, inevitable process’ and ‘he was not inter-
ested to see whether there was any counter process of resistance to the adoption of
Hindu customs and rituals’ (Guha, 2018a:105, 108). These perplexities prevented
him from appreciating and analysing the rise of tribal identity movements in the later
part of the nineteenth century.

3.4 Contributions of Surajit Sinha

Following Bose, his teacher, Sinha (1926–2001) validated the growth of the ortho-
genetic development of Indian civilization from a primitive cultural level. He was also
influenced by another of his teachers Professor Tarak Chandra Das (1898–1964), who
studied the sustenance of the indigenous cultural identity of the Bhumij. Interestingly,
Das’s study of the Bhumij tribe of Chota Nagpur found them maintaining tribal ethnic
identity notwithstanding the influence of Hinduism (Guha, 2016, 2018a). At a later
stage, Sinha was directly influenced by Redfield’s scheme of a folk-peasant-urban
continuum. During his doctoral work, Sinha came in direct contact with Redfield,
extending his comparative civilizations project to South Asia (Ghosh, 2000). Conse-
quently, Milton Singer and McKim Marriott became his good friends. This asso-
ciation left a deep imprint on Sinha’s concern for India’s civilizational dimension
of tribal cultures. While doing his post-doctoral research on state formation among
tribal communities during the late 1950s, Sinha’s interest shifted from adaptation
and acculturation to social differentiation and the emergence of centralised power
organizations among tribal groups (Ghosh, 2000). As a result, Sinha’s arguments
differed strikingly from that of Bose and came close to the idea of Das that Indian
tribes do maintain their separate identity despite being influenced by the Great tradi-
tion. His extensive fieldwork on the Bhumij tribe of Bengal and Bihar allowed him
to go beyond the simple model of Hindu absorption.
48 B. Ghosh

3.4.1 Study of Indian Civilization

In order to analyse the origin and functioning of indigenous civilization, Sinha first
focused on the constant interaction between ‘great tradition’ and ‘little tradition’.
Redfield, Singer and Sinha had shown that there are persistent and numerous channels
of communication between the peasant’s village and the Great tradition of India. To
them, this was an overall feature of peasantry in the Northern part of the country,
and to some degree, in the remaining parts, as well. Unlike the British Structural-
Functionalists of his time, Sinha was not averse to history and being influenced by
Chicago anthropology, he explored ethnohistory or historical anthropology (Ghosh,
2000). He therefore wrote,
But taking a long range perspective of history, we are led to the third approach, reminiscent
of the old-fashioned evolutionary approach. Here we see the problem of genesis starting
from the primitive isolate and looking upwards. Such an approach seems to the author to be
the most promising and in conformity with available data. (Sinha, 1958:506)

He, therefore, critiqued those who borrowed Western ideas and concepts uncriti-
cally and applied those in the Indian context (Sinha, 1967). He (1971:1) noted that
Indian anthropology remained dependent on Western and colonial tradition4 . While
criticising the Western interpretations of the East, he wrote,
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the Western nations had already established firm
political and economic dominance over the greater part of Asia. Out of this exposure to the
habits and customs of the people of “the Orient” emerged certain generalised notions about
the exotic people of Asia…The image of the East that emerged out of this encounter was
that the East was dominated by ancient traditions, supernaturalism and a lack of concern for
discipline and improvement of the material conditions of life. A section of the classicists,
“the Orientalists”, on the other hand, got interested in the unique transcendental religion,
aesthetic and philosophic themes in the Eastern civilizations. (Sinha, 1970: 1)

Sinha believed that a general limitation of the earlier approaches is that ‘they
have uniformly used religious belief as an isolated topic for comparison, instead of
using a holistic, functionally integrated framework’ (Sinha, 1958:507). In another
context, Sinha argued that a vast majority of our population are technologically
oriented and are the repository of a vast corpus of yet trapped and unrecorded skills
and knowledge (Sinha, 1984:187). Sinha challenged the wrong notions of ‘urban
Bhadralok scientists and technologists’ about Indian tradition. He also considered
the views of both Elwin and Ghurye as ‘arbitrary’ (Sinha, 1965: 58), notwithstanding
his agreement with Ghurye that the colonial administration found it difficult to decide
‘where the tribe ended and caste began’ (Ghurye 1943 cited by Sinha, 1965: 57).
Also arguing against colonial historians, Sinha showed that economic and status
distinctions among the tribes were introduced much before the British came here
(Ghosh, 2000). To Sinha, the interaction between the Great and Little traditions in
India started as early as the third millennium B.C. According to Sinha, before the
Aryan invasion, sustained interaction of the Little traditions of the Munda and the
Dravidian little communities contributed to the formation of our primary civilization.
Sinha’s understanding of the socio-cultural tradition of little communities is based on
3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha 49

his field experience in the tribal belt of peninsular India, covering Bombay, Madhya
Pradesh, Hyderabad, Orissa, southern Bihar and West Bengal. Sinha relied on his
primary and secondary knowledge of Hindu village communities in West Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa to characterise the Hindu peasant communities.
Incidentally, research into tribal life in India has found many instances of inter-
action between tribe and caste. These claims have given rise to numerous theoretical
frameworks to explain how tribes are transmuted into castes. To explain such trans-
formation, Sinha suggested the Rajput or Kshatriya model. He believed that in the
ancient and medieval periods, many tribal dynasties got established in peninsular
India. This process of state formation contributed to the integration of tribes into
the Hindu caste system. While tribal dynasties of Gonds and Bhumij became well
established, some dynasties like the Ahom kingdom of Assam were founded by
foreign invaders. Interestingly, many of such dynasties got transformed into centres
of Brahminic Hinduism as the kings invited Brahmins to settle down in the land by
conferring land grants and giving costly gifts.
Sinha particularly studied the Bhumij-Hindu interactions since 1950 and put
forward some useful notions, namely ‘tribe-caste-peasant continua’, ‘tribe-peasant
continuum’ as well as ‘Bhumij-Kshatriya’ and ‘tribe-Rajput continuum’. In doing
so, Sinha was largely influenced by Redfield.
Another reason for such a choice is that Redfield characterised the growth of
indigenous civilization as a ‘conversion of tribal people into peasantry’ (Sinha,
1958: 506). Sinha (1965: 57), however, argued distinctly that these are ‘ideal sets
of continua’ and the reality may differ in practice depending upon the differential
movement of criteria used to define the continua within the proximal range. Herein,
Sinha recognised diversity and differed from Bose’s model. Sinha’s ‘tribe-caste-
peasant continuum’ model attempts to explain the gradual integration of tribes into
Hindu peasantry though the actual transformation process had taken varied courses
in different circumstances.

3.4.2 Tribe and Caste as Two Kinds of Cultural Systems

Unlike Ghurye and Elwin, Sinha noted some major differences between caste and
tribe. He began his analysis by elaborating the following distinctions in ideal–typical
sense.
First, a major portion of the tribal habitat of central India is hilly and forest. Tribal villages
are generally found in areas away from the alluvial plants close to rivers. By contrast, many
Hindu peasant villages are in deforested plateaus or plains. Many of these villages are
crowded on the river plains.

Second, the subsistence economy of the tribals is based on either hunting, collecting, and
fishing or a combination of hunting and collecting with shifting cultivation. Even the so-
called plough-using agricultural tribes have the tradition of subsisting mainly through shifting
cultivation in the past. By contrast, the Hindu peasantry practises intensive agriculture with
the help of plough drawn by animals. There are full-time specialists like gold-smiths, weavers,
50 B. Ghosh

or metal workers. Beyond a limited degree of local self-sufficiency, the village community
is tied to a countrywide network of markets, ultimately related to commercial towns.

Third, at the level of social structure, the largest significant reference group is the tribe or a
segment of it, the sub-tribe. A tribe is segmented into exogamous totemic clans, frequently
with territorial cohesion and strong corporate identity. There is very little specialization of
social roles, and secular and religious leadership are combined in one person. Similarly,
there is minimal rigid stratification. But the Hindu peasant society maintains its complexly
stratified caste divisions. Rules of both endogamy and exogamy control peasants’ kinship
and marriage customs. Caste occupations are primarily hereditary, and the Jajmani system
makes people belonging to different patron and the client castes interdependent. Secular and
religious leaders are clearly demarcated.

Fourth, the supernaturalism of the tribals involves one sun god and a lower hierarchy of
gods. Gods are classified into two classes: benevolent and malevolent. Supernatural rites are
explicitly directed toward happiness and security in the world. There is no concept of ‘heaven’
or ‘hell’. No idol or temple in a well-defined form is found. Animal sacrifice is essential
to rituals, and magic and witchcraft predominate. The worldview of the tribes conceives a
‘good life’ as a life with ample scope for indulgence in pleasure while maintaining social
obligations to corporate group/groups. The supernaturalism of the Hindu peasantry, however,
is a contrast of monotheism, pantheism and polytheism. Apart from the power connotation
of the deities, there is an emergent overtone of gods standing for ethical quality, dharma,
rewarding moral behaviour and punishing sinful or immoral behaviour. Consequently, the
concepts of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ are fundamental. Finally, both temples and idolatry are
significant. Compared to the tribals, the level of aspirations of the peasants is higher. A
desire for more land, wealth, power and status hit the peasant’s mind.

The preceding differences, however, do not make the two cultural systems
completely different. Rather, according to Sinha, non-Hindu tribals and Hindu
peasant socio-economic systems bear substantial nature of continuity. Thus, both
emphasise local self-sufficiency, prefer trade through exchange, give importance to
corporate kinship, and establish synergetic relationship with ethnic groups. More
importantly, the structural features of caste and tribe bear many similarities. Thus,
both stress on common descent and endogamy, segment exogamous clans into func-
tional lineages, classify kinship terminology strictly, give importance to age and
genealogy in the kinship system, consider village as a territorial unit and prefer demo-
cratic leadership. At the ideological part also, certain commonalities are found: trust
in a supreme being, importance of ancestral spirits, recognition of hills and waters as
spirits, belief in rebirth, collective participation of corporate kins in religious rituals
including animal sacrifice.
Sinha, therefore, wrote, ‘our characterization of the tribal cultures appears to be too
general to be useful; it might fit in well with the picture of primitive cultures anywhere
in the world’ (Sinha, 1958: 516). Yet, Sinha deliberately emphasized these charac-
teristics to point out that tribal cultures of Peninsular India do share some features
with primitive cultures. But simultaneously, certain items of Indian tribal culture are
not universally shared by primitive tribes. Sinha supported Mandelbaum’s view that
many of the Indian lower castes share with the tribals characteristics like (a) stress
on equality in social conduct within the ethnic group, (b) substantial freedom for the
women in cultural activities, (c) a value system not loaded with puritanical austerity,
and finally (d) stress on local deities though moral consideration hardly influence
3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha 51

their notion of supernaturalism. According to Sinha, the major reasons that isolate
the low caste Hindus from sophisticated Hinduism are poverty and social seclusion.
These factors also pose constraints for them to access the literate Hindu traditions
directly. Despite such obstacles, the lower caste people accept their marginalized
social status within a larger system. They also accept the morally loaded, partly
puritanical theology and worldview of erudite upper caste Hindus. As against this,
the social and ideological world of the tribals is least constrained and more clearly
defined. The tribal culture is seen as unique and not controlled by any larger system.
These considerations led Sinha to suggest distinctions between tribal cultures and
Hindu peasantry, taken as a whole.

3.4.3 Continuity Between Tribal Cultures and Hindu Peasant

Traditions

Having noted the similarities and differences between the two cultural systems of
tribe and caste, Sinha explained the continuity between tribal cultures and Hindu
peasant traditions. He began his analysis by recognising the existence of some tran-
sitional elements in a tribal culture, which are also seen in the peasant culture. In the
economy, for example, perfect specialization in crafts like basket making, smithery,
rope making and weaving is achieved. There are also inter-ethnic exchanges of goods
and services at local level among some tribes. In the social structure, factors like
numerical strength, genealogy, and ritual purity cause stratification. Sinha also saw
trends toward feudalisation of leadership among the Bhumij and the Munda. Due to
such exchanges of social, cultural and economic traits, symbols, values and norms,
there is continuity between tribal cultures and Hindu peasant traditions. He, there-
fore, felt that in terms of structural comparison, the tribal cultures of India fall within
the general social field touched by Great Tradition, even though they represent a
distinctive level of complexity. To clarify this, Sinha considered the tribal culture as
a distinct dimension which revibrates the ‘folk’ level of Indian Little Traditions. He
argued that it is possible to consider the folk (tribal), peasant and urban dimensions
of Indian tradition as a series of socio-cultural integration that progressively become
complex notwithstanding evidences of continuity with the original design. The slow
rate of technological progress in India allowed the classical dimension of the Great
Tradition to maintain a nourishing contact with the primitive core of community life.
Within such a broad theoretical parameter, Sinha explained the tribe-caste and
tribe-peasant continua with particular reference to two concrete field studies: the
relatively isolated Hill Maria Gond of Bastar studied by Edward Jay and his study
of the Hinduized Bhumij of Barabhum (Sinha, 1953). He examined these two cases
in terms of continua, the poles of which were viewed both in the framework of
extended kinship, namely, tribe-caste, and that of territorial systems, tribe-peasant.
Sinha became aware of the integration of the Bhumij with the regional Hindu caste
52 B. Ghosh

system while conducting fieldwork during 1950–53. Meanwhile F. G. Bailey’s ‘tribe-

caste continuum’ model concerning Kondh and Oriya’s political systems stimulated
Sinha. Looking at the proximity between the ‘organic’ Oriya caste model and the
‘segmentary’ Kondh society, Bailey (1960) argued that kinship values and religious
beliefs of these societies are not far detached from one another. As Bailey (1961:13)
wanted to ‘see “caste” and “tribe” as opposite ends of a single line’, he also tried to
specify the criteria for deciding at what point on the continuum a particular society
is to be placed. To him, ‘the larger is the proportion of a given society which has
direct access to land, the closer that society is to the tribal end of the continuum.
Conversely, the larger is the proportion of people whose right to land is achieved
through a dependent relationship, the nearer the society comes to the caste pole’
(Bailey, 1960:14).
Sinha first attempted to apply this ‘interactional’ model for considering the posi-
tion of the tribe vis-à-vis caste. But it did not work so well with the hunting and
gathering Kharia and the Pahira tribal groups in the district of Manbhum in Bihar.
Both Kharia and Pahira have very little social connection with the Hindus in the area
though they rely on other castes to hold their farm land and to assert their rights for
hunting and gathering. On the other hand, larger groups like Bhumij and Mahato, who
own most of the local land, are intricately involved in socio-ritual interaction with
the regional caste system. Sinha argued that Bailey’s characterization would bring
many areas of peasant India having ‘dominant castes’ (Rajputs and the Jats in the
North and Okkaligas in the South), near the tribal pole. But these groups participate
vigorously in the intricate hierarchy of inter-caste relationships in their respective
regions. Hence, rather than the proportion of land held in dependent relationships,
Sinha argued that a society near the caste pole should be characterised by the degree
of hierarchy in the regional land tenure system. Bailey also ignored that one of the
major features of the ideal tribe is its lack of interaction with other social systems.
Despite limitations of the concept of ‘tribe-caste continuum’, Sinha gave credit to
Bailey for stimulating him ‘to look closely into the tribal position once more’ (Sinha,
1965:60).
Sinha did not want to restrict his analysis to the level of economics and politics like
Bailey. Instead, he viewed the tribe as a system of social relationship, state of mind,
and cultural tradition, characterized by isolation and lack of stratification. Thus, he
wrote:
The tribal end is characterised by the following demographic and social structural features.
It is isolated—in ecology, demography, economy, politics and other social relations from
other ethnic groups. This isolation generates, and in turn, is bolstered by a strong in-group
sentiment. Internally, the group is characterised by homogeneity on account of lack of social
stratification and role specialisation other than by age, sex and kinship. Certain cultural
features like viewing one’s culture as autonomous with reference to others, disconnection
from the Great Traditions, a value system of equality, closeness to the human, natural and
the supernatural world, lack of systematisation of ideas, ethical religion and puritanical
asceticism also mark such an ideally isolated, homogeneous and unstratified group. (Sinha,
1965:61)

As against the ‘tribal end’, the ‘caste end’ is,

3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha 53

… typically connected, heterogeneous and unstratified and is characterised by the following

social structural features: multi-ethnic residence in the local community; inter-ethnic partic-
ipation in an economy involving occupational specialisation by ethnic groups and stratified
land tenure; ranked and interdependent interaction with other ethnic groups. Culturally,
castes exhibit features like interaction with the sub-cultures of other ethnic groups in the
region, interaction with Great Tradition, polarisation of lay and common cultures, hierarchic
view of social relations bolstered by the concept of ritual pollution, emergence of ethical
religion and a puritanical view of life. (Sinha, 1965:62)

Sinha argued that most of the characteristics noted for ideal ‘caste’ would also
hold good for the multi-caste ‘peasant’ village. In addition, the latter has widespread
regional affiliations with numerous centres of civilization through a varied network
of relationships. Also, peasant village maintains a heterogeneous cultural system in
terms of internal divisions. By contrast, the tribal villages are uni-ethnic. This is
because their relations with the outside world are restricted to only people living in a
homogeneous cultural area. Sinha showed that the Hill Maria Gonds of Bastar repre-
sent the most isolated section of the Dravidian Gondi-speaking people of Central
India, whereas the Bhumij of Barabhum is within the threshold of the caste and
the peasant pole. Movement from the isolated tribal pole to the caste and peasant
end thus involves ‘a progression toward ethnic heterogeneity in social interaction,
role specialisation, social stratification and emergence of elite classes and enlarge-
ment and diversification of territorial network with civilizational network’ (Sinha,
1965:63). There is the corresponding movement toward cultural heterogeneity in
terms of ethnic heterogeneity and social stratification and greater systematisation of
cultural ideals along with interaction with the Great Tradition. Sinha also claimed
that beyond the peasant or caste range, the ultimate pole of the tribal end would
be an urban level of a special kind which would fit in with the characters of an
‘orthogenetic’ city defined by Redfield and Singer as an ideal type.
Sinha, however, made it clear that as an ‘artificial’ construct, his notion of ‘tribe-
caste and tribe peasant continua’ is primarily concerned with the process by which
tribes were integrated with the traditional Indian civilization and avoided the more
modern phase of cultural transformation affecting both tribal and peasant social
order. Herein, unlike Bose, Sinha argued that though the predominant historical trend
in Central India is unidirectional, namely, communities moving toward the caste-
peasant pole from the tribal end, the opposite possibility of ‘tribalization’ of caste
cannot be ruled out (Sinha, 1965:64). Sinha also did not find any direct correlation
between the level of technological efficiency and nearness to the idealised caste
pole. Again, demographic changes might not necessarily generate a caste system in
a tribal area. One should not also think there would be a regular progression from
one pole to the other. Because ‘it is quite likely that within the proximal range, all the
criteria used in defining the continua will not move at the same rate. A group may be
ahead of another in market participation but behind in sharing Great traditional gods
and ethical slant in religion’ (Sinha, 1965:78). Yet, he hoped that ‘the easy case of
comparing two widely contrastive cases like the Hill Maria and the Bhumij certainly
encourages us to explore the finer ranges of differentiation’ (Sinha, 1965:78).
54 B. Ghosh

3.4.4 The Bhumij of Barabhum and Their Movement

Sinha’s work on the state formation among the Bhumij and changes in the trajectory
of their social movement is interesting from several points of view. He has shown
that class stratification has taken deep root due to differentiated land holdings and
territorial extension of political dominance (Ghosh, 2000). Interestingly, when Sinha
first went to conduct fieldwork among the Bhumij of Madhupur in 1950, he noticed
certain contrasting features among them (Sinha, 1978:151). Thus, on the one hand,
they, especially the relatively prosperous section, were obsessed with the ethnic status
of the caste and including status in the local feudal hierarchy. But on the other, they
were guided largely by the egalitarian ethos of the tribal culture. Compared to the Ho
of Kolban, the Bhumij were shaky about their culture and status. But, when he went
again in 1956 and 1957, Sinha noticed changes in the networks and relationships
of those people. He then found the growth of the feudal land revenue hierarchy and
new status categories like Namahal Rajput, Dashmahal Rajput, Ataishey Bhumij
Kshatriya, and Nagadi Bhumij Kshatriya (Sinha, 1978:153). The growth of distinct
classes like Ataisha, Nagadi and Nichu among the Bhumij in Pargana Birbhum also
contributed to status distinctions.
The Bhumij leaders of Madhupur village formed the ‘Bhumij-Kshatriya’ asso-
ciation in 1935 (Sinha, 1959). Incidentally, the Brahmins helped them by creating
myths of their Rajput-Kshatriya ancestry and by intensifying the ‘sanskritization’ of
their way of life (Sinha, 1959:11). The local Hindus also then thought it profitable
to associate with the Bhumij, who owned most of the land of that area. But, when
some of their leaders realised that the traditional Kshatriya way was no longer the
best means for social advancement, given the benefit of reservation extended to the
tribesman, they declared themselves to be so (Mandelbaum, 1984:603–610).
Such a reversal was not, however, easy because the Bhumij had committed them-
selves so firmly to the Kshatriya goal. Incidentally, the caste model was introduced
when Bhumij chieftains, probably between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries,
granted land and privileges to high caste Hindus inducing them to settle close to
the ruler. Bhumij had undergone certain reform movements under the influence
of Brahmin Priests and some sectarian holy men in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries. These movements have had some effect on their lifestyle and culture.
Some Bhumij Zamindars and large landowners had become accepted as Kshatriya
and had separated themselves from Bhumij society to form a new caste. The masses
of Bhumij were, however, not wealthy enough to take that step—they could not afford
the cost of Brahmins, genealogists and special Sanskritic rites—nor did they want to
forgo the tribal customs.
Since independence, however, the Bhumij started taking a greater interest in polit-
ical matters rather than ritual purity. The association was then led by educated
commoners rather than the landed chiefs. The new leaders emphasized more on
secular advancement by developing a common front with the Mundas and other
Scheduled Tribes (STs). In a meeting of the Bhumij-Kshatriya association in 1958,
the term ‘Adivasi’ was inserted to read it as Bhumij Adivasi Kshatriya Association
3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha 55

to claim the status and related government facilities of an ST. Sinha did acknowl-
edge the rise of ethnic identity among the Bhumij. They then started referring to
their Hindu neighbours as diku (Sinha et al., 1969:121–38). Being doubtful about
the outcome of the Hindu absorption method, Sinha wrote,
There is an underlying assumption in Bose’s proposition that, on the whole, this process
of slow integration provided the tribe with sufficient economic, social and cultural security
as not to generate large scale rebellion. My own impression is that in spite of this general
pattern of harmony the tribals are not without an awareness that they were looked down upon
and given a low status. (Sinha, 1972: 413)

Sinha also noticed a counter process of ‘devolution’ or secondary ‘primitivization’

among certain groups, and these processes cannot be adequately understood except in
the context of the larger society. Thus, due to extensive deforestation and penetration
of the caste-based economy into tribal areas, tribes like Birhor or Hill Kharia are
forced to leave shifting cultivation and rely only on hunting and gathering (Sinha,
1968). He believed that the spectrum of social changes witnessed in independent
India are linked to broader cultural and societal processes, and these have equally
impacted the peasants and urbanites, including the tribals.
According to Sinha, the significant causes of tribal solidarity movements
in contemporary India are isolation in ecological and cultural terms, economic
marginalization, and a sense of frustration against the elites. Sinha believed that
isolated or integrated tribes hardly participated in these movements. Hence, Sinha
argued for a state policy of larger economic opportunities and greater integration of
the isolated tribes with the mainstream national culture. He was of the view that the
cultural autonomy of the tribal groups should not be disturbed, and the tribal elites,
as well as the masses, should be introduced to the ‘emerging core’ of the Indian
culture.

3.5 Critical Assessment

Bose and Sinha developed the Civilizational approach to Indian society and culture to
explain and analyse the development and expansion of Indian society from its original
design to the contemporary complex system through assimilation and mixture. As
they believed in the uniqueness of Indian civilization, they stressed the creative
potentialities of the Indian social structure to develop resilience and commonality
despite certain differences. The Civilizational approach attempted to critique the
arguments of Cambridge historians and Orientalists for whom entities like caste,
tribe and village produced social isolation and segmentary culture in India. It offers
a new evolutionary model of Indian society and culture. Sinha was deeply influenced
by the writings of Bose, Das and Redfield, yet, he attempted to explain the linkages
in his way by incorporating new trends in contemporary India. It may be argued that
Sinha started his analysis from where Bose left.
56 B. Ghosh

Notwithstanding certain acceptance, Bose’s model of tribe-non-tribe interaction

in traditional India is questioned on various grounds. As this model tried to under-
stand and interpret cultural changes, it is criticised for ignoring the structural factors
and processes. Bose’s ‘cultural paradigm’ has failed to withstand the fact that the
classification of Indian tradition into two or more types has limited utility. Yogendra
Singh believed that ‘a common mistake in formulating the notion of Indian civiliza-
tion is in identifying it predominantly or entirely in terms of the dominant Hindu
tradition…..In the Indian context too, civilization as a social process transcends reli-
gious traditions’ (Singh, 1993:158–59). Beteille (1986:313) also acknowledged that
Bose’s argument does not equally apply to over 400 Indian tribes whose conditions
vary so much. Roy Burman (1983:1173) noted that cultivators or landless labourers
predominate among the Hindu tribals. Caste membership did not elicit any protec-
tion to compete with those engaged in these occupations. Many other scholars have
written on the process of de-Hinduization among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in India. Xaxa (2005) argued that during British rule, the Hindus could not
provide any protection to the tribals. Rather, the tribes were then dominated and
subjugated, on the one hand, and oppressed and exploited, on the other. The causes
of tribal movements in British India reveal such stories (Sharma & Borgohain, 2020).
Ironically, the situation aggravated after independence, and the Indian state recog-
nised the importance of the development of tribal areas only after the Maoists took
control of that land in the early decade of the current century (Ghosh, 2020). Given
such a context, Xaxa (2005) doubts the voluntary nature of tribal absorption, partic-
ularly in the post-independence era. He feels that nonviolent coercion is built into
the absorption process of the state’s administrative practices.
Compared to Bose’s model of ‘assimilation’5 , Sinha went beyond the simple idea
of tribal absorption and came forward with a better model of ‘integration’. Rather,
he viewed ‘tribe’ and ‘caste’ as ideal types in which actual societies could be plotted
on a continuum with various levels of integration. Herein, Sinha brought in several
essential structural factors to problematize the nature of tribe-non-tribe relations in
contemporary India. Moreover, Sinha’s explanation of the Bhumij social movement
recognised not only the adoption of upper caste Hindu cultural traits but also an
opposite process of protest among the young Bhumij. They now prefer joining other
tribes for social and educational upliftment (Guha, 2018a). Therefore, it is possible to
use Sinha’s approach in combination with Yogendra Singh’s approach for analysing
the socio-cultural changes in contemporary India.

Endnotes

1. This article is partially based on one of my unpublished study modules written

for the University of Kalyani, West Bengal (see Ghosh, 2009, for details).
2. This book, first published in 1949, was translated into English by André Beteille
with the title The Structure of Hindu Society (1975).
3. Bose noticed that the impact of Christianity among certain tribes in British
India was temporal because conversion took place only during periods of severe
economic crisis. Compared to the Missionaries, the Hindu spiritual leaders made
3 The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha 57

least effort to propagate their religion. Hence, the absorption method usually
worked with some tribes adopting more and others less.
4. To Guha (2018b), some anthropologists did develop nationalistic trends in Indian
anthropology.
5. It is argued that Bose did not suggest mere unconditional assimilation but ‘a
special kind of acculturation’ of communities as they belonged to a common
Indian historical tradition of unity (Bhattacharjee, 2008:13).

References

Bailey, F. G. (1960). Tribe, caste and Nation. Manchester University Press.

Bailey, F. G. (1961). Tribe and caste in India. Contribution to Indian Sociology, 5, 7–19.
Beteille, A. (1986). The concept of tribe with special reference to India. European Journal of
Sociology, 27(2), 297–318.
Bhattacharjee, N. (2008). Through thick and thin reflections on Nirmal Kumar Bose. Indian
Anthropologist, 38(2), 1–17.
Bose, N. K. (1953).Cultural anthropology and other essays. Indian Associated Publishing Company.
Bose, N. K. (1972). Some Indian tribes. National Book Trust.
Bose, P. (2007). The Anthropologist as ‘Scientist’? Nirmal Kumar Bose. In P. Uberoi, N. Sundar, &
S. Deshpande (eds.), Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology
(290–329). Permanent Black.
Elwin, V. (1948). Notes on the Juang. Man in India, 28(1–2), 1–146.
Ghosh, A. (2000). The Historical Anthropology of Surajit Sinha. Paper presented at
National Workshop on Knowledge, Institutions, Practices—The formation of Indian
Anthropology and Sociology, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi (19–21 April 2000),
www.unipune.ac.in›snc›cssh›HistorySociology. Accessed July 21 2020.
Ghosh, B. (2009). Civilizational approach of N. K. Bose and Surajit Sinha. M. Phil Course Module,
Paper 1, Module 2, Unit 3, published by University of Kalyani, West Bengal.
Ghosh, B. (2019). Study of Indian society and culture: Methods and perspectives. Kerala Sociologist,
47(1), 13–29.
Ghosh, B. (2020). Naxalite and maoist movements. In B. Ghosh (ed.), Social Movements—Concepts,
Experiences and Concerns (152–169). Sage Publications.
Guha, A. (2016). Manuwadi bias in Indian anthropology. Forward Press, September 28,
www.forwardpress.in›2016/09›manuwadi-bias-in-in…. Accessed 22 July 2020.
Guha, A. (2018a). Scrutinizing the Hindu method of Tribal absorption. Economic and Political
Weekly, 53(17), 105–110.
Guha, A. (2018b). How Surajit Sinha viewed Indian Anthropology? Strengths and Limitations.
Conference Paper, July, www.researchgate.net›profile›publication›links. Accessed 22 July 2020.
Mandelbaum, D. G. (1984). Society in India (Chapters 31 & 32). Popular Prakashan.
Marriott, M. (ed.). (1955). Village India: Studies in the little community. University of Chicago.
Redfield, R. (1955a). The little community. University of Chicago.
Redfield, R. (1955b). Peasant society and culture. University of Chicago.
Roy Burman, B. K. (1983). Transformation of tribes and analogous social formations. Economic
and Political Weekly, 18(27), 1172–1174.
Sharma, C. K., & Borgohain, B. (2020). Tribal movements. In B. Ghosh (ed.), Social Movements—
Concepts, Experiences and Concerns (132–151). Sage Publications.
Singer, M. (1959). Traditional India: Structure and change. American Folklore Society.
Singh, Y. (1977). Modernization of Indian tradition. Faridad: Thomson Press.
58 B. Ghosh

Singh, Y. (1986). Indian sociology—social conditioning and emerging concerns. Vistaar Publica-
tion.
Singh, Y. (1993). Social change in India. Har-Anand Publications.
Sinha, S. (1953). Some aspects of changes in Bhumij Religion in South Manbhum. Man in India,
33(2), 148–164.
Sinha, S. (1958). Tribal cultures of Peninsular India as a dimension of little tradition in the study of
Indian civilization: A preliminary statement. Journal of American Folklore, 71(281), 504–517.
Sinha, S. (1959). Bhumij–Kshatriya social movement in South Manbhum. Bulletin of the
Department of Anthropology, 8(2), 9–32.
Sinha, S. (1965). Tribe-caste and tribe-peasant continua in central India. Man in India, 45(1), 57–83.
Sinha, S. (1967). Involvement in social change: A plea for own ideas. Economic and Political
Weekly., 2(37), 1707–1709.
Sinha, S. (1968). Urgent problems for research in social and cultural anthropology in India:
Perspectives and suggestions. Sociological Bulletin, 17(2), 123–131.
Sinha, S. (ed). (1970). Science, technology and culture: A study of cultural traditions and institutions
of India and Ceylon in relation to science and technology. Research Council for Cultural Studies.
Sinha, S. (1971). Is There an Indian tradition in socio/cultural anthropology: Retrospect and
prospects. Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society, 6, 1–14.
Sinha, S. (1972). Tribal solidarity movements in India: A review. In K. S. Singh (ed.), The Tribal
Situation in India (411–23). Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Sinha, S. (1978). Space, time and Ethnicity: Fieldwork among the Bhumij of Barabhum. In S.
Sinha (ed.),Field Studies on the People of India: Methods and Perspectives (149–156). Indian
Anthropological Society.
Sinha, S. (1984). Growth of scientific temper: Rural context. In M. Gibbons, P. Gummelt, & B. M.
Vadgaonkar (eds), Science and Technology Policy in the 1980s and Beyond (166–187). Orient
Longman.
Sinha, S., Sen, J., & Panchbhai, S. (1969). The concept of Diku among the tribes of Chotanagpur.
Man in India, 49(2), 121–138.
Xaxa, V. (2005). Politics of language, religion and identity: Tribes in India. Economic and Political
Weekly, 40(13), 1363–1370.
Chapter 4
A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian
Tradition and Sociology in India

Ajit Kumar Pandey

Abstract Saran, throughout his life, forcefully argued that modern civilization with
its conquistadorial attitude towards nature accompanied with a total disdain for tradi-
tion, produces a host of irresolvable contradictions, problems and conflicts that have
pushed the mankind to the very brink of an abyss. He thinks that the genesis of the
present despairing situation can be traced to the self-grounding project of modern
man. This project is based on what Saran calls the postulate of ‘unmediated universal
knowability’. Any paradigm of human progress based on this postulate is a complete
reversal of the traditional paradigm of man’s intellectual and social existence on this
earth. Saran maintains that for a traditional man, intellectual progress is an ascent
from the relative knowledge to transcendental wisdom, from known to unknown
and, ultimately, to the unknowable. On the contrary, according to him, the modern
man does not admit that knowability has its own limits. Along with this, the ques-
tions relating to the ethics of knowledge are brushed aside with contempt by such a
man. He also points out that progress and welfare of mankind—the much-advertised
goals of modern scientific knowledge—is used to camouflage its actual purpose, the
increase of man’s power over nature and history. Throughout his writings, Saran
has convincingly argued that the absence of goals higher than the goal of universal
knowability makes the modern quest of knowledge autotelic. He maintains that this
autotelic perversion is one of the worst forms of idolatry which is central to the
modern age. This paper analyses: (a) Saran’s critique of modernity which is entirely
distinct from any other trends of thought which are usually reckoned under that
name, and (b) his critical understanding of Indian tradition reflecting on the tradition
of Indian sociology.

Keywords Philosophia perennis · Metanoia · Modernity · Contemporaneity ·

Transcendence · Neo-colonial modes · False consciousness · Synthesis ·
Hinduism · Westernization

A. K. Pandey (B)
Giri Institute of Development Studies, Lucknow, India
e-mail: ajitpandey2010@yahoo.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 59
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_4
60 A. K. Pandey

4.1 Introduction

It was in 1994 at Lucknow University when I met Prof Saran for the first time.
He was delivering D. P. Mukerji Memorial lecture. I was attending his lecture. His
talk astonished me with his position maintaining the incompatibility of tradition and
modernity: ‘if Hinduism is alive, modernity and modernization will not be accepted’.
It appeared anachronistic for me at first, but it prepared me to ponder over his deep
understanding.
According to Saran’s own account, somehow by God’s grace, unlike all others
around him, he could from his very childhood suspect the incongruity of the whole
matter he was taught; and, in his juvenescent period, while failing to get from any
school teachers satisfying answers to his serious questions arising therefrom, he
had a momentous encounter with one of A. K. Coomarswamy’s writings (Art and
Swadeshi) at his elder brother’s library, which left him not any ready-made answer–
indeed, he said, he could not understand the meaning of what then strangely impressed
him until long after—but the deep-samvega—the unexpected experience in which his
very being was shaken to its roots—which thereafter remained in him to operate as the
‘leaven’ for the ongoing awakening to the truths.1 Since then, his intellectual life has
been marked by a number of such remarkable encounters with the inspiring insightful
works—not only of the contemporary traditional masters, but also of various eminent
modern thinkers, whose insights, he found, though uttered from the centres of the
modern world, lead one beyond modernism when seriously pursued. Indeed, in his
inner sense to be struck initially by sentences (sutras) pregnant with inexhaustibly
rich implications buried under their apparently non-consequential surfaces, in his
capacity to bring them out in the way that is both faithful to their unfathomable
profundities and subtleties, and highly relevant to our vital existential issues, as well
as in his unsparing penetration into erroneous statements to reveal, at once, the source
of their seeming plausibility and how they are in truth stultifying themselves—in all
these respects, his manner of reading texts is marvelous: it is, in a word, to carry out
unlearning through learning.2 In this way, the modality of Saran’s intellectual pursuit
has been preeminently original (in its proper sense of the participation in the Origin,
and not in the current sense of idiosyncratic novelty), and apart from being one of the
exponents of the contemporary traditional cause, he cannot be distributed under any
usual genealogical classification of academic schools, Indian or Western. Moreover,
with full consciousness of its difficulties and limitations, he accepted his intellectual
calling, not as seeking to join in some esoteric or monastic circle, if any, but as
remaining in the midst of this anti-traditional world to fight it from within, hence
being a university scholar of modern social science so as to break it up, even if such a
venture may sound quixotic.3 In the context of the contemporary Indian intellectual
world, Saran’s emergence seems to have been, thus, almost that of a mutant. Perhaps,
his extraordinary gift of rigorous dialectical thinking may be seen as having its latent
root in the underground stream of Indian intellectual tradition, such as manifested
in prasanga of Nagarjuna and Candrakirti, but the enigma of his sudden solitary
appearance remains. In any case, when he entered the picture of what has been called
4 A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian Tradition and Sociology in India 61

the Lucknow School of Indian Sociology, he was not so much following the lines of
Radhakamal Mukerjee and D. P. Mukerji to go beyond them eventually, as he was
from the beginning finding his feet in the totally distinctive way and appeared, so it
seems, to both Mukerjees to be an enfant terrible of rare genius.4 For good or ill, he
has anywhere cut a conspicuous figure, which has frequently provoked the hostility
of many who shield themselves not to see in him anything but a defiant attitude: and
yet, he has, at the same time, never lacked a few, but devoted sympathetic friends and
patrons both at home and abroad. It is also characteristic of his intellectual career that
Saran has on several occasions met with those Western representative intellectuals
who, being impressed by Saran, tried to co-opt him into their circles, only to find
out, in time, that he was a not-to-be-bidden guest, with whom they could not come to
term unless imperiling their own positions.5 Not only did Saran himself never seek
to hold the imprimatur of any Western centres as many ruling intellectuals of the
country did: what is remarkable in this somewhat repeated phenomenon is that, in
this case, the decisive factor in making his utterances both attractive and repulsive
to those Westerners lie not in his being a yet to be credentialed provincial Indian, as
they themselves might like to assume, but in the fact that he hit them in their vitals on
their own ground. Those vital points which they themselves must have certainly had
an inkling of, but had never come to grips with in a straight confrontation (Murakami,
2002).
All these traits of Saran’s intellectual activity that I have so far cursorily depicted—
that he has taken on the task based on the clearest recognition of the necessity
preceding everything else of intellectual purgation in today’s world, that his critique
is presented such that it can only be ignored but not refuted, and that his mode of an
intellectual quest has been ‘unlearning through learning’ and his accepted mission
in academia ‘fighting from within’—all these, in the last analysis, coverage on the
one essential feature of the critique of modernity: that it is intended to be internal
critique.

4.2 Saran’s Critique of Modernity

This section focuses on the uniqueness and universal significance of Saran’s critique
of modernity. In order to do so, I have begun by just recapitulating how Saran has put
the root predicament of his own countrymen- from the lucid and keen awareness of
which his whole intellectual–existential endeavor has started. The bottomless plight
into which Saran found the people in contemporary India were trapped is this: on
the one hand, while the Perennial Tradition as the ultimate transcendent source of
the meaningfulness of man’s life ever remains, its historical modality given to man
as a temporal existence has been in utter decay, without which any life qua human
is rendered impossible this side of sainthood on earth, but which precisely because
of being only transcendently given (signifying the Mystery of bridging the absolute
discontinuity between the trans-temporal Essence and the temporal existence), cannot
be resuscitated or recreated by man himself left to his own resources. On the other
62 A. K. Pandey

hand, however, what has been only available there instead—first compelled to adopt
by the British rule and then being willingly sought to be introduced by the majority
of post-independent political leaders and intellectuals—namely, modernity, is full of
self-inconsistencies and fatal aporiae, indeed, its fundamental idea of self-grounding
(i.e., autonomy without depending on the transcendentally revealed and traditionally
inherited spiritual authority; in other words, the hubristic notion of “Man as the
Creator of his own World and History”) simply does not make sense—it is thus a
veritable “devil’s bargain”, through which a seeming, transient gain is delusively
pursued at the cost of the most vital, essential thing for man to be himself (i.e.,
remembering of the divine Origin), thus, in the end, at the cost of Everything.
In this double impasse, the first phase (the fact of the loss of a living traditional
society) in itself is not still hopeless, for the very awareness of this painful loss, so
long as we do not try to blur it by various sentimental substitutions, can always lead
us to the remembrance of our divine Source Who is Infinite Possibility, that is, via
our total repentance (Metanoia)6 —only with which ‘previously inoperative causes
are brought into play, with new results’ (Coomaraswamy, 1988, p. 56). However, to
Saran’s deep sorrow, almost all the political leaders and intellectuals in contemporary
India (with the exception of Gandhi) have obscured the real root of their predicament,
replacing it self-deceivingly with the problem of how to well achieve the synthesis
of tradition and modernity (i.e., how to manage to get the most favourable terms of
that bargain, instead of having the courage to annul the delusive compact itself alto-
gether),without in the least examining whether the latter has a coherent case at all,
to say nothing of the logical compatibility of the two. This accustomed insensitivity,
this fatal lack of clear, consistent thinking among modern Indian intellectuals (espe-
cially marking their generally adhoc, piecemeal approaches to the post-independent
national project of modernization)—in which Saran sees a sign of a continuation
of cowardice-cum-self- complacence (as he calls Nilkantha Syndrome) with which
Hindus have characteristically responded to the Muslim and the British domina-
tion—operates as a kind of structural falsification of the reality, through which the
huge exploitation of people and nature is tolerated in the name of transition to a fully
developed country, of pursuing freedom and justice, while the price thus actually
paid in the process is masked by politicization of surviving religious feelings.7
It is significant to mention here that this understanding of the actualities by Saran
is neither a matter of explanatory hypothesis of a positivistic or hermeneutic social
scientists, nor a transcendentally revealed decree of a prophet, whose mantle he never
pretends to wear, but an expression of the unevadable reality of the dire wretchedness
in which his whole existence is increasingly involved. Indeed, herein lies the deepest
derivation of Saran’s distress: the traditional world to which he knows he intrinsically
belongs, is no more except as a bare survival and, living this side of sainthood, he has
no power and authority to create a new traditional space of his own, whereas the so-
called modern and modernizing world by which he finds himself actually surrounded
overwhelmingly is fundamentally unintelligible to him. He simply cannot understand
why his fellow intellectuals can go with such a meaningless idea of the synthesis
of tradition and modernity together with all modern social scientific methodologies
if they are not merely victims in disguise of the peremptory force of the global
4 A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian Tradition and Sociology in India 63

imperial violence-hence literally nowhere to belong for him on earth. Instead of being
recalled, the Eternal in which he has his roots, has been ostracized as ‘bygones’ by
the Present, and the Present he has to live in, remains ever alien to him. This is the
unmitigated misery that Saran as a Hindu survivor has been condemned to suffer,
and his grandeur, which only has ever intensified his pain, lies in his poignantly clear
perception of its unprecedentedly formidable nature, which is neither a third person’s
observation from an outside standpoint nor a verdict from on high. It is a cry of heart
amidst the incomprehensible wilderness of the time, of which his internal critique
is simply a logico-philosophical expression. What is piteously ironical in all this is
the fact that whereas the misery that Saran bears in full awareness of its abysmal
depth is in reality the very root predicament of all the contemporary people who
are entrapped into modern scientific –industrial civilization. Saran’s upright voice
has been always bypassed as something impertinent or anachronistic by all those
who embrace modern conceptions—a self–deluding enhancement which, however,
paradoxically and tragically blunts their own real suffering by covering it. In this
respect, one may say, here is a certain analogy with the case of Socrates who, on
the strength of the recognition of his own ignorance, pursued the dialogical quest
in the negative form that tolerates no pretense and who, remaining true to himself,
accepted and fulfilled this mission only as a ‘midwife’ in the clear understanding that
‘its relation is the highest that one human being can sustain to another’ (Kierkegaard,
1967:12–18): this is, however, with this difference of the task, among others, that
while Socrates simply left off all scientific investigations so as to concentrate on the
quest for the one thing needful, Saran has to face up to the foundations of the whole
modern disciplines in order even to clear the path just for starting that quest.
Now, with a view to seeing the nature of Saran’s internal critique of modernity,
I will shed some light on three aspects, though inseparably intertwined with each
other, drawn from the foregoing recapitulation of Saran’s inceptive understanding
of the predicament of the contemporary man as follows: (a) The flash light (e.g. in
the above recapitulation, an illusory faith in an ersatz solution alias modernization
which is being further reassured by a still more self-deceiving and changing idea of the
synthesis of tradition and modernity) is a thousand times as disastrous as the gloom
(the fact of the absence of living tradition) itself, for the former removes from our
consciousness the very necessity and possibility of seeking the genuine Light, while
creating a deceptive sense of immunity against all the sacrifices actually made for
maintaining it-this decisive recognition is one of the fundamentals that run through all
Saran’s works attempting an internal critique: underlying which is the basic principle
that “awareness of the Truth Principles matters before everything else”. (b) And that
is why he has persistently and always strictly, questioned whether presuppositions of a
given thought system are coherent at all, for, though, logic is not all things, something
that internally contradicts itself can be pursued only at some real cost; when it is a
question of the supposed foundation of the whole civilization, inconsistencies at the
level of its principles never fail to bring forth tremendous, the most ruinous practical
results—and what is more, the core ideas of modernity involve something utterly
unintelligible per se (things that even do not make sense), of which the manifested
effect is nothing but the unprecedented global violence that is infinitely potentiated.
64 A. K. Pandey

In this way, Saran’s critique of modernity meant to reveal its internal self-defeating
contradictions on its own ground, and not to attack it from some external point of
view in terms of a certain presupposed criterion of desirability. And this strictly
internal critique is sustained only by dialectic as a support for the apophatic way,
i.e. Dialectic which is true to man’s gifted self-reflective intelligence and oriented
towards the transcendent source. (c) Accordingly, to say that Saran has critiqued
modernity from the traditional point of view is already somewhat misleading. In
reality, neither modernity nor tradition is a point of view—the former is no more than
a congeries of various self–inconsistent postulates and much disguised nonsense, a
phantom which has no coherent case to constitute a point of view, and latter is simply
another name of the transcendent universal Truths, only within (and as the modalities
of) which diverse particular points of view are possible. Thus, Saran’s internal critique
breaks through the very dichotomy of modernity and tradition. Indeed, it was only
by its initial supposed pairing with tradition that modernity could have established
itself—the wholly unwarranted, impossible pairing, on which all delusive talks like
that of modernization and the synthesis of the two thrive. Though language does not
allow us to dispense with the manner of talking juxtaposing the two, modernity and
tradition are not only incompatible but even incomparable-there is no third point or
ground to compare them side by side (Murakami, 2002:53).

4.3 Saran on Indian Tradition and Sociology in India

The meaning of tradition is most fundamental in understanding Saran’s position.

Without having some appreciation of the meaning of tradition, Saran’s thinking is
strange, irrelevant and unintelligible. Indifference, distance and sometimes hostility
will be a general reaction to it. In this section, I would like to explore Saran’s meaning
of tradition. It is not an easy task because; it is a kind of journey intellectually
overburdened.
Saran signifies a break from the main tradition of Indian sociology. He begins by
posing the fundamental question (it is largely based on my interactions with him).
Can indigenous systems of tradition produce, support, or coexist with totally alien
systems of modernity? In the terminology of modern sociology, can there be a genuine
structural transformation without destroying the very basis of system maintenance
and performance? In the specific context of India, can the Western impact and the
attendant internalization of the West lead to the modernization of Hindu tradition?
In the current Indian sociology, the answer to each of these questions is broadly
in the affirmative. It is still not fashionable in modern social science tradition of
India to condemn Hinduism, although some operating outside the boundaries of
sociological profession have tried this (Dasgupta, 1972; Modie, 1968). To express
unabashed allegiance to Hinduism or Westernization is of course tactless, if not
outright absurd. In the modernized consciousness of an Indian sociologist, tradition
is fully compatible with modernity. It is strictly in this context that synthesis and
4 A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian Tradition and Sociology in India 65

adaptation have become two most popular components of modernization theory in

India.
Behind this popularity lies what Saran calls a false consciousness (1969a:6,10). It
is consciousness because it involves modern man’s ‘Little Faith’ in his own tradition
(Saran, 1962:57). It is false because it selects and thereby distorts social reality
qua reality by imposing modernistic criteria to understand and evaluate traditional
systems (Saran, 1962:56, 68; 1969:43). In this framework, tradition becomes valuable
only as an instrument of modernity.
Thus, apparently simple-looking proposition, in fact, hides profoundly disturbing
implications. These implications need to be studied at two levels, the empirical and
methodological. At the empirical level, what remains at Hindu tradition in the modern
world of an Indian sociologist is restricted to religious fairs and fasts. At a slightly
deeper level, an Indian social scientist may express an irrepressible joy on seeing a
fatalist Hindu peasant accepting fertilizers and pesticides. This act seems to confirm
all his predispositions about modernization of Hindu tradition. At the methodolog-
ical level, Hinduism is delinked from its institutional base and is studied only as a
congeries of disparate acts and beliefs which can be used and abused in the process
of modernization (Saran, 1971:21). This ‘use’ may vary in its substantive meaning,
taking one of the three forms: (i) one, where Hinduism is only temporarily performing
certain dysfunctional roles (e.g. family planning); (ii) two, where Hinduism has been
safely pushed to the periphery of the Indian society (e.g., private worship) and (iii)
three, where Hinduism has already become a vehicle of the Westernization process
itself (e.g., caste and politicization).
From Saran’s perspective, this dilution of tradition is self-destructive. For, while
it creates a comfortable illusion of synthesis, it also demeans the tradition and
deflects societies away from modernity. One is neither here nor there; stagnation
looks progressive, and drift appears as a forward movement (Saran, 1971:21). Hindu
tradition, according to Saran, is unabashedly traditional and not conducive to ortho-
genetic evolution of a rational modern worldview (1963:87–94; 1969a:9). This thesis
has at least three corollaries. First, if India has already adopted a certain non-Hindu
model of modernity, Indian tradition clearly has no role to play in it. Second, India
must realize that the contemporary process of modernization is itself fraught with
grave internal limitations and contradictions (Saran, 1965:15; 1969a:10). Third, if
however India is still serious for its own model, it must evolve its own modern
world-view which is as full and consistent as the traditional Hindu system [Saran,
1969a:9–10; 1969c:11–12; 1971:21].
At this point, it would be useful to add a certain historical dimension to this discus-
sion. According to Saran, Hindu religion and society are inseparable (Saran, 1969a,
1969b, 1969c: 50–64). This unity was disrupted during India’s encounter with the
Mughals. Under the Muslim rule, Hindu reality was artificially bifurcated into an
inner and outer life, initiating a process of disintegration and falsification, symbol-
ized most forcefully by the Bhakti Movement (Saran, 1969a:4–6). It was this initial
falsification which produced apologetic patterns of synthesis and adoption in Indian
renaissance under the British impact (Saran, 1965:3, 10–13; 1969a:8–9). The only
serious alternative was provided by Gandhi who began the process of nation-building
66 A. K. Pandey

in India (Saran, 1969c). Gandhi was, however completely repudiated through post-
Independence India’s socialism, planning and the Welfare State (Saran, 1965:15;
1971:11,16,19). Today, India is haunted by a tradition and its modernity lacks depth
and contemporaneity (Saran, 1965:5–6). It has voluntarily adopted colonial models
of self -understanding and social change (Saran, 1966:2–3), little realizing that these
models have already become outdated. Ideas of ‘synthesis perpetuates this cultural lag
and false consciousness. What both East and West need today is not a new synthesis
but a new idea which will go beyond the modern man and his technological society
(Saran, 1966:29; 1967:142).
This necessarily brief analysis of Saran’s thesis contains a series of radical propo-
sitions including that of a sharp break from the bourgeois models of sociology and
society-building. In fact, much before the New York Times, Ramparts and the CCAS
groups had begun to protest the U.S. policy of Asian studies, Saran had discovered a
link between imperialistic requirements and social science research policies (1959;
1030–32). Similarly, much before the emergence of current anti-Westernism fads
in Indian sociology, Saran had anticipated India’s pseudo autonomy in the sphere
of economic development and modernization (1963:94), and had firmly repudi-
ated various neo-colonial modes of diagnosing dilemmas of traditional societies
(1966:5–8,20; 1962:58–61,67–68; 1967:135–38).

4.4 Reproaching Saran’s Perspective

But there was still something that Saran did lack. Although he broke through the
Weberian syndrome and functionalist myth of diffusion and development, he did
not take the next logical step towards providing a fuller sociology of tradition. In
fact, he failed not only to articulate an alternative model of India’s modernity but
also to precisely describe the nature of that tradition whose loss he so vividly felt
(Gupta, 1971:82; 1971:436). Saran’s thesis that India’s modernity suffered from
false consciousness was basically correct, but it did not satisfactorily explain either
the roots or implications of this falsification, to say nothing of the modalities of
liberation from its hangover. When Saran said that India’s encounter with Islam
led to a disruption of Hinduism by sharply dissociating religion and society, he
neither described the concrete institutional structure of pre-Islamic Hindu tradition,
nor explained the orthogenetic problems of Hinduism which had led, for example
Brahmin pandits to prepare prashastis for Kshatriya Muslim rulers. This blatantly
dishonourable act was repeated once again by our so-called renaissance prophets
who had voluntarily equated British colonialism with Divine Dispensation. Was it
an involuntary, or even accidental, product of institutional constraints, or was it an
internally evolved religiously- consistent mode of Hindu personal salvation? One
cannot really explain the predicament of India’s modernity without answering this
question. In a way, this question is only a variation of the problem—what is Indian
or modern in India’s modernity? Saran has clearly recognized this problem, but he
has failed to resolve it satisfactorily.
4 A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian Tradition and Sociology in India 67

At a higher level of generalization, this problem defies a neat academic solution.

India’s modernity is Indian but not modern because it is still rooted in the Hindu
tradition. From another perspective, however, India’s modernity is modern but not
Indian because it is consciously seeking to initiate the modernized West. It is this
existential paradox that has led to the widespread acceptance of synthesis ideology
in India. In this synthesis, rational Hindus are supposed to be living in (not neces-
sarily producing) a Westernized Indian society. In Indian sociology, this ideology
prospered by accepting the Weberian framework. Weber has provided to Indian soci-
ologists a typical Hindu framework for viewing and explaining social change in terms
of inner thought processes, rather than institutional reform. In this framework, struc-
tural transformation of Indian society is considered extra-Hindu; modernity implies
merely the acceptance of rationality by Hindu individuals.
Sarkar’s ‘Hindu sociology’ (1937), Srinivas’ Sanskritization (1956, 1966) and
Singh’s modernization of Indian tradition (1973) are variations on this theme. In
each case, there is a subtle dissociation of Hindu religion from Hindu society. In
conceptualizing evolution and change, the former is supposed to survive while the
latter is destroyed. Hindu religion becomes rational only as an instrument of creating
a non-Hindu society. A Hindu institution surviving in some way in its traditional
form, for example the caste system, is considered un-modern. Modernity means
that caste should somehow be transformed into a class. In other spheres too, Hindu
modernity is invariably delinked from the Hindu social system. New modern India is
supposed to be a product exclusively of modern Western institutions. In this change
over, Hindu tradition is considered relevant only and in so far as it does not conflict
with an individual’s acceptance of modern rational beliefs.
While this kind of interpretation neatly converges with the inner demands of
the Hindu world view (hence its widespread acceptance), it seriously distorts the
meaning of India’s contemporary developmental dilemma. By trying to defend Hindu
rationalism of Weber, it artificially introduces a non-existent problem of social change
in India. Like that of Christianity, Hinduism’s basic problem becomes here one of
reconciling religion with reason, even though Hinduism does not admit and has
never admitted any autonomy of or contradiction between sacred faith and secular
knowledge. This contradiction has been typical of Western intellectual development;
it has no analogue in Hindu history. Any attempt, therefore, to synthesize tradition
and modernity (like Weber) or to reject tradition in favour of modernity (like Marx)
is bound to be essentially futile in the Indian context (Gupta, 1971:438–39).
It is still not sufficiently realized in Indian sociology that both western sociolo-
gists (for instance, Marx and Weber) were, in fact, reacting only to certain specifically
Western problems within specifically Western frames of reference. Their sociologies,
if one must use such a term, were strictly culture-bound. The development of the
sociology of religion, especially as it has followed the Weberian framework, has
also been part of this culture-bound pattern. One cannot really extend it to study
religion-society relationship in other non-Western societies unless one can estab-
lish firm functional equivalence between various religious systems. Historically, this
equivalence is inconceivable since no religion went through the kind of role-playing
68 A. K. Pandey

which was forced upon Christianity. The only other alternative is to view other reli-
gions on Weber’s reformulated (signifying an ideological orientation not a historical
fact) Christian criteria or to evolve culturally relative sociologies of religion.
The dominant stream of Indian sociological tradition has continued to pursue the
course where Hinduism has been unwittingly subjected to an anthropologist’s conde-
scending judgment: Hindu tradition is good, but it should be kept in the museum;
Hinduism has potential for all kinds of rationality, but let India modernize by adopting
Western institutions; keep criticizing Westernization but do not spell out a genuinely
Indian alternative. Saran’s paradigm seems to signify a break from this pseudo-
nationalist model of self-understanding and social change. Yet his attempt does not
go far enough to produce a viable explanation of Hindu tradition, either sociologi-
cally or historically. He rightly rejects Hinduism’s contrived claim for Western-type
rationality, but he does not adequately establish Hinduism’s own links with India’s
society and history.
To create a relevant sociology of Indian tradition one must establish these links
at various levels, in different spheres, and during successive time periods. At the
highest level of abstraction, one must define the nature and role of Hinduism as a
symbol system both in its original and evolved forms. The relevant questions at this
level would be– How does Hinduism articulate its norms at the individual level?
How do these norms determine the typical Hindu mode of perceiving and analyzing
social reality? What kinds of deviations occur in this mode and what are their social
consequences? When do protests arise within and against the main trend of Hinduism
and what are the functions of these protests?
At a lower level of analysis, one has to examine institutionalized forms of
Hinduism under various social-political environments. Some of the crucial questions
at this level would be: What are the historically established social correlates of Hindu
doctrines? How do these doctrines react to and adapt with changing external reality?
More correctly, what are the specific Hindu traits which become predominant during
periods of affluence, decay, misrule, or colonialism? Under what circumstances, does
Hindu religiosity feel threatened? What kind of saints and prophets has arisen within
Hinduism during different historical periods? What has been their influence?
Viewed in the context of these questions, the search of Hindu rationalism would
appear quite senseless. Similarly, the particularistic pattern of Hindu breakthrough
in the pre-modern period would itself suggest how India’s modernity is still Hindu
in substance, although India’s external allegiance to Westernized forms has been
creating several needless obstacles to further evolution. Once this pattern is estab-
lished, Hindu tradition would have to be juxtaposed with other traditional systems
to demonstrate how change is neither substantively linear (e.g., from fusion to sepa-
ration of Church and State) or strictly geographical (for example, three worlds of
development). In such a comparative context, one would have to find out-What
happens to traditions as systems of thought and behaviour during different phases
of socio-cultural evolution? How are modernizing experiences-produced by inner
development, not necessarily by diffusion from a master source–traditionalized?
Why societies choose only certain models of imitation and rejection, growth and
4 A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian Tradition and Sociology in India 69

decay, continuity, and change? Indian sociology cannot be expected to immediately

provide all answers, but it must at least begin to ask these questions.

Endnotes

1. In this one of the earliest writings, A.K. Coomaraswamy expressed his deep
anxiety about the degraded deserted condition of Indian art and craftsmanship,
which indicates nothing less than the deep-rooted malady of its whole civilization.
After denouncing the prevalent superficial, ideal-less conceptions of Swadeshi
which only seek after caricatures of European models investing in so-called
Swadeshi companies, he says, ‘True Swadeshi is none of these: it is a way of
looking at life’. Then comes the unusually simple but profoundest all-inclusive
sentence: “It is essentially sincerity” (“Swadeshi, True and False)”. Swadeshi is
a form of sincerity-this cryptic short line triggered the revolutionary awakening
in Saran’s mind.
2. This is precisely the maieutic method Saran plans to adopt also in his proposed
school of Illumination for the regeneration of man’s experience, imagination and
intellectual integrity: “In a relatively small setting of a congenial atmosphere and
with the help of some senior members, each participant is expected to be initially
disturbed by the enigma of one text or another, and through the effort to work out
the chain-implications of the text-which inevitably entails a deep examination of
the very basis of one’s accepted thought-system-to experience an illumination, an
awakening to the truth, which, then, is followed by an experience of inner peace”.
(See the whole text of his proposal, Illuminations: A School for Regeneration of
Man’s Experience, Imagination and Intellectual Integrity).
3. As the requirement for the strictly valid and decisive practice of critiquing, Saran
raises the two axioms: one, that only systems, that is, not particular separate ideas,
customs, or institutions, can be the object of a critique; two, that a critique must
be internal, that is, the one which proceeds dialectically from within the very
system that is being critiqued and which comes to a final judgment in terms of
the criteria derived from within that critiqued system and not from outside it. This
second axiom (internal critique) may be truly said to be the backbone of Saran’s
methodology (the one that has long been recognized among Indian sociologists
as his specialty under the name of ‘logico-philosophical’ or ‘logico-dialectical
analysis).
4. See for example, his well-known monograph on his teacher D. P. Mukerji, The
Faith of Modern Intellectual (Booklet: Ram Advani, 1959), in which, not only
does the fundamental disparity between the views of D.P. and Saran stand in
bold relief, Saran is fully in his element in carrying out the critique of D.P.’s
thought in a wholly internal manner: exploring the implications of D.P’s own
assertions loyally and logically even to the extent D.P.himself would have been
reluctant to pursue, Saran finally comes to see that there is neither logical nor
socio-historical basis for D.P.’s hope in the dialectical synthesis of tradition and
modernity, which, when all is said and done, remains ever-unintelligible faith.
70 A. K. Pandey

5. It seems, for example, that T.B. Bottomore, who at first valued Saran’s critique of
positivist sociology as something comparable with Dilthey’s line (see T.B. Botto-
more 1962: Sociology in India, The British Journal of Sociology, 13(2):101–
102)—and by whose attention Saran was at the outset brought out to the interna-
tional context of sociological circles—couldn’t but relinquish his former patron-
izing of Saran to perceive later that his stance goes far beyond those nineteenth
century German critics towards somewhere unknown and even dangerous to the
sociological tradition of the Western world.
6. Saran arguments are designed to show that in forsaking the path to Metanoia
(repentance i.e., coming to be in one’s right mind) man is led ineluctably to
paranoia (mental derangement, especially when marked by delusions of grandeur
etc.). It is not further the conquest of nature and greater control of human behavior
that can cure us. What is needed is a complete turning around, a remembrance
by man of who he is. Thus, alone he can regain Metanoia (Saran, 1978:51).
7. Among many relevant articles by Saran, see especially: (a) 1993, ‘Hinduism in
Contemporary India, Asian Cultural Studies’, special issue No.4, September,
Tokyo: International Christian University which also contains a special annex
on The “Nilakantha Syndrome”. Hinduism in Contemporary India begins with
the words which epitomize the whole questions raised here: “Today there is no
living Hindu society in India …This is not to say that the Hindu tradition is dead.
(“the Hindu tradition in its spiritual-intellectual mode is perennially alive, while
in the religio-social mode, it is in utter decay today” in India).

References

Dasgupta, S. (1972). Hindu ethos and challenge of change. The Minerva Associates.
Gupta, K. P. (1971). A theoretical approach to Hinduism and modernization of India. Indian Journal
of Sociology, 2, 59–91.
Kierkegaard, Soren (1967). Philosophical Fragments, tr. by David Swenson. Princeton University
Press. pp.12–18.
Modie, A. D. (1968). The Brahminical culture and modernity. Asia Publishing House.
Murakami, Y. (2002). Calls for Metanoia. In R. C. Tewari (ed.), Towards Metanoia. Coomaraswamy
Centre.
Saran, A. K. (1959). India. In J. S. Roucek (ed.), Contemporary Sociology. Peter Owen.
Saran, A. K. (1962). A review of contributions in indian sociology. Eastern Anthropologist, 15,
33–68.
Saran, A. K. (1963). Hinduism and economic development in India. Archives De Sociologie Des
Religions, 15, 87–94.
Saran, A. K. (1965). British rule and the hidden value system today. Colloquium Paper, Brandies
University (Spanish version published in Foro Internacionol), Mimeographed.
Saran, A. K. (1966). ‘Cultural Presuppositions of American Higher Education’, Inaugural Lecture
from Kent Chair in Religion and Sociology. Smith College. Mimeographed.
Saran, A. K. (1967). Is inter-religious understanding possible in the university? Student World, 9,
133–142.
Saran, A. K. (1969a). Religion and society: The Hindu view. In International Year Book for the
Sociology of Religion, pp.41–65.
4 A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian Tradition and Sociology in India 71

Saran, A. K. (1969b). Hinduism in contemporary India. Convergence (Switzerland), 3:3–10[ PRJ].

Saran, A. K. (1969c). Gandhi and our times. Gandhi Centennial Lecture, University of Wisconsin.
Mimeographed.
Saran, A. K. (1971). Secular-sacred confrontation: A historical analysis. Religion and Society, 8,
1–27.
Saran, A. K. (1978). The traditional vision of man. Paper presented at the UNESCO Seminar,
Hyderabad. [Mimeographed].
Sarkar, B. K. (1937). Positive background of Hindu sociology. Vol. 1. Panini Office.
Srinivas, M. N. (1956). A note on Sanskritization and Westernization. Eastern Quartely, 15, 481–
496.
Srinivas, M. N. (1966). Social change in modern India. University of California Press.
Singh, Y. (1973). Modernization of Indian tradition: Systemic study of social change. Thomson
Press.
Chapter 5
Sociology and Public Life: Professor
Yogendra Singh and His Contribution
to Liberal Democracy

Dipankar Gupta

Abstract Professor Yogendra Singh was very conscious of sociology’s respon-

sibility in forwarding the ideals of liberalism which can only be done by exam-
ining theory and reality in a historical context. There are many challenges society’s
encounter in their aspirations towards attaining a higher level of democratic order.
This article argues, inspired as it is by Professor Singh, that learning from compar-
ative sociology and harnessing theory and history can enlarge a non-partisan liberal
consciousness. In this process, human frailties are recognized but with the aim to
overcome them to democracy’s lasting advantage.

Keywords Theory · Historical context · Citizenship · Elite · Universal health and

education · Liberal thought · Democracy

5.1 Yogendra Singh’s Liberal Thinking

Professor Yogendra Singh was an unusual scholar. His grasp of empirical reality
was fine grained, his understanding of theory was fully metabolized, and he topped
all of this with a sense of history. He accepted that modernization has a universal
theoretical grid but that needed contextualization with contemporary, ground level
facts. He subjected his scholarship to this kind of intense intellectual pressure and
never wavered. For him, it was not good enough to be able to tell a story from afar,
because sociology lies in the detail and no detail stands without theory’s guard rails.
In Social Change in India: Crisis and Resilience (1993), Professor Singh brought
this fact out in stark colors. Again, in The Image of Man (1983), he drew our attention
to how the ideas of liberalism, that we use so freely, must be contextualized to
be of any use. Even more pointedly, in his Presidential Address to the All-India
Sociological Society in 1994 he exhorted scholars to engage with reality and make
a difference to society and to everyday people (Singh, 1995).

D. Gupta (B)
JNU, New Delhi, India
e-mail: dipankargupta@hotmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 73
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_5
74 D. Gupta

In this connection, one cannot help but see the parallels between Karl Mannheim
and Professor Yogendra Singh. Professor Yogendra Singh would agree completely
with Karl Mannheim’s position when the latter said that an ivory tower scholar is
not worthy of being considered a scholar at all. Mannheim did not grant them the
status of disinterested specialists which might give them respectability. Mannheim
felt that these so-called scholars were just disinterested to such an extent that they
were unmindful of reality.
Mannheim did not conceal his contempt of such intellectuals, yet he also cautioned
that engagement with reality does not necessarily mean one should become a politi-
cian. Mannheim believed that such a move, though superficially attractive, imposes
a rigid form of thinking that hardly brings credit to a true scholar. When I read these
lines from Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia (1936) it was as if Professor Yogendra
Singh was talking to me.
There are indeed many areas in contemporary India where policy planners must
interact with sociologists, and vice versa. It is true that for long, many leading soci-
ologists looked down on policy studies considering it to be an inferior occupation.
However, it is in trying to meet challenges of everyday existence, in a setting such as
India, that theory gets refined, updated and indeed becomes more universally robust.
In the following pages I will try and explicate this position and I am indebted to
Professor Singh for alerting me to such intellectual complexities.

5.2 Facets of Liberal Thought

Let us take the urgent issue of health services in India. Given the poverty and want
in India it is tempting to argue that universal health must wait till we are prosperous
and wealthy enough to afford it. As a first step, some would suggest, let us begin on a
modest and more realistic fashion. Yes, we do have a problem with delivering health,
so why not begin at the beginning and produce more doctors. That immediately runs
up against the resource constraint. So, the next best step is to upgrade the current
doctors, many of whom are all manners of quacks. But unless the system is changed,
none of these measures will work. We are only postponing the taking of tough
decisions, so even by bookkeeping standards, we are wasting money in the long run.
Money, as we have argued, was never a problem wherever universal health was
put in place. This is where Professor Singh’s exhortation to see liberalism in practice
in different settings in order to understand its dimensions better. I am here thinking
more particularly of Professor Singh’s Image of Man (1984).
Once we dismiss these short terms bookkeeper like ledger calculations, we need to
address universal health by first changing the way the current public hospitals work.
Before we get more doctors on board, let us make medicine a honorable profession
again. The All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi was a
great place not too long ago. Then it became a tool for political manipulation which
forced many of the doctors out into private hospitals. But ask the question: if the
conditions of work were good in the AIIMS, would these doctors have left? Ask
5 Sociology and Public Life: Professor Yogendra Singh and His … 75

another question: even though the conditions are deplorable in the AIIMS, why do
many of the best doctors still stay on there?
The fact is that most of the really superior doctors are not always looking for
money, but for better conditions of work, even opportunities for research. Once that
happens, not only will their performance levels go up but even rich patients will seek
them out in public hospitals: as was the case with AIIMS till recently. This would
put pressure on the system to deliver better and more efficiently. For all of this to
start ticking, universal health demands a public investment of about 5% of our GDP-
way above the current 1% which has lingered on for years. Even at 5% we would
still be low by European standards.
Money does not solve all problems. It all depends on how it is spent. The added
resources should now be made available to patients, regardless of their backgrounds,
so that they can buy the medicines they require and get the pathology tests as the
doctors have ordered. Today, so many poor people, go to private laboratories for tests
and to pharmacy stores for medicines. These expenses eat up what little they have
with no money left for anything else. Not surprising then that over 24% of those
who are sick do not seek medical help at all. They just do not have the money for it.
This, therefore, clearly demonstrates that public hospitals need a full complement of
services and cannot just offer medical advice without the necessary backups.
Once again, let us start with what we have and develop them. If one has to build a
modern society then we must begin putting modernization in its place (Singh, 1973).
In doing just this, what do we learn? If one is looking for easy returns on investments,
as most shareholders in companies do, remember this is a far cry from being a citizen.
Investments in health take about 15 years to be fully realized, but once they are in
place, productivity increases tremendously and wasteful expenditure fall. Human
resource is one resource that appreciates with nurture and does not depreciate as
capital goods and luxury commodities do. We need to keep in mind the other truth
which is that countries which embarked on universal health care, after World War II,
did not undertake this measure because they were rich, they did it when they were
poor. They became rich because universal health made their citizens better off.
Alongside, with making drugs and tests available to people, research facilities
in existing hospitals must be ramped up. What is often overlooked is that when the
conditions of work are sub-standard only the sub-standard will seek jobs there. As
the old corporate adage goes: “If you pay peanuts, you can only hire monkeys.” If
in spite of these constraints, that there are still so many committed doctors in these
public health institutions then that should tell us that not everybody in this profession
is looking for money. For some, medicine continues to be a truly pastoral and caring
occupation. This, however, does not mean we must take advantage of them. By
improving their conditions of work these hospitals and medical teaching institutions
would attract better talent who would happily stay on. A comparative awareness of
how universal health policies came up in West Europe would be illustrative in this
matter.
The usual, run of the mill policy approach experts would not like to rock the boat
this seriously which is why their plans on universal health are long drawn and go
into the distant future. Before we dare think along these lines, they argue, we must
76 D. Gupta

start more medical colleges. This is not a bad idea by itself, but if the conditions of
work and of medical care are left unattended then all this money and effort will not
yield the benefits we are looking for. If the conditions for work remain unchanged; if
the poorest patient does not get access to the best doctor; if laboratory and pathology
equipments are missing or unused; if research programmes are not on the agenda,
then those who will sign up as students in these medical colleges will be well below
par, will join medicine for the wrong reasons. Their teachers too will probably have
suspect ethical credentials. Producing more doctors is not going to help unless the
framework of universal health is already in place, and we can begin with what we
have and change the conditions of the institutions that are around. Failing that, these
new doctors will be either of poor quality or will take the road to private practice
as so many others have done before them. At the end of the day, we have lost all
this money. A realistic Utopia is one that begins from what exists and then strains at
every level to change it. This is how sociology and utopia can mutually strengthen
each other.
All utopian programmes begin with what is immediate but refuses to tinker with
it. Instead, the limitations of the existing conditions are taken on board in broad
day light without prevarication or excuses. Even in the case of universal health, this
method applies. The factors that come in the way of realizing this realizable utopia are
several. Politicians do not want to lose control over the running of health institutions
for they benefit from patron-client networks which are so effective when it comes to
health (education is a close second).
Only the citizen elite can change this for it will not come about in the ordinary
course of events. If working conditions in medical institutions are poor then not only
will doctors seek other pastures in the private sector, but will not enroll for a medical
training either. To change all of this requires a determined push from the citizen
elite, as was the case elsewhere, for our ordinary politicians are not interested in
such matters. When they fall sick they go abroad, and very often to countries that
have universal health in place. Who can highlight this systemic deficiency? Who
else, but a sociologist?
Those who complain against this discipline are obviously looking for quick fixes
that address symptoms but leave the system intact. Consequently, policies that are
formulated are usually conceived for short run benefits. When a country, such as
India, is beset with multitudinous problems, such symptom driven exercises gain a
definite credibility. As India’s needs are urgent, here and now, it gives the impression
that the time spent on theory could be put to better use elsewhere. Policy studies come
naturally to minds that are drawn to symptoms. They have a distaste for understanding
the system and they hide it by denigrating theory.
5 Sociology and Public Life: Professor Yogendra Singh and His … 77

5.3 Liberalism and Democracy

To be able to think at the level of the society and not be limited to narrow anthropo-
logical field data requires the imagination of a person not unlike that of the political
“elite of calling”. Health, as an analogy, can serve us again. Treating headaches with
aspirin will work if the causes for this malady are simple: too much sun, too little
rest, or just the wrong pair of glasses. If the pain persists, then more aspirin will not
help, though regular ingestions of it might give the impression of not being idle but
doing something. As the real cause goes undetected, the pains return and get worse.
This is when a system study is necessary; postponing that any further could be a
death sentence.
Policy studies are similar in nature. As with medicine, talking system is too much
reading and too much training; in short, too much sociology for those in a hurry
to be recognized. In addition, when it comes to society, it is also too much politics.
Deep systemic examinations frighten states, international agencies and donors. These
friends of symptom interventions would balk at the idea of a long haul where big
decisions need to be taken.
If, on the other hand, target oriented policies are devised that help women in certain
districts from anaemia, or put children to school, regardless of the quality of school,
the gratification is immediate and the rewards wholesome. The best part about it is that
real people, who desperately need help, seemingly benefit from such interventions in
the concrete. Under these circumstances, to deny to the needy the benefits that such
limited frame policy interventions provide would appear unpardonable. The problem
is that with non-systemic, superficial theoretical initiatives, the patients, or students,
or any other category, will remain dependents forever and can never really break the
stranglehold. This makes them susceptible to patron-client networks, which are not
good for democracy.
As we have already underlined, a lot of the past, in terms of ill health and poor
human resource development, still remains with us. Yes, there are fewer illiterate
people today, but is our education of the kind that will make India a knowledge
society? Can they read and write at the level they are supposed to when they enter
secondary school, let alone performing at higher research levels? Yes, our life span
has gone up, but still around one-fourth of patients do not seek medical care because
they do not have the money for it.
What a paradox! On the one hand India has a growing market in medical tourism
and on the other a quarter of the sick population in India are too poor to go to a doctor
for care. What is the point of advances in medicine if they do not reach the citizens?
Likewise, what is the point of being listed as a household with electricity if 44% of
such homes do not get the benefit of this facility for 24 hours a day (see Desai et al.
2010:65)?
It is because we are faced with questions as vital as these, and also because it is
possible for us to choose which route to take, we can profitably turn to Sociology.
The moment a society opens up the possibility of exercising choice over options and
avenues for intervention, sociologists from all over the world become relevant.
78 D. Gupta

It is for this reason that we read scholars from Talcott Parsons to Yogendra Singh,
with Anthony Giddens, Juergen Habermas, Erving Goffman, Levi-Strauss, Andre
Beteille, M. N. Srinivas and Ramkrishna Mukherjee, in between. As all of them
are products of a liberal democratic tradition, their scholarship helps us understand
why we have dilemmas of orientation, why we think in terms of public spaces, why
is social mobility so important, why is stratification context bound, or why should
tradition be challenged by modernity?
Democracy allows us to extend these concerns in practice, provided we can think
big and bring theory to aid empirical research. As has been often said, but equally
often ignored, the best theories are empirically rich and the best empirical descriptions
are dripping with theory. In a non-democratic setting, none of these issues would
have the same kind of weight, primarily because interventions to hasten and alter
the direction of progress are not entertained. Without citizenship and the concerns of
Liberal Democracy, all the concepts that sociologists work with would be anaemic
and lifeless.
This is why the quality of sociological research anywhere is directly linked to the
extent of liberal democracy in the country. This is something that is easily ascertain-
able. As we move from a strong democratic society to one with a weak or non-existent
democracy, sociological contributions invariably record a decline.
Sociology is not a creation of the west: that kind of statement is empty. Sociology is
a creation of liberal democracy and if we want our country to belong to that category,
we had better get serious about our sociology. China is much wealthier than us on
all fronts, but the quality of sociological research there is much poorer than ours;
Singapore is a law-abiding society with world class manufacture, but the sociology
that emerges from there is still not world class; the Middle East is wealthier than
most countries in the world, but has one heard of sociology emerging from those
parts? Likewise, Soviet Union or Cuba may have performed a historical role once,
but with very little sociology that has lasted the test of time.

5.4 Democracy and Sociology

This is why when we quote Parsons, Levi Strauss, Habermas or Giddens, it is not
because we are aping the west, it is because we too have set our sights on developing a
liberal democracy. We have learnt this lesson from Professor Yogendra Singh. If there
is a liberal democracy, then the themes that sociology engages will be universal and
yet have relevance in a highly particular setting. If such a liberal, political dispensation
is absent, then sociology degenerates into a plain reporting exercise. Its analytical
bent cannot be tolerated by the political system and structure that surround it. This
explains why anybody practicing sociology in a non-democratic setting invariably
ends up as a lonely voice, when not treated as a subversive.
Further, sociology requires not just democracy, but liberal democracy, where the
rule of law and the rule of numbers are in a tense balance, to use Beteille’s felicitous
phrase (Beteille, 2012). If it is just about the rule of numbers, then liberalism is
5 Sociology and Public Life: Professor Yogendra Singh and His … 79

bypassed. At such times, popular constructions of reality, unchecked memories of

the past, and a loose alliance between tradition and opportunism will be the order of
the day.
Liberalism offers choice to the citizens and at the same time enjoins the state
to enable even those at the bottom to avail of opportunities that would enhance
their life chances. Therefore, the individual is well protected, even if that person
belongs to a minority group or opinion. If liberal democracies privilege universal
law, it is because citizens form a community of interests which supports individuals
in exercising choices with respect to options that are available to all. Without this
facility, how can sociology even begin?
Sociology is a study of choices, of options available, of futures yet unexplored. It
helps in advancing citizenship for the destinies and fortunes of people are differen-
tiated. This is why sociology works best when it is not trained towards formulating,
legitimizing or pushing target group-oriented policies. In other words, when you have
“health for the poor” policies, or “education for the poor” regulations, one nearly
always ends up with poor health and poor education. Such interventions should
address citizens as a whole and not fractionate them.
If it is just a rule of law, it could well be the case that a supreme leader turns up
whose dispensation could be majority based, hence, formally legal. It can be passed in
the parliament and become an Act. This would not consider citizenship issues which
really demand sociological analysis and not just subservience to majority will. If
contestations take place that allow for the tension between the rule of numbers and
the rule of law, citizenship will thrive. When that is throttled, sociology will have
little room to expand. Almost all decisions would be pre-determined, and dogmati-
cally positivistic, without the voluntary interventions and interplay of differentiated
interests. Without room for discussion, debates, acceptance of the other, sociology
will shrivel, and so will democracy.
But because we have chosen to live in a liberal democratic society, we must take
our sociology seriously. Sociology is not a handmaiden of conservatism, or wealth,
or pure individualism. Sociology is where liberal democracy lies and it is therefore
in sociology’s interests to promote the ethos of liberal democracy wherever it exists.
Not to belabour the point, but liberal democracy is built around one supreme tenet,
and that is of citizenship. How can sociology then contribute to citizenship? What
kinds of policy interventions can sociology help craft that will enable the society to
meet this goal?

5.5 Concluding Remarks

Think of some of the most important landmarks in sociology.

Can we discuss Mannheim’s Ideology and Utopia and not realize that democracy
can only dawn once truth is no longer the captive of the church or of the state? When
Parsons tells us about “pattern variables” he is making salient the fact that we have
to make vital choices and this aspect can best be satisfied in a democracy. Can we,
80 D. Gupta

indeed, freely discuss the many issues Professor Yogendra Singh raised in Image of
Man without democracy by our side? If democracy was put in this world to change
the given, then we have to make those choices.
Why should we read Habermas and the public sphere if we are to be limited to only
community interests? Why must we take note, as with Berger and Luckmann, how
popular constructions of reality are often against the spirit of fraternity? When we read
Levi-Strauss, we realize that democracies must work hard to combat our innermost
urge to separate people from one another as if they were by nature separate? Indeed,
Modernization of Indian Tradition (1973) brings to our attention how tradition is
overwhelmed only when agency, history and structure are allowed to interact freely?
Sanskritization struck such a chord not simply because it dilated upon specifics
of caste in India, but also because it let us see how upward mobility can occur in a
democratic society with an open class system. Why was it important to bring Marx,
Weber, Parsons, Habermas, and others to India—a trend that Professor Yogendra
Singh encouraged? This is because theory gets stronger when universal concepts
have to tackle with the realities of a laboratory called India. Why should we examine
the modernization of tradition if not to understand where democratic urges spring
from in developing societies? Why is the interplay between caste and class so relevant
if not to understand how to make liberal democracy work even in the most hostile of
circumstances? Why should we pay attention to the family cycle if not to understand
the role of urbanization in creating different kinds of kinship formations and social
ties brought about by migration and industrialization? Finally, why do honor killings
horrify us, why? Because they fail the test of liberal democracy.
Therefore, the first most important realization that sociology offers us is to watch
out for popular constructions of reality for they tend to separate people on a perennial
basis. This warning was sounded by Professor Singh time and again and that shows
the need for democracy to use a hammer to change reality and not merely reflect
it. To succeed in one’s mission to create a strong liberal democracy in the spirit of
fraternity, it is important to know the enemy, what we are up against. Honor killings,
just mentioned, puts the matter rather conveniently on our plate. Tradition can only
be allowed to linger in the present only if it passes the test of fraternity. Any other
version of it has to be seriously combated and only sociology can help us find the
way.
Democracy is not easy, but neither is sociology, and for the same reasons. If democ-
racy privileges fraternity, sociology tells us of the many obstacles in its way. Democ-
racy projects a future where citizens live in an objective world of inter-subjectivity,
sociology again tells us of the barriers this project will face on the ground. Thus,
while democracy sets up goals, sociology can help in realizing them. But for this to
happen, both must be convinced that a hammer is better than a mirror for the purpose.
Sociology can do its job best by anticipating the enemies on the way. Those who
cautiously play the democratic game of numbers and the politics of the given will
always succumb to the security of the limits imposed by money or prejudice. Soci-
ology can overcome this obstacle by positing instead the primacy of aspirations—for
it is at that level that fraternity is best expressed. Individuals from different back-
grounds and from different structural positions in society may have different needs,
5 Sociology and Public Life: Professor Yogendra Singh and His … 81

but they will tend to have the same aspirations. We all aspire to control our lives
better with quality health and education; we all aspire to lead a healthy existence
where energy and public facilities are available without damaging the environment.
It is when we limit ourselves to the discussion of immediate needs and quick fix
remedies that larger goals get lost, and in that process, fraternity flies out of the
window.
Change is going to happen, no matter how stoutly certain vested interests may
oppose it. Therefore, it is all the more important that we are able to plan this change
in a certain direction instead of it moving from one quagmire into another. The
democracy of numbers has to be accompanied by the spirit of fraternity for people
to become true citizens. I remember hearing an interview with Professor Yogendra
Singh where he proudly stated the contributions that Jawaharlal Nehru University
(JNU) had made to the country. Needless to mention, Professor Singh was one of
the early founders of the Social Science faculty of JNU. He had every reason to be
proud of this institution.
Sociology can help, call out to it. Professor Singh, in his lifetime, amplified this
striving. Let us remember him today as one of our foremost standard-bearers of
liberalism and social science.

References

Beteille, A. (2012). Democracy and its institutions. Oxford University Press.

Desai, S. et al. (2010). Human development in India: Challenges for a society in transition. Oxford
University Press.
Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge.
Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Singh, Y. (1973). Modernization of Indian tradition: A systematic study of social change. Thomson
Press.
Singh, Y. (1983). Image of Man: Ideology and theory in Indian sociology. Chanakya Publications.
Singh, Y. (1993). Social change in India: Crisis and resilience. Har-Anand Publication.
Singh, Y. (1995). The significance of culture in the understanding of social change in contemporary
India (Presidential Address in XXI All India Sociological Conference), Sociological Bulletin,
44(1), pp. 1–10.
Chapter 6
Re-visiting Islamization
as a Contribution to Indian Sociology
and Yogendra Singh

K. M. Ziyauddin

Abstract In the first ever publication that Indian sociology could see as a new
paradigm to study Indian society from pluralist and indologist perspectives that came
in the form of writings on three major populations of India by Yogendra Singh. This
proposition in Indian sociology is discussed while identifying the important traditions
of Indian society in the name of Hindu, Muslim and tribal traditions despite the
fact that India is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural group for hundreds of years. This
chapter is primarily focussing the first ever inclusionary effort brought in by Yogendra
Singh in the form of a introducing the concept of Islamization to Indian sociological
writings. How far the conceptualization of Islamization is relevant to Indian sociology
and how far world sociology has examined this context in various countries. The paper
also seeks to explore how the different processes of Islamization have influenced the
life of Muslims in the background of Islamization in India. Whether Islamization is
a process that has brought changes in the life of Indian Muslim or there is a macro
structural factor that brings changes either desirable or less wanting and also seek to
understand by the process of modernization.

Keywords Islamization · Modernization · Muslim · Indian sociology ·

Stereotype · Prejudice · Minority

6.1 Introduction

The most crucial cause that early sociologists worked for was the project to include
the complex nature of Indian society in the curriculum and course of sociology in
India. For the first thirty years after independence and up to the early 1940s, Indian
sociologists had a tremendous task creating the sociology of India.

K. M. Ziyauddin (B)
Department of Sociology, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad 500032, India
e-mail: ziyakmjamia@gmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 83
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_6
84 K. M. Ziyauddin

Yogendra Singh is one of the first sociologists of the first generation, and their
works continue to help understand India’s social structure. Thomson Press first
published his 1973 book Modernisation of Indian Traditions in the now-popular
city of Faridabad, and it was reprinted in 1983 by Rawat Publication in the city of
Jaipur.
The significant addition of modernisation in Indian sociology is a marker of serious
engagement of sociological efforts in India, though I still understand that Indian
society is partially modernised. In other words, it would be extra reading about Indian
social structure and falling larger than reality upon modernity of Indian culture. In
all the seven chapters of the above-said book, one cannot find better than Yogendra
Singh to analyse the sociological presence of modernity and how such vividness
of cultural thickness gets penetrated in India’s macro culture. The entry of a very
different religion into Indian sub-coastal states through trade does not expand and
leave a more significant impact on people’s life-world, unlike the way the big empire
of the Mughal dynasty makes.
A sociologist’s quick and sharp entry to mark and demark a latent and manifest
influence is gauged to be a methodological question. Ghaus Ansari (1960), Zarina
Bhatty (1978), Imtiaz Ahamad (1978), Sekh Rahim Mondal (1983), Asgar Ali Engi-
neer (1985), and Nasreen Fazalbhoy (1997) gave the first sociological insights on
Indian Muslim life-world and how their lived life could be studied. They could
demonstrate the structural and functional aspects of the Muslim community in India
and how different it existed from than Islamic notion of life and society. In this larger
spectrum, the textbook on modernisation of Indian tradition remains an extraor-
dinary reading to enter into the debates on how modernisation influenced Indian
society, so to Indian Muslims and also examine Islamic influence over the last one
thousand years on Indian’s life and worldview. This paper is intended to understand
and analyse the relevance of Islamization, which became a widely read concept and
process of the change introduced by Yogendra Singh not only to Indian sociologists
but to world sociology. It is a best critical piece to visit on reading the impact of
the process of modernisation and Islamization in Indian society. However, the forms
and processes by which Islamic tradition has gone through demand a revisit to the
concept of Islamization in contemporary social processes. There has also been a
change in understanding of Islamization due to the multiple impacts and influences
Muslims have globally accepted into their community life despite the challenges of
reading Islam in its real sense. It is also important to revisit Islamization as a process
of change and how far other factors have influenced Islamic tradition and the Muslim
practising their faith in India.
Further, sociologically, at a macro level, human society changes. There are two
levels of changes in human society: System and Personal. Islam also aims to change
both groups, each complementing the other. The system change happens at the polit-
ical level, the legal level, the economic level, the financial level, the diplomatic level,
the education level and the research level. Islam has guidance, rules and laws for
making changes in these. Understanding processes that influence at the individual and
collective levels is important. Indeed, when the collective individuals change, it will
6 Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology … 85

change society. A view proposed by scholars, the Islamic society offers an alternative
and unique existence, not simply conforming to western secular liberalism.
Discuss and discourse how Islam plays a role in contemporary Muslim societies
and societies where Muslims live in close neighbourhoods to their other religious
community in India. Islam has merely been a centre of contention until her association
is stereotyped with the actions and activities of a few believers who have been greatly
deviant and misunderstood the religion. Islam in the Indian sub-continent arrived
with a profound source of compassion, inclusiveness and cooption without any social
barriers, unlike how caste remained a deep-rooted institution in India. In this scenario,
Sufi saints in their lifetime were living examples, and now their shrines are the
testimony to their preaching and approach toward everyone. In the Indian social
science domain, the focus mostly remained around land, caste, family and kinship
and rural poverty in the post-independence era until very recently, when attempts
started doing field and empirical studies upon communities in India.
The focus of the intellect minds should have been on how Islam sees and provide
a referral to social, economic, political and several cultural ethos! Islamic worldview
(as Hussain Nasr refers) in India did not find itself at the centre stage, unlike in many
Muslim countries. Islam and the consequences of Islamization became an inherent
phenomenon to examine the changes in the major traditions of India by way of
Muslims coming closer to the Islamic viewpoint sometimes. Neither Muslim society
was given importance in major sociological and anthropological studies in contrast to
a few historians’ studies focussing on the questions of Muslims in the post-partition
period and politics that survived in the name of communal agenda.
In the nineties, globalisation became a source of trouble by opening the market to
global society. It was anticipated that market exchange would also bring new ways
of life, new cultural practices and exposure to different worldviews. It was true in
certain sociological senses. Muslims in India, too, started getting modern education
alongside their traditional knowledge through Madarsas. The collaborative living in
a plural society also added a plural soul to the Indian social structure and tradition
among both Hindus and Muslims. The Tablighi Jama’at movement began in the
Mewat of Haryana to help omit the non-Islamic values and traditions practised among
Meo Muslims. Some would refer to this as a revivalist movement; some would place
it as a purification movement, and so forth. But the reality is that by reading any such
movements, a sociological lens helps to see the impact of the Islamic worldview
becoming close to Muslims and other religious communities to go through gradual
changes- referring it Islamization in a way.
Islamization as a concept takes a long journey and passes through changes it
brought to the knowledge of social sciences. Currently, it is not only debated in
Indian sociology. Instead, the influence of the Islamic way of life has generated
heated arguments in western societies.
86 K. M. Ziyauddin

6.2 Genesis of Islamization

At the beginning of this century and by the third, the Greek scientific knowledge
was getting transferred to the believer of Islam, i.e. Muslims challenging the firm
to believe in ‘aqidat’. Greek deduction philosophy was dominant over experimental
orientation based on induction methodology. The Quranic prescriptions to follow the
observational method of nature to conclude sounded significant in Muslim societies
and quite interesting by the fourteenth century onwards, a conscious attempt of de-
Europeanizing started. It paved the way for building educational systems where the
core to remain is tauhid (Kasule, 2004), i.e. oneness of God.
Some scholars emphasize the goal and ideas enshrined in Islamization by bringing
reform in the epistemology, methodology, and body of available knowledge in
each disciplinary area. The methodological orientation guides an objective, practical
approach and adds value to human knowledge. In this view, tauhid remains a central
point that seeks the transformation of the paradigms and generating knowledge to
conform central value of tauhid, the oneness of God.
Bringing significant points through Islamization, Kasule puts this phenomenon
in certain categories. They are “(a) de-Europeanizing paradigms of existing disci-
plines to change them from parochiality to universal objectivity, (b) reconstruction
of the paradigms using universal Islamic guidelines, (c) re-classifying disciplines
to reflect universal tauhid values, (d) reforming research methodology to become
objective, purposeful, and comprehensive (e) growth of knowledge by research, and
(f) inculcating morally correct application of knowledge” (Kasule, 2004: 2).
In the discourse among Muslim scholars, Islamization is considered a disciplinary
area of research that explains ‘Islamic identity as a way of life or worldview in
which there is an integrated view of the concept of knowledge (epistemology) and
the concept of God (theology)” ((Islam and Fawaz, 2017: 1). They form the basis
of understanding the society and its form and the character. The larger acceptance
that the source and basis of knowledge are taken from the Islamic view of life in
Islam, and it is quite close to the structure related to metaphysics in Islam focuses
and “formulated in-line with revelation, tradition, reason, experience and intuition”
(ibid: 24).
This paper does not wish to go into detail about theoretical discourse and sources
of Islamization due to the widest nature of knowledge derived from Islamization.
However, it is true that certain processes, namely westernization, globalization and
modernization based on new industrial and scientific inventions in Europe and the
West, greatly influenced all Muslim societies and the other less developed societies. I
also wish to locate the sociological debate and how Islamization played an important
role in understanding the changes in the basic structure of Indian society. Yogendra
Singh remains perhaps the only person who could understand the influence of this
phenomenon on Indian social structure, having realized the largest community in
India after Hindus.
6 Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology … 87

6.3 Deriving References to Understand Islamization

Islamization is, in a way, interpreted as a process that can instil a collective sense of
community hood that values the sources of life in Islamic prescriptions. This attempts
to represent a better way of living and social interaction, whereas creating social
conscience remains the core. Specific questions aim to be studied and presented to the
society- what would be the best way to realise Islamic values and rules in the social
setting to have apt functionalities of the social structure? Therefore, Islamization
brings diversity in explanation and discourse, unlike how this is sociologically studied
in the writings of Yogendra Singh in India.
The term “Islamization refers to planned and organised changes designed to
improve the individual and society by conforming them to Islamic norms. It appears
to be synonymous with the term Islamic Revivalism (Renaissance), which is defined
as a reform-oriented movement driven by a conscious change in Muslim thought, atti-
tude and behaviour and characterised by a commitment to revive Islamic Civilization”
(Ahas et al., 2013: 33).
Further, it is significant to examine that Islamization of Knowledge is a more
extensive epistemological debate among the Muslim or Islamic scholars worldwide
that sources the basis of knowledge in the Islamic view of the world. Ismail Raji al-
Faruqi (1982) and a few other standing scholars have made serious attempts to “recast
the whole legacy of human knowledge from the standpoint of Islam” (ibid: 34),
whereas Ibrahim Ragab (1995, 97, 99) refers to the phenomenon slightly differently
and writes that it seems too much has been used in many “confusing ways”. He used
“Islamization of social sciences, Islamization of specific disciplines, Islamization of
curriculum or education, etc. (ibid: 34)”.
The source of knowing Islam is a single text, Qura’an (revealed upon the prophet
of Islam), in addition to the Hadith, a direct source of fact and information derived
from the life of Prophet Mohammad. The spread and dissemination of knowledge
about human society are primarily derived from the sources mentioned above to
regulate the entire life-world of human beings in this world, particularly Muslims.
The process of knowledge dissemination to the people across the geographical and
cultural regions takes at a different pace and level depending upon the kind of society
one refers to. Islamization is seen and read as knowing the actual knowledge for the
betterment of human beings.
“One of the interpretations of Islamisation of human knowledge is tracing the
root of secular knowledge to the origin (ta’seel) of knowledge in Islam that is al-
Qur’an and al-Sunnah. As knowledge and education are indispensable, the current
scenario of educational dualism that Islam and secular co-exist becomes a matter of
concern for Islamisation of human knowledge” (Ahmad et al., 2015). There is one
argument that places situate Islamic education within the more significant project
of Islamization and then focuses on the need to re-conceptualise the Islamization
concept within the epistemological and ethical perspectives while balancing it with
a re-examination of self and the appreciation of the ‘other’.
88 K. M. Ziyauddin

In most writings in the world of social sciences, the concept of Islamization

intended to refer to varied forms of inspiration Muslim scholars across the world
had to address the deviant groups of people within Muslim society. There have
been two broad viewpoints in writing on Islamization, firstly Ismail al-Faruqi and
second Sayyid Qutb, who have left a deep imprint in the discourse and discussion
that continues even today upon the process of Islamization or may refer project of
Islamization. However, both the scholars who extensively wrote on Islamization and
interpretation of society on Islamic principles did not find common ground. There
have been arguments and advocacy for strict practices of Islamic teachings among
the community of believers, whereas another dominant viewpoint emphasises the
more accommodative form of Islamization.
The viewpoint put forth by Ismail Raji al-Faruqi and his co-thinkers believed
that the Islamization of knowledge is a kind of preface to any authentic renewal of
the Ummah or community (Umma is usually referred to as the Muslim community
throughout the world). In his understanding, Ummah had fallen into decadence due
to the inherent internal crisis erupting in its thought in this world. How does it
provide social progress to Indian Muslims while the Islamization of knowledge was
prescribed as the best remedy to solve the crisis in the thought and worldview of the
Ummah? This approach has been perceived as progressive and more acknowledging
the changes reflecting the plural and accommodativeness of the Islamic way of life.
Oppositely, the views and writings of Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966) about the
phenomenon of Islamization are understood as more rejectionist than accommoda-
tive and exclusive. The focus is on the entry of anything in the form of practice, and a
thinking process foreign to Islamic principle is to be rejected. It may be summarised
that Qutb’s contention was based on his intrinsic knowledge that Islam is a total life
system. “The Islamic concept is perfect and complete. It does not require any ‘spare
parts from outside of any change for completion … Man is incapable of adding
anything to it or making any corrections if he believed that human logic could never
surrender itself to a contradiction, and there are no contradictions in the Islamic
concept. The Islamic system is so comprehensive, interdependent and interwoven
that it covers all aspects of human life and the various genuine needs of man and his
different activities” (Maqbool, 2007:1). Over time, several good writings have been
available to understand the global process and phenomenon of Islamization, and they
are relevant not only to Indian society but to the world. There was a paradigm shift
in understanding the Islamic discourse when the institution of the Caliphate was
abolished in 1924 at the hand of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
In the same period, the entire Muslim world finds it placed in a European way of
thinking, rationality and influence of secular ideas being propagated worldwide that
has also colonised a good part of the Muslim world. From the 1940s onwards, South
Asia gradually finds a lot of crises or confluences of multiple ideas and philosophies.
Christianity remained a source to bring in secular ideals in the Indian sub-continent
at the time. It could influence certain pockets of Indian Territory, but the presences of
Muslims were not as an outsider. However, they converged with the soil and culture
of Indian society over a few centuries. The arrival of the west in India was understood
as Westernisation by M. N. Srinivas at one point. However, there is another ingrained
6 Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology … 89

conceptualisation by modernisation to understand the changes due to the process of

urbanisation and so also due to the gradual process of Islamization in India.
The rise and growth of Islamization as a socio-cultural phenomenon has varying
potential in the nature and presence of the forms. There is no consensus at a global
level about the perceived nature of this process and continuity. However, indeed it
varies from one nation-based Muslim community to another Muslim community else-
where. Islamization remained a widely prevalent phenomenon in Muslim majority
countries. However, gradually after the 1990s, it began appearing as an influential
force in influencing the communities of Muslim minority countries as well.
How Yogendra Singh thought of studying this modernisation process and under-
standing the changes in Indian society is one aspect of understanding Indian social
structure. However, there is hardly a shared understanding and conceptualisation
of Islamization in contemporary India. Neither other widely acceptable writing is
referred to in India than Yogendra Singh. The existential reality by reading hetero-
geneity among Indian Muslims and globally, having a standard line of explanation
on Islamization does not fit well.
Omar Hasan Kasule writes Islamization as a process of representing the domain
of human knowledge available in human society to conform to the essential elements
of ‘aqidat al tauhid’ (Monotheism doctrine/ doctrine of the oneness of Allah). As a
process, Islamization offers a change, reform, correction, and re-orientation to bring
desirable societal change through Islamic practices and values. Further, this also
envisions progressive change and evolution towards betterment and the almighty’s
absolute direction in the life-world and how to live this worldly life.

6.4 Misgivings and Stereotyping of the Process

The serious rubbles in the life of Muslims in India are left by the half information and
less researched explanation based on partially verified data. It has been the histories
of all vulnerable groups to live a life of ‘others’ are having been stereotyped by the
larger community. Muslims, too, have all of a sudden found in a complex whole
of labelling that has created serious sociological challenges that need to be well
studied. A considerable gap exists in the studies of the Muslim community through
sociological lenses that lead to misgivings and wrong portrayal of Muslims and their
religious practices. Therefore, by accepting that sociological literature on Indian
Muslims has been less in post-independent India, what Indian sociology offers on
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the same period (Ziyauddin, 2021).
In the absence of social anthropological studies on Indian Muslims, the culturally
built embedded structure among Muslims has been closer to their Hindu neighbours
than Muslims living in two regions of India, northern and southern. The reform
movement to omit the non-Islamic practices in the Meo region is a classic example
of this reference. Yoginder Sikand writes, “The Meos are descendants of Rajput,
Meena, and Gujjar converts to Islam and are scattered over a large area south of
Delhi towards the Thar desert. The condition and status of the women in this poor
90 K. M. Ziyauddin

community largely made up of small and middle peasants, is distressing. Not only
are they educationally backwards, with few opportunities to attend schools, but are
subject to customs which contribute to keeping them economically and socially
backwards” (Sikand 1995:490). Such empirical studies have been in good numbers
that proved the educational deprivation of Meo Muslims.

6.5 Yogendra Singh and Indian Sociology

The text and concept proposed by Yogendra Singh in his book Modernisation of
Indian Tradition is a milestone in Indian sociology. Today, these concepts remain
relevant to understanding change and processes in the Indian social structure. This
book brings in three major communities as the centre of discussion to examine
the traditions of Indian society and how Hindu, Muslim and Tribal communities
constitute the focus of primary traditions of the Indian society. Yogendra Singh
conceptualises the stream originating from the above three communities influencing
the functional aspects of Indian social structure in contemporary society. By studying
social phenomena and realities, he examines how modernisation has played a crucial
role in showing the changes in the three major streams of Indian traditions that
manifest in the Indian traditions of life. The sources of change are either internal or
endogenous or from outside the society.
From this perspective, I find Islamization to be read as a more significant
phenomenon that influenced the ancient way of life and practices popularly known as
Hindu traditions and tribal communities. The first round of confluence of the Hindu
way of life did begin early in the seventh century in Kerala with the arrival of Arab
traders on the coast of Kerala. The early interaction of Arab Muslims as traders and
Hindus of Kerala did not remain limited to trade and commerce. Instead, the practice
of trade and commerce influenced the Indian market system and trade ethics that
were primarily decided by the birth of a person in a caste. The choice to trade was
not available to everyone, and the freedom to buy goods and items was also limited.
In brief, the control over the market and trade by the institution of caste does find
first exposure to a different set of practices and norms that was more equalitarian and
gave a choice to people by their capacity to buy and sell, not by their birth. Lately,
the influence of Sufi saints in medieval India is to be read with a second paradigm
change when Indian tradition interacts with a completely different set of great tradi-
tions. The follow-up result is the visits of hundreds and thousands of people showing
their respect to the shrines of Sufis across the country. Any sociological study can
show the influence and confluence of traditions at the shrines of Khwaja Moinuddin
Chisti located at Ajmer in Rajasthan state or the shrine of Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia
at New Delhi and hundreds of others in southern states of India, including Hazrat
Khwaja Bande Nawaz at Gulbarga in Karnataka.
6 Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology … 91

The process of evolution of Indian tradition is such that it is quantitatively impos-

sible to differentiate the little traditions and practices among Muslims and Hindus
of India. However, both tradition exists and infer their different sources in scriptures
that keep a common sociological sense at its toe.
“One of the interpretations of Islamisation of human knowledge is tracing the root
of secular knowledge to the origin (ta’seel) of knowledge in Islam that is al-Qur’an
and al-Sunnah. As knowledge and education is indispensable, the current scenario
of educational dualism that Islam and secular co-exist becomes a matter of concern
for Islamisation of human knowledge” (Ahmad et al., 2015). In his first chapter, Y
Singh explains the change as ideology and how various approaches are to be used to
understand social change in India; before moving to chapter three, where the impact
of Islam and modernisation is examined in a great deal, he does find thick description
to illustrates “orthogenetic changes in cultural traditions and modernisation” (Singh,
1983:28).
This paper is mainly to the memory of Yogendra Singh as an extraordinary work
that Indian sociology has not found until now in bringing the second largest popula-
tion in India and bringing cultural reflections of Islam to Indian society. He points out
three major traditions, Hindu, Muslim and tribal, as the primary cultural traditions in
India and how modernisation has impacted them at large. It is also true that sources
of modernisation would be endogenous or exogenous that play critical roles within
the social structure and traditions of the society.

6.6 Islam and Modernization in India

It has been studied and observed in the past that Islamic values and traditions encom-
pass territorial boundaries, and Muslims have been self-conscious for historical
reasons. The cultural amalgamations between the most prominent religious Hindu
and Islamic traditions have converged at specific points and live side by side with
equilibrium. Islamic livings were in a better and privileged position in the eyes of the
masses in the pre-British period. Singh (1983) rightly observes that a large segment
of lower caste Hindus would have converted due to the privilege they looked for and
a certain sense of attainment of equal space in Indian society that was never possible
in a caste society.
Firstly, the loss of hundreds of Years of Empire and privileges invaded and taken
over by the British Empire gradually reduced the morale of elites and Muslim rulers,
consequently degrading the economic and political powers. The end to the aspirations
and envision winning back the lost glory faded away by the partition, but this is also
perceived as finding something more than nothing.
Secondly, in the last hundred years of India’s past, several new schools and thought
processes emerged with their distinctness that would not have been a reality until the
British arrived. Islamic history in India and the basic tenets of Islam played a crucial
role in bringing Pan undivided India into one the hand of the mighty Mughal army.
However, Sufi orders brought the indigenous facets of the Islamic way of life and
92 K. M. Ziyauddin

everyday living. For the latter reason, the presence of Sufis in India is seen across
the states and regions, barring regional and linguistic borders. Sufis kept a life of
the ordinary mass of Indians and away from the ruling families or Empires. This
perspective of Sufis provided them huge audience and followers who could connect
with knowledgeable and well-versed. To fact are examined, Sufi shrines in present-
day India still bring many devotees and disciples. A few Chisti shrines, Suhrawardi
order, has the highest number of visitors every day, making how the Indian face of
Islamic life became indigenised over a period that does not get a mention in the text
of modernisation of Indian Tradition by Y Singh.
The discourse on Islam and modernisation got extra attention due to severe distur-
bances in Muslim societies worldwide that ultimately impacted writings in Indian
sociology. It is also relevant to mention that the same relevance applies to Hinduism
as an ancient religious tradition concerning the question of modernisation.
Modernisation has played a vital role in influencing the tradition and values of
religiosity of Muslim society in India but in a limited way as it could have played in
the twenty-first century. The perceived dangers of losing little tradition kept Indian
Muslims more closely embedded in their practices rooted in social institutions of
family, marriage, kinship and various caste-like associations than the sources of great
traditions in the Quran and Hadith. In this lengthy cultural and historical background,
a quick analysis of how caste-like institutions are relevant to understand the present
Muslims would be a rejoinder to the work of Y Singh on little and great traditions
within the Muslim social structure.

6.7 Islam, Caste and Modernisation

A vast amount of literature is produced to proclaim how Muslims in India or in South

Asian countries that caste is not a feature of Islam from the textualist point of view.
The process of Islamization proposed by Yogendra Singh in Indian sociology finds
great relevance by contextualising Indian Muslims and their cultural practices and
different what is in real Islam.
“Islam as a set of beliefs and religious practices based on the foundational Quranic
text and the subsequent Islamic tradition (hadith, sunna, fiqh) excludes the possibility
of a caste-based social order, which can then only appear as an unorthodox deviation
from the Islamic ideal of equality among believers” (Levesque, 2020). Surely the
thickness of literature clarifies that caste among Indian Muslims are one of the results
of an “acculturation” as Islam moved on a championing idea of equalitarian social
structure and as an ideal. The local culture and cultural influences brought social
strata based on caste-like gradedness (Ansari, 1960).
It is true that writings on pure Islam visa vice Indian Islam or vividness of local
tradition among Indian Muslims have the great debate and go against each other.
The social scientists’ reliance on empirical observation helps them to explain the
varieties of Indian Muslims’, then one singular or monolithic notion of the life world,
differentiated by the “ways of being Muslim, differentiated by language, cultural
6 Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology … 93

habits, sects, beliefs, religious practices, and social stratification. To reconcile the
contradiction stemming from the identification of multiple practices as Islam by the
practitioners themselves” (Levesque, 2020, pp. 1–2), the other position has been to
“adapt the Orientalist distinction between orthodox and non-orthodox Islam to the
categories of Great and Little Traditions” (Asad 1996:6). A precaution is always
desirable that sociologists or, for the matter, anthropologists, there is need to be
refraining from making a judgment between what is Islamic and what is not, so it is
correctly said, “anyone who tried to look for any hierarchy or truth-value in various
Islam was trading in theology” (Anjum, 2007:657).
Levesque (2020), in his paper, gives remarkable context to how studies on Muslim
societies are differentiated and diverse in their nature and methodological nuances.
He cites, in order to reject anything, “the idea of an integrated social totality in which
social structure and religious ideology interact [as well as the idea that] anything
Muslims believe or can be regarded by the anthropologist as part of Islam”, Talal
Asad proposes to conceptualise Islam as a “discursive tradition” (Asad, 1996: p. 14).
Further, Ovamir Anjum, proposes that “paying attention to a discursive tradition
is not to essentialise certain practices or symbols as being more authentic but to
recognise that the authenticity or orthodoxy of these has to be argued for from within
the tradition and embraced or rejected according to its criteria” (Anjum, 2007:662).
The question for scholars becomes, then, not whether caste exists in South Asian
Muslim societies but how Muslims in the subcontinent engage with caste practices
and discourses (Levesque, 2020). Modernisation in contemporary Islam is more
complex and multi-layered due to the newer sociological challenges and empir-
ical evidence of social and ethnic diversities within Indian Muslims. Sociological
sketches on caste-like features or the Biradari system (Ahmad, 1978; Ansari, 1960).
The changed values in the cultural and social framework generate a different
system of acceptance of many other traditions in the same society of India. People
in contemporary India wish to see their future in that cultural framework based on
their achievement, individual efforts and a reward of their consistent labour than the
cultural and ascribed heritage.
Therefore the convergence and contradictions of such a tradition of Islam and what
modernisation places as prerequisites are to be understood and how they balance.
As earlier discussed, the dominant value system of Islam and deep cultural elements
in the Muslim tradition in the form of caste-like institutions, religious revivalism,
the existence of various sub-groups like Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith etc. and
a persistent but silent resistances to changes brought in by western education and
knowledge are inevitable corollaries that need more profound empirical studies. They
do not go with the values of the modernisation process in India.
Indeed studies have shown that these resistances are equally present in other
religious traditions of India Hinduism has always resisted modernisation on the
one hand. However, at the same time, Western and modern education would require
greater acceptance in the name of modernisation from the day of British expansion in
the Indian Territory. In this result, the torch-bearers of modernity in India are mainly
upper caste in India and appear to be the forerunner of westernisation. Muslim elites
and Ulema remained sceptical about westernisation and modernisation for a very
94 K. M. Ziyauddin

long time due to their historical anger against the British Empire that gradually
threw Muslim rulers out of power.
However, this perception is gradually getting broken in 21st-century India. Instead,
the majority Muslim population in India have started demanding modern education;
look for western scientific education and a modern value system rather than tradi-
tional. They are finely behaving as modern citizens. The dilemma between modern
and traditional remains a complex and observed reality in India and even in large
Muslim societies like Indonesia. Islamization has not been similar to how it is studied
in the Indian sub-continent. Therefore, either empirical or a feeling of ambivalence
to the process of modernisation will continue to stay as heritage in Islamic traditions
and in the Hindus. It is a common feature of all transitional phases of cultural adap-
tations, so it would even be there in most modernised nations of the Middle East,
whether they accept or deny it.
Daniel Lerner (1958) presents the dominant view that modernisation in Muslim
countries, especially in the Middle East, came through modern media, newspapers,
and a steep rise in urbanisation, consequently influencing people in large numbers
to greater political and economic participation. These were heavily countered on
various grounds, including that modernisation not necessarily be imported into post-
colonial societies. Instead, these societies have to create their ways of creativity and
development models. Whatever the process, the push for modernisation in the lives
of Muslims and into the tradition practised has exposed modern materials and new
knowledge.
Muslim societies have extensively adopted modern society’s components that
make them participatory in the new political system, economic development agendas,
and adaptations between local and global cultural values. The assertions of the right
to life, demand and access to legal provisions than Islamic jurisprudence in their
routine life, the emergence of the new modern western educated middle class and
the high demand for public education are a few indicators of how reliance on tradi-
tional norms is reducing over constitutional. This perspective does not out-rightly
reject the presence and influence of Islamic traditions in Muslim societies of India.
Modern educated turn out to be urban and conscious beings by attainment of scien-
tific education and also becoming aware as a believer that makes Muslim societies
in India unique unlike in the 1980s and so on.
Modernity in the life of Indian Muslims has come through education and gradually
made its presence in the cultural frontier, too but how this process takes is a question
to be studied separately. Every society having a higher degree of modern education
would also attain modernisation at a greater level, and Indonesia is one such example.
Clifford Geertz raises the question of whether education is a sufficient catalyst
for modernisation in Islam. Further, the worldview of how modernisation converges
with traditional societies on which its foundation has been laid is liberal. However,
this might be true only in the case of college and university education, modelled on
the pattern introduced by the British in India or elsewhere. A few studies, which have
been undertaken to discover this phenomenon, reveal that education in India creates
many ‘transitional types’ of youth, in-between traditional and modern world- view,
rather than a modernised youth-social-substructure.
6 Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology … 95

Traditionally, education was imparted to Muslims through madrasas which varied

in size and grades up to which education was imparted on the traditional lines. These
madrasas had neither modern methods of teaching nor learning and did not emphasise
teaching modern secular subjects like science and humanities. A few of the Madarsas
have started adopting modern technological and pedagogical methods in the recent
past in India and with the help of the government of India. Hundreds of Muslim
minority-run educational institutions are a great source and medium to bridge the
gap between modern and traditional. How far Islamic values are part of the course
curriculum in modern educational institutions is an important question, but it has
less presence in the joint observations.

6.8 Conclusion

Therefore traditional versus modern educational institutions is another area to debate

but how far the impact of Islam is found into the life of a modern citizen is significant
question in this paper.
So, one would argue that in education western influences are more positive.
Modern education has been standardized in government schools and universities;
and private and communal schools and colleges, whatever special distinguishing
features of their own they may have, are yet made to conform to general standards
by systems of grants-in-aid and general provisions.
A few prominent institution of Islamic learning have also imparted and routed
to modern educational curriculum and the conversion of Jamia Millia Islamia as a
central university in 1989 is an excellent example of modern and scientific education
where large size of the students hails from Muslim. The understanding to the concept
of modernity, modernization may be limited, misunderstood and wrongly interpreted
but the practical zeal and hunch to attain modern education is the prime priority into
Muslim society in India at large.
The increasing presence and access to modern education has also broadened the
horizon of thinking and application of mind to the Indian Muslims. The aspiration
to access and avail the best education is a strong catalyst between traditional and
modern. Such phenomenon will in longer duration produce culture of modernization
as an essential component of Indian Muslim and role of Islamic tradition could be
confined to individual and family life in performing religious rituals and practices.
What Hilal Ahmed argues in Siyasi Musalman is an interesting development
into the life of Indian Muslims. The Pasmanda Mahaj (backward Muslims asserting
their rights under the provision of constitutional provision is another departure of
traditional Muslims towards modern and political Muslims. Therefore, an interesting
feature of modernization of Islam in India is that the pull towards this cultural system
is never without an agonizing consciousness of deviation from the traditional path.
New sources of legitimating of modernizing adaptations by Muslims have not yet
been fully institutionalized. It has not been institutionalized even in Hinduism, but
96 K. M. Ziyauddin

its general characteristic of permissiveness in cultural innovations and lack of an

organized church does not lead to the same degree of crisis of values as in Islam.
The legitimation for modernization in Islam would probably emerge sooner or
later within the social structure of this community in India and by those who are
growing in large number as educated urban class. Surely this is a very gradual
process due to the absence of strong leadership within community and most accept-
able across the caste-like and class groups in India. In certain sense, modernization
would continue to be part of Muslims’ life in India as a half-hearted response and
will also remain eclectic in nature. The reasons are more expedient than real. But
then, is this not a universal psychology in modernization of all developing societies?
Islam alone is, therefore, not an exception (Momin, 1977; Lindberg, 2009).
Examining modernization helps to conclude that Islamization has a stop breaker
within the community in India. There have been various perspectives and ideas
on how far Islamization plays a vital role within and outside the community. The
presence of Tablighi Jama’at as one of the revivalist movements has influenced
Indian Muslims, but this has remained limited to the practice and learning of Islamic
knowledge. How far it adds to the Islamization process needs further examination.
Much sociological analysis is required to understand this, but Y Singh apparently
does not find broader inclusivity of Islamic influence on Indian society. Irfan Ahmad1
aptly mentions how the book Modernization of Indian Tradition categorizes and
treats “Muslims as alien to India. He writes that by using the terms’ orthogenetic’
and ‘heterogenetic’ for internal and external changes where Y Singh branded Islam
as heterogenetic. He presented his integrated paradigm, the book’s core, in a schema
where he portrayed Islam as an outsider. Importantly, Singh’s terminological choice
was not innocent. In the Oxford English Dictionary, heterogenetic has two meanings.
In philosophy, it means ‘relating to external origination’. In medicine, it refers to the
disease as an infection from outside the body.‘ By calling it heterogenetic, Singh
thus cast Islam outside the body politic of India” (Ahmad, 2020). Thereby, specific
questions need to be discussed and understood while studying the contribution of Y.
Singh through his masterpiece contribution—Modernization of Indian Tradition.

Endnotes

1. A critical tribute to sociologist Yogendra Singh (1932–2020) — as a teacher, and

his thoughts as a scholar — India News, Firstpost.

References

Ahmad, I. (1978). Endogamy and status mobility among the Siddiqui Sheikhs of Allahabad, Uttar
Pradesh. In I. Ahmad (Ed.), Caste and social stratification among the Muslims. Manohar
Publications.
Ahmad, A., et al. (2015). Islamisation of human knowledge in the built environment education: A
case of the bachelor of science in architectural studies. International Islamic University Malaysia.
6 Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology … 97

In The International Conference on Thoughts on Human Sciences in Islam. https://www.resear

chgate.net/publication/286439759
Engineer, A. A. (1985). Indian Muslims: A study of the minority problem in India. Ajanta
Publications.
Fazalbhoy, N. (1997). Sociology of Muslims in India—A review. Economic and Political Weekly.
1547–1551
Ghaus, A. (1960). Muslim caste in Uttar Pradesh: A study of culture contact. The Ethnographic
and Folk Culture Society.
Lindberg, A. (2009). Islamisation, modernisation, or globalisation? Changed gender relations
among South Indian Muslims. Journal of South Asian Studies, 32(1), 86–109. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00856400802709292
Momin, A. R. (1977). The Indo-Islamic tradition. Sociological Bulletin, 26(2), 242–258, 5–30.
Mondal, S. R. (1983). For a sociological understanding of Indian Muslims. NBU Review, 6(2),
95–108.
Ziyauddin, K. M. (2021). Muslim’s inclusion in Indian higher education an analysis. In M. J.
Vinod & S. Y. Surendra (Eds.), Empowering Marginalized Communities in India: The Impact
of Higher Education.
Chapter 7
Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology:
A Biographical Approach

Swapan Kumar Bhattacharyya

Abstract B. R. Ambedkar, a polymath and an untiring social activist, had several

important ideas about the Indian socio-cultural reality. But he has so far been
denied a rightful place in the annals of development of Indian sociology. Perusal
of Ambedkar’s ideas and course of action to realize them immediately unravel the
problems of: (a) analysing the nature of interface of tradition and modernity in
India, a country endowed or burdened with a millennia-old tradition and challenged
by modernity; (b) assessing the nature of ‘social exclusion’ (a concept innovated
by Ambedkar before anybody else in India or abroad) practised by the savarna,
following Brahminical injunctions, against the numerous (ex-)untouchables of India;
(c) adequately realizing the nature of ‘lived experience’ of the socially ostracized by
those who lack in the taste of the lived experience. Associated with it is the problem
besetting attempts at theorization of ‘distinctive’ predicament of the dalits. The
dilemma, hitherto neglected by scholars, confronting Ambedkar and other dalits in
facing the ‘two leeches’ then tormenting the Indian/Hindu society, viz., the British and
the Brahminical rule, merits attention. The paper seeks to also explain the apparent
contradiction between Ambedkar’s sharing of Ranade’s grief over the defeat of the
Marathas by the British at the Battle of Khadki (Kirkee) and his celebration of the
event at Bheema Koregaon.

Keywords Bahishkrit bharat · Mooknayak · Dalit · Social endosmosis ·

Modernity · Reflexivity · Tradition · Social exclusion · Hindu society · Fraternity

Despite his eminence as a social and political thinker, a profound scholar of law,
engaged in a life-long crusade against social inequality nurtured by the caste system
and embodied in the inhuman practice of untouchability suffered by thousands in
India, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is yet to find a room in the annals of Indian soci-
ological thought.2 His tirade against the caste system, against those who practised,
countenanced, or tolerated it in any form whatsoever, made for his substantive and

S. K. Bhattacharyya (B)
University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India
e-mail: skb7845@gmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 99
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_7
100 S. K. Bhattacharyya

substantial difference from the notable figures in the mainstream of social and polit-
ical ideas and theories (if there were any) prevalent in India of his times. But it is
all the more of a reason why he should have been offered a distinct (and distinctive)
space or berth in the ranks of pioneers in Indian sociology.

7.1 Ambedkar’s Sociology as Social Criticism

Ambedkar provided one of the earliest examples of a most effectual exercise in

sociology as social criticism in India. It would hardly be an exaggeration to describe
his analysis of the Indian society and culture, his reasoned excoriation of the Hindu
religion and social order, and his advocacy of and involvement in their alteration as
bold attempts in reflexive sociology.
Expressions or notions, such as sociology as social criticism or reflexive sociology
were absent in Ambedkar’s milieu. They were articulated and put in circulation at
much later a point in time, precisely speaking in the sixties and seventies of the
preceding century. Though, poignant criticism of (bourgeois) society was made by
Karl Marx with whose writings Ambedkar was familiar: ‘…I have spent a great
deal of time in studying Karl Marx, Communism and all that’, writes Ambedkar
in his Buddha or Karl Marx (2007a:29). He starts his examination of Marx’s ideas
with the latter’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach: ‘That the purpose of philosophy is
to reconstruct the world and not to explain the origin of the universe’. He considers
Marx’s ideas ‘very important’ (ibid:6). But he deems Buddha’s ideas preferable
to those of Marx since Buddha advocates practice of non-violence and eschewal
of dictatorship under all circumstances. Any peruser of Ambedkar’s speeches and
writings would, however, immediately appreciate in them the reverberation of a
kindred spirit that animates the notions of sociology as social criticism and reflexive
sociology.
C. Wright Mills makes a distinction between ‘celebrating society’ as it is and ‘crit-
icizing society’. He calls upon his audience to practice the latter. One may recall here
Mills’ jibe at Lionel Trilling, a colleague of his at Columbia University and distin-
guished Professor of English and a literary critic of repute, for engaging in what Mills
depicts as the ‘American celebration’—‘an uncritical and flowering promotion of the
United States’ (Wakefield, 2000:10). The Sociological Imagination (1959) by Mills
calls for a tirade against the tendency and trend towards conformity, homogenisa-
tion, and instrumental rationality. Alan Touraine has opposed ‘a sociology of policy
making’ to ‘a sociology contestation’. Ambedkar’s analysis of the Indian society and
culture he lived in displays the quality of a sociology of criticism of the then extant
socio-cultural and political process and the consequent attribute of engagement in
a sociology of contestation. Ambedkar boldly and most consistently attempted the
unmasking (enthüllen) of the various forms of inequity and injustice perpetrated,
covertly as well as overtly, by the varna-/caste-nurturing Brahminical society and
also of the real nature (i.e., the essentially conservative mindset) of its apologists. In
Annihilation of Caste, Ambedkar asserts, ‘…these views [critiquing the caste-ridden
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 101

society] are the views of a man who has been no tool of power, no flatterer of great-
ness. They come from one, almost the whole of whose public exertion has been one
continuous struggle for the liberty of the poor and for the oppressed and whose only
reward has been a continuous shower of calumny from national journals and national
leaders…’ (2007b [1936]:50).
One may pertinently hazard the presumption that Ambedkar’s social analysis
partakes of the quality of what Pierre Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992;
Gouldner, 1970) or Anthony Giddens (1991) call ‘reflexive sociology’. Reflexivity
is a term with a multivalent lineage and connotation. Its protagonists, however, vari-
ously argue that through its exercise, prescribed roles and identities are replaced
by the imperative to self-consciously and reflexively (i.e., with a critical stance to
self and to others) construct one’s own identity. Giddens suggests that there is an
increasing tendency in sociology to self-monitoring so that ‘we are not what we are,
but what we make of ourselves’ [emphasis added] (1991:75).
Reflexivity is, according to some authors, intimately connected to the broad intel-
lectual stream of radical social constructionism. What Ambedkar did in and for his
own life and the life of his millions of brethren and sistren (i.e., the Dalits) exploited
and oppressed through millennia by the savarnas of the varna/caste society of India
belonged to the genre of radical social constructionism.
Reflexivity calls, according to Bourdieu and Wakefield, ‘less for intellectual
introspection than for permanent sociological analysis and control of sociolog-
ical [and political] practice. It entails…the systematic exploration of the “the
unthought categories of thought which delimit the thinkable and predetermine the
thought”’ (1992:40). Mauthner and Doucet write in a similar vein that reflexivity
is about dealing with ‘a sense of uncertainty and crisis as increasingly complex
questions are raised concerning the status, validity, basis, and authority of knowl-
edge claims’ (2003:417). Indeed, reflexivity destabilizes the authority of a singular
perspective (in Ambedkar’s instance, the savarna perspective); it looks to the struc-
tural and historical relations that produce the illusion of that authority and it frequently
has an agenda oriented to a basic social change. It would not be presumptuous to
suggest that Ambedkar engaged in reflexive praxis. Reflexive praxis is where a person
reflects on what they have done and considers how the implications of their learnings
can impact the broader context they work in.
Bottomore’s idea of sociology as social criticism entails the task of radical soci-
ology. The major concerns of radical sociology are as follows: ‘to criticize social
theories in terms of the view of the social world they impose; to investigate the
inequalities and constraints embedded in the structure of classes and elites, which
obstruct the growth of human freedom; and to examine the character and prospects of
those social movements which contest the existing structure of society’ (Bottomore
1984/1975:16).
Gouldner too puts stress on the attribute of radicalism in his view of reflexive soci-
ology. Reflexive sociology is radical because it would recognize that the knowledge
of the world cannot be advanced apart from the sociologist’s knowledge of himself
and his position in the world or apart from his efforts to change them; radical, because
it would accept the fact that the roots of the sociologist lie in his being as a total man,
102 S. K. Bhattacharyya

and that the question he must confront, therefore, is not merely how to work but how
to live, one may say, live authentically. Ambedkar declared in Annihilation of Caste,
…while I am prepared to bear with the imperfections and shortcomings of the society in
which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should not consent to live in a society, which
cherishes wrong ideals or a society which having right ideals will not consent to bring its
social life in conformity with those ideals. If I am disgusted with Hindus and Hinduism
it is because I am convinced that they cherish wrong ideals and live a wrong social life
(Ambedkar, 2007b [1936]:63).

Ambedkar, a contrarian throughout his life, sought to transmute the locus of the
Bhima-Koregaon Battle into a permanent site for critiquing and protesting against
social inequity and social injustice in his country by a skilful and one-sided accentua-
tion of certain aspects of the battle between the British Army encompassing subaltern
Mahar foot soldiers against the army of the Peshwas patronizing the Brahminical
system.

7.2 Probable Reason Behind Hesitancy Regarding

Ambedkar

Both Ambedkar and his principal adversary, M. K. Gandhi, have unfortunately been
subjected to the muddle and mudslinging of politics. Gandhi was emerging as the
Father of the Nation during India’s freedom struggle. He declared, ‘Dr. Ambedkar
is a challenge to Hinduism’ (Appendix I to Ambedkar (2007a, b:51)), and the over-
whelming majority of the country led by Gandhi was then the Hindus. Ambedkar
too was unsparing in a shrill announcement of his distrust in Gandhi: ‘… Mr. Gandhi
is more anxious to tighten the tie which binds the untouchables to the apron strings
of the Hindus than to free them from the thraldom of the Hindus…’ (Ambedkar in
the speech included in Guha, 2010:277). One wonders if these polemics by Gandhi
against Ambedkar and vice versa were the reason behind the exclusion of Ambedkar’s
sociological discourses, explicit or implicit, in his speeches and writings, in the ‘sani-
tized’ parlour of sociologists in India (cf. Gore, 1993: Preface, Jaffrelot, 2015:4).
Though, the first two pathfinders in Indian sociology, viz., Benoy Kumar Sarkar
(1937 and 1940a, 1940b, also Bhattacharyya, 1990) and Govind Sadashiv Ghurye
(1973 [1933], 1969) did highlight Ambedkar’s critique of caste and untouchability.
Interestingly, Ambedkar cites in his work, The untouchables… (1948) an extract
from Ghurye’s Caste and Race in India (1932) to bolster the view that ‘there is no
correspondence between social gradation and physical differentiation in Bombay’
(Ambedkar, 1990a, [1948]:301).
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 103

7.3 Utilities of Ambedkar’s Thought for Sociologists

(a) Critical Understanding of the Interface of Tradition and Modernity in India

Perusal of Babasaheb Ambedkar’s writings is profitable for reasons more than one.
M. S. Gore (1993) has critically examined various aspects of political and social
thought of Ambedkar. However, even the hagiography of Ambedkar (cf. Moon,
2018) reveals how a rational and sensitive member of a modernizing society such
as India has to wade through a series of reluctances in dealing with the problems
emanating from the interface of tradition and modernity. Even a hurried reading of
Ambedkar’s writings (17,000-page-long oeuvre of Ambedkar) yields instances of
the fact. Some of them have been noted below.
True, Ambedkar has been an apostle of modernity promoting individual liberty,
equality, and fraternity and a relentless critic of the Hindu tradition harbouring the
worst form of social inequality in the shape of untouchability. It is equally true that
he has been an assiduous scrutinizer of the Indian tradition while trying to find a
way out of the habitus generated by it. He has tried to prepare the men and women
of his country to select elements of modernity suitable to their way of life instead of
meekly submitting to whatever passes for modernity.
(b) Equality and Fraternity as Opposed to Social Exclusion
Another equally important factor calling for sociologists’ attention to Ambedkar’s
works is his concentration on the perennial need for equality and fraternity in human
life and its near-absolute absence from many situations of actual social life in
India and elsewhere. ‘Inequality has come to be understood’, pertinently points out
David B. Grusky, ‘as a fundamental social problem of our time’ (Grusky, 2012:3).
Ambedkar’s topicality is unmistakable. The major concern of societies has, from
the eighteenth century through the first decade of the twenty-first century, been a
reduction of inequality between estates, between classes, and between industrially
advanced societies and late industrial countries. Simultaneously, there has been a
growing appreciation of the fact that poverty and social inequality should no longer
be treated as soft social issues that can safely be subordinated to seemingly more
predominant interests in maximizing total economic output. Grusky mentions as
many as eight sources originating this newfound concern and consciousness. Two
of them are (a) the persistence account and (b) the social inclusion account. The
former records the persistence of many non-economic forms of inequality notwith-
standing decades of quite aggressive egalitarian reform. The social inclusion account
reflects an increasing commitment to a conception of human entitlements that include
the right to secure employment and thereby be spared extreme deprivation. And
Ambedkar as well as the Ambedkarites would add here the right to enjoy basic
human dignity nullifying the hereditarily suffered socio-cultural degradation of thou-
sands of ex-untouchables of India because of such institutions as the caste system.
Ambedkar has since the twenties of the last century remained a vehement critic of
social exclusion of several million Indians (Bahishkrit Bharat, i.e., Excluded India)
from the ‘normal’ circuit of cultural, social, and economic transactions taking place
104 S. K. Bhattacharyya

under the hegemony of the Brahmins and other savarna Hindus. His most vocif-
erous demand for social inclusion of the lowliest caste-groups of India into the
framework of relations of mutual recognition and cooperation between them and the
rest of the Hindus (the overwhelmingly large and predominant segment of the Indian
population) has long remained neglected in the parley of Euro-American sociologists
dealing with social inequality and probable remedies against it. The anthology edited
by Grusky and Szelényi (2012) is conspicuously silent on both the caste system and,
its staunchest critic, Ambedkar. It provides, of course, discussion of the problems of
Racial and Ethnic Inequality (Part V) and Gender Inequality (Part VI). Nearer home,
reference to ‘social exclusion’, ‘social inclusion’, or Ambedkar remains conspic-
uously absent from the compendium, Social Inequality, edited by André Beteille
(1984). The same is the case with Amartya Sen’s work.
Sen does not refer to Ambedkar in his small but informative and analytical tract
Social Exclusion (2004). René Lenoir (1974) is credited with the authorship of the
term ‘social exclusion’ (Who would recollect the lamentation of Dalit writers such
as Ambedkar over the fate of ‘Bahishkrit Bharat’ [Excluded India or the Excluded
from India or in Ambedkar’s biographer Dhananjay Keer’s words, ‘Ostracized India’]
since the beginning of the preceding century?). Sen traces the trajectory of devel-
opment of the idea and value underlying the concept of social exclusion from the
Aristotelian thought through Adam Smith’s notion of relational features of ‘capa-
bility deprivation’ of the socio-economically marginalized to deliberations by the
recent western writers expanding the meaning of the term. The European prove-
nance of the concept does not, Sen points out, bar its application elsewhere (ibid:17).
For instance, the concern for ‘fraternity’, first expressly articulated during the French
Revolution of 1789, stresses the need for prevention of ‘exclusion’ of individuals and
groups from the community of people just as consideration of equality pushes people
everywhere along the line of commitment to the avoidance of poverty. Consideration
for fraternity is, experience shows, found to prevail across countries today. Strikingly,
equality is coupled with fraternity in the writings of Ambedkar. He tries to impress
upon his countrymen the need for treating their neighbours with mutual respect and
thus putting an end to the social exclusion of those who are denied of it. He has, as
if, ‘anticipated’ thinkers like Sen in this respect. However, Sen’s analysis of social
exclusion, even his explication of ‘constitutive relevance of social distance’ hardly
captures and conveys the collective agony and despair of the tens and thousands
of socially excluded ex-untouchables in India as does the discourse by Ambedkar
himself, an actual victim of this exclusion. Writes Ambedkar in his submission to the
Southborough committee in 1919: ‘The untouchables, generally regarded as objects
of pity, are ignored in any political scheme on the score that they have no interests
to protect. And yet their interests are the greatest. Not that they have large property
to protect from confiscation. But they have their persona confiscated. The socio-
religious disabilities have dehumanized the untouchables and their interests at stake
are therefore the interests of humanity. The interests of property are nothing, before
such primary interests’ (Ambedkar, 2014 [1919]:255; emphasis added, persona is
italicized in the original). Millennia-old socio-cultural denial of minimum social
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 105

dignity to them has rendered the untouchables an emaciated lot bereft of any agency
of thinking and acting for changing their destiny (cf. ibid. para 21:255–256).
(c) Role of the Lived Experience in Sociological Understanding
The preceding paragraph brings to light the third element of significance of
Ambedkar’s thought for the students of sociology. It privileges the subjective aspect of
sociological analysis above the conventionally stressed ‘objective’ view. The former
lets the audience learn the nature of ‘lived experience’ of the person, group, or
community under consideration and thus reckon with the reality (Ramanujam, 2020).
Students of social sciences often give this feature/fact a miss in their narratives or
analyses. Dealing with ‘lived experience’, one is required to take a more cautious view
than what is suggested by Ramanujam and many others. As Sundar Sarukkai reminds
us, lived experience is not just about living any experience in the sense that people
participate in an experience. In order to appreciate and help others appreciate the
ethical and epistemological role played by lived experience and establish its authen-
ticity, one should restrict the use of lived experience to those experiences only ‘that
are seen as necessary, experiences over which the subject has no choice of whether
to experience or not…Even if the experience is unpleasant, there is no choice that
allows the subject to leave or modify it’ (Sarukkai, 2015:35, Sarukkai’s emphasis).
The person living through the experience ‘comes to the experience not as a subject
who has some control over that experience but as one who will have to live with
that experience…All this makes lived experience different from experience’ (idem,
emphasis in original). Ambedkar was one of the first in this country to have used
the searchlight of social inquiry to make explicit the nature of excruciating anguish
originating in the lived experience of the (ex-) untouchables in India. He did insist on
elevating the problem of ‘confiscation of persona’ of the untouchables by the caste
Hindus to the level of infringement of the right of the humanity and thus implicitly
suggest universalization and theorization of the problem. But he had serious diffi-
culty with the condescending attitude of the savarna Hindus and their leaders to the
communities suffering untouchability since the former lacked in empathy with the
untouchables and their ‘lived experience’. One cannot, as Ambedkar’s stress on the
untouchable/Dalit subjectivity seems to indicate, have a Dalit experience unless one
is a Dalit oneself or at least experiences what it means to be a Dalit subject with no
choice to be otherwise (cf. Sarukkai, 2015). But, in that case, how to globalize the
issue of oppression and deprivation suffered by the Dalits so that the ambit of the
protesters against it can be enlarged?
The emergent dilemma centering around the simultaneity of the need for emphasis
on the particularity of experience of a specific community such as the Dalits and the
urgency for its theorization (on the basis of universally comprehended and shared
Reason) continues to haunt today’s Indian sociologists, especially Dalit Scholars
such as Gopal Guru (Guru & Sarukkai, 2015). Whether it is ethically wrong, Guru
seemingly wonders, to theorize about the experience when one has not experienced
the same oneself (ibid:43). The issue recurs to younger Dalit scholars represented
by Suraj Yengde (2019). Yengde expressly registers his anger at the dominant
106 S. K. Bhattacharyya

caste supremacists who, taking resort to the justification that caste is not physi-
cally distinguishable like race or gender, inveigle themselves into positions from
where, they claim, they can speak for the oppressed Dalits (ibid, Introduction:36).
Yengde rubbishes the claim since the non-Dalits have never suffered ‘the cosmolog-
ical servility [which] is attached to my presence [and suffering as a Dalit in a caste/
Brahminism dominated world]’ (ibid, Chap. 1:42, emphasis and parentheses added).
He deplores that even many educated and well-placed Dalits are found wanting in
any authentic taste of the denial of human status to Dalits. They have experienced
caste through class and colour complexes, ‘not as it is actually lived’ (ibid:123). In
the same breath he calls upon all the marginalized, oppressed, and exploited of the
world suffering the inequities and inequalities of capitalism, especially the African
Americans and Dalits, to revolt against the current systems of invidious discrimina-
tion against them (ibid, Chap. 4). It is difficult to ascertain as to how one succeeds in
universalizing the peculiarity or uniqueness of lived experience of the Dalits in the
Indian caste system for all segments and varieties of the disinherited of the earth who
may in only one respect, or another be akin to but not necessarily quite the same with
the Dalits who had or have to suffer ‘Dalit-ness’ imposed on the ex-untouchables of
India. Ambedkar’s writings and discourses by the Ambedkarites merit serious study
for further light on the issue.

7.4 His Life is His Lesson

Perusal of the biography and milieu of Ambedkar reveals the series of conundrums
which a Dalit in India must face in dealing with the asymmetries afflicting the multi-
layered socio-cultural reality in the country and also the ways in which he seeks
to resolve them. Bhimrao Ambedkar was born on 14 April 1892 in Mhow near
Indore where his father Ramji Sakpal worked as an instructor in the local military
school. He belonged to the then untouchable Mahar caste in Maharashtra which
strove hard to mitigate the harshness of experience of the social evil by joining the
British Army. Employment in the army was one of the opportunities the British
provided for the Depressed castes such as Mahar for a variety of reasons. Feelings
against untouchability had, however, been operative in India before the advent of the
British Raj.
(a) The Ambience of Allegiance to the Bhakti Tradition and Its Gradual Supers-
ession by Gradually More Vociferous Protests Against the Inequities of Caste
System
The ambience in the Deccan and farther south in the Tamil country had been reverber-
ating the sentiment and sensibility opposing caste and untouchability and bolstering
the spirit of love and solicitude of everyone for everyone else, as embodied in the lore
of Bhakti tradition in the North. It, simultaneously, gave birth to its own variety of
saints and poets and folksingers deploring the caste-distinctions and untouchability
and praising the equality of all beings.
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 107

With the passage of time came the social reformers of modern times, such as
Jotirao Phule (1827–1890) in Maharashtra. The Satyashodhak Samaj lobbied under
Phule’s guidance for the promotion of policies by the British Government that would
benefit the farmers and labourers who came under the caste category of ‘Shudras’ and
remained hitherto in bondage to Brahmins, Bhats, Joshis, Priests, and the like. It ‘may
be fairly said that with Jotirao Phule the low-caste, non-Aryan, peasant masses of
India came to consciousness’ (Omvedt, 2007:4). Jotirao Phule opened several schools
which admitted children from untouchable castes of Mangs and Mahars. He was aided
by his worthy wife, Savitribai, who resolutely fought against Brahminism, Casteism
and Untouchability, and Patriarchy. Another noteworthy figure was ‘The Subaltern
Feminist’ Tarabai Shinde (born in the 1850). Her critique of gender relations in the
Indian society ‘remains one of the most powerful pieces of social criticism ever
written by an Indian’ (Guha, 2010:129). Tarabai’s feminist interpretation of Hindu
epics exposes even renouncers and gods as lustful predators always in search of pretty
women (cf. O’Hanlon (ed.) 1994).
In tune with the tradition of Guru Nanak, Ramananda, Namdev, Kabir, Vasava,
and in Assam Sankardev (1419–1568) preached his Ekasarana dharma transgressing
Brahminical rituals and caste. In Bengal and Odisa, the (neo-) Vaishnav movement
spearheaded by Sri Chaitanya (1486–1534) emphasized the path of Bhakti (devo-
tion) to the Lord in repudiation of Brahminical rites and rituals and caste (-and-
community) distinctions and paved the way for social and religious uplift of the
socially degraded (Bose, 1976 [1949]). Though it lost its initial momentum with the
passage of time, multiple socio-religious sects countering the casteist Brahmanism
continued to emerge in Bengal and adjacent places (Datta as cited in Bose, 1976).
One of such sects (gaining importance in recent times) was that of the Matuas of
Bengal. The sect was organized by Harichand Thakur (1812–1878) and continued
by his descendants among the ex-untouchable Namasudra caste of Bengal (Bandy-
opadhay, 2004, 2011). It frontally attacked Brahminism and casteism, and a section
of Ambedkarites today feel interested in bringing the Matuas in their fold (Chaudhuri
2019).
In Travancore (now in Kerala), Narayana Guru (1856–1928) coming of the then
avarna Ezhavas (now treated by the Government of India as Other Backward Class)
came to assert the status of the avarnas and their right to temple entry through his
efforts to spread his philosophy: One Caste, One Religion, One God (Chandramohan,
1987).
In the Tamil land (Madras), E. V. Ramaswami (1879–1973) took radical stands in
favour of atheism (that would uproot the Hindu religious order sustaining caste and
untouchability), women’s rights, and contraception. His ‘Self-Respect’ Movement
called for an end to the domination of South India by North India and of non-Brahmins
by Brahmins. Ramaswami was a Kannada-speaking Naiker, from a caste belonging
to ‘the upper stratum of Sudras’ but worked as a professed warrior against untoucha-
bility. Western education facilitated the emergence of leaders of anti-untouchability
movements in the south from the untouchables themselves. Two noteworthy figures
were M. C. Rajah and Dewan Bahadur Srinivasan. The latter was chosen to argue
for the interests of his community at the Round-Table Conferences in 1930–32 along
108 S. K. Bhattacharyya

with B. R. Ambedkar. Probably it is in view of the presence of perceptible anti-caste

and anti-untouchability movements also in the South that Beteille observes that it is
‘an accident of history that in Maharashtra the Harijans found a leader of the stature
of Dr. Ambedkar who succeeded in a fairly short time in investing them with a degree
of political consciousness on the whole absent elsewhere’ (Beteille, 1991:110).
The Bhakti Movement and critiques of casteist Brahmins had an enduring effect on
Ambedkar’s parents and Ambedkar himself. Ramji, Ambedkar’s father, was deeply
attached to the devotional and mystical Varkari sect. He became a follower of Kabir-
panth and was an admirer of Jotirao Phule. The household was filled with the reso-
nance of devotional singing and recitation of prayers from holy texts. Ambedkar’s
mother, Bhimabai, too came of a Kabirpanthi family which boasted of several gener-
ations of military service in the British Army. The piety to a divinity that looks on all
beings with an equal eye, enshrined in the Bhakti tradition followed by his parents,
came to influence Ambedkar also. He inscribed his work, The untouchables: Who
Were They? And Why They Became untouchables (BAWS Vol. 7 (2)) to the memory of
Nandnar, the only Dalit saint in and from the Nayanars, Ravidas from the untouchable
Chamar (leather worker) caste, and Chokhamela (a saint from the Mahars)–‘the three
renowned saints who were born among the untouchables and who by their piety and
virtue won the esteem of all’. Though, Ambedkar eventually developed most serious
reservations regarding the effectivity of Bhakti saints and their followers in wiping
out untouchability from the society.
(b) The First but Nerve-Shattering Experience of Suffering Untouchability
On his retirement with a pension from the army, Ramji Sakpal came to Satara and
in no time found a job in Goregaon. Ambedkar began his studies at Satara where a
Brahmin teacher changed his surname from Ambavadekar to Ambedkar. However,
several serious misfortunes befell the boy at Satara. As Ambedkar noted in his
Conversion as Emancipation, his mother passed away when he ‘was barely five
years old’ (Ambedkar, 2004:1). The second calamity was the first shock of cruelty
of untouchability by the society dominated by the casteist Brahminical values. In
spite of ‘the presence of so many barbers [in the vicinity] no barber was prepared
to cut our hair’ (ibid:2, parenthesis added). The next horrible experience relating to
this period was the refusal of service of bullock-cart drivers at Goregaon Railway
Station to Ambedkar and his siblings for their covering the distance from the railway
station to the place of their father’s temporary residence. The reason was their status
as ‘Untouchable’ (idem). Incredible though it seems, Ambedkar who did not then
cross his boyhood had himself to drive the only available cart all the way from the
railway station to his father’s dwelling through a sleepless night without adequate
food and potable water. At last, the team ‘reached Goregaon on the following day in
the afternoon, utterly exhausted and almost half-dead’ (ibid:3). The cart-man who
hired out the bullock-cart ‘quietly boarded the cart [as the journey started] and sat
beside us’ [all the way] (ibid:2–3, parenthesis added).3 The harrowing experience
left an indelible mark on Ambedkar’s psyche, which had to face even more perilous
forms of the practice of untouchability in his later days.
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 109

After the family moved to Bombay, Ambedkar matriculated from the Elphinstone
High School. He then got admitted to the reputed Elphinstone College; his fees were
paid by the Maharaja of Baroda, a progressive soul among the savarna Hindus.
Ambedkar obtained his B.A. in 1912, whereupon he joined the service of the Baroda
state. Record of the treatment of his savarna colleagues to him during the period
remains untraced.
In 1913, the Maharaja sent Ambedkar to the USA for higher studies. He joined
the Columbia University in New York, where he first composed a Master’s thesis
(not a doctoral dissertation as informed by Sant Ramji of Jat-pat-Todak Mandal
in Appendix 1 to Ambedkar, 2007a, b) on the Indian caste system. He completed
his doctoral thesis in Columbia on provincial finance in British India under the
guidance of economist E. R. A. Seligman. Ambedkar came in contact also with the
pragmatist and liberal philosopher John Dewey who too then taught in Columbia.
The philosopher had an abiding influence on Ambedkar. His notion of endosmosis
suggesting the need for unhindered horizontal and vertical mobility of the units of
a system through its length and breadth deeply impressed Ambedkar (Ambedkar,
2007a, b; Dewey, 2004; Kumar, 2020).
(c) Devastating Ostracism Despite Dazzling Achievement in the Academic
Domain Abroad
In 1916, Ambedkar moved to London. He enrolled in Grey’s Inn and prepared for
another Doctorate at the London School of Economics. But his scholarship ran out,
and he was called back to Baroda, where he got appointed to the position of Military
Secretary to the Maharaja (Probationer in the Accountant General’s Office–WV
(Amabedkar, 1990b)). It may be unbelievable but was harshly true that Ambedkar
could not continue in office beyond the second day after joining it since he could not
get a house to live in at Baroda because of his being a member of the untouchable
Mahar caste. ‘Neither a Hindu nor a Muslim was prepared to rent out a house to me in
the city of Baroda’ (Ambedkar, 2004). He was driven out even of the Parsi Dharamsala
that granted him temporary lodging by a gang of Parsis (not observing Hindu caste
rules themselves) who ‘got wind of the fact that His Highness the Maharaja Gaikwad
of Baroda had appointed a Mahar boy as an officer in the Durbar’ (ibid). They detected
the ‘Mahar boy’ in ‘Adalji Sorabji’ in whose disguise he secured accommodation
in the Dharamsala on payment of rent. In his daylong search for a dwelling, he met
only refusal from one and all he could approach. ‘Seeing no hope of getting a house,
and no alternative but to quit, I tendered my resignation and left for Bombay by the
night train’ (idem.). Before proceeding with further developments in Ambedkar’s
life, one may pause awhile to ponder over whether and how far it is possible for
any savarna Hindu (not to speak of the Brahmins) to gain the ‘lived experience’ of
discrimination and forcibly imposed social exclusion encountered by a member of
the avarna or untouchable community which Ambedkar belonged to. Also, another
query that impinges pari passu on inquisitive minds is whether and to what extent
it is feasible for an avarna or an untouchable person who has undergone the ‘lived
experience’ of the horribleness of segregation and hatred hurled on him and his
brethren by the exclusionist Brahmins and other savarnas to forget the same and
110 S. K. Bhattacharyya

live with dignity and in amity with the segregationists within the same societal and
political frame.
Ambedkar, himself an ex-untouchable and a rebellious and acutely sensitive
witness to the multiform harassment and humiliation, depression and oppression,
disablement, and disinheritance of the ‘Antyajas’ or ‘untouchables’ by the ‘touch-
ables’ in the caste-governed society following Hinduism (Ambedkar [AOC], 2007b
[1936]:4–6), gave an emphatic ‘no’ to both the above queries. The embittered soul
asks his brethren and sistren: ‘what is the sense in living in a society which does not
protect you or treat you as a human being? …and never misses an opportunity to
hurt you [?]. Any person with an iota of self-respect and decency would not like to
remain in this satanic religion [of Hinduism]’ (Ambedkar (CAE) 2004:6). In logical
consistency with the foregoing, Ambedkar most strongly denied M. K. Gandhi and
any other savarna Hindu the role of representative of the untouchables or Dalits and
advocate of their interests (Ambedkar (GEU) 2006). Fortified with gradually growing
conviction, he remained unruffled by Gandhi’s quip, ‘Thank God, in the front rank
of leaders [of the depressed classes] he [i.e., Ambedkar] is singularly alone and as
yet but a representative of a very small minority’ (Harijan, July 1936, Appendix
I to Ambedkar, 2007a, b [1936], BAWS, vol. 1, p.81, parentheses added). Indeed,
much before he came to register his opposition to Gandhi’s claim of representing the
interests of untouchables, Ambedkar had begun to develop himself as a competent
and true protagonist of the cause of the untouchables or Depressed classes since his
departure from Baroda.
(d) Passage to Politics of, for, and by the Untouchables Through Journalism
On reaching Bombay from Baroda, Ambedkar started tutoring for a living. He became
also politically active. With funds from Sahuji Maharaj, the Maharaja of Kohlapur,
who too was, like Ambedkar’s benefactor at Baroda, a critic of the Brahmins’ stifling
control of society and politics in western India, Ambedkar started a fortnightly paper
for the Depressed Classes (as the untouchables were then legally known). The journal
Mooknayak (The Leader of the Mute) first appeared on 31 January 1920.
A century ago, Ambedkar realized that most of the newspapers in Bombay and
in India as a whole were steeped in caste-based politics and worked for the contin-
uance of the caste-dominated socio-political and economic system which inflicted
immeasurable mischief and miseries on the hapless outcastes. They perpetuated
the hatred for the untouchables and never published any single item pertaining to
the sufferings of the untouchables and remedial measures against the same. Their
voice remained unheard and went unheeded. The Mooknayak (the Leader of the
Mute/Muted/Voiceless) was considered by Ambedkar and his patron(s) and admirers
the desideratum. Just beneath the mast of the Mooknayak was printed the quatrain
composed by Marathi Bhakti poet Tukaram:
‘Why should I feel shy?

I have laid aside hesitation and opened my mouth.

Here, on earth, no notice is taken of a dumb creature.

7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 111

No real good can be secured by over-modesty’.

The journal engaged in a sustained critique of the caste-based Brahminical socio-

political order of India and articulation of the problems and suffering of the untouch-
able and also their demands for corrective measures. Indeed, all the journals initi-
ated, edited, or organized by Ambedkar unflinchingly served the mission set out in
the Mooknayak. The publication of Mooknayak came to a halt after three years. But
Ambedkar’s onslaught on the iniquitous and inegalitarian caste-society continued
through his journalistic skill and venture as evidenced in the publications of the
Bahishkrit Bharat (Ostracized India) launched on 3 April 1927, the Samta (Equality
or Egalitarianism) started on 29 June 1928, the Janata (Masses) inaugurated on 25
November 1930, and the Prabuddha Bharat (Awakened India) released first on 4
February 1956 (Siddharth, 26 January 2020). According to Raj Bahadur, Janata was
transformed into Prabuddha Bharat in consonance with Ambedkar’s embracing the
path of the Buddha (Enlightened) (Bahadur, 2017).
All the aforementioned journals were greeted with relentless hostility of the
casteist press of India. The Kesari (founded and edited by Bal Gangadhar Tilak)
refused, for example, to publish a simple announcement regarding the inauguration
of the first issue of Mooknayak. The Kesari not only declined to publish it free of
cost (according to the then well-established convention in the press circle) but also
dishonoured the request to do it even after the proposal for paying advertisement
charges. Ambedkar later regretted it in the pages of Bahishkrit Bharat. The adverse
criticism of Ambedkar’s journalistic and other efforts towards voicing the interests
of Dalits in the Kesari, Bombay Chronicle, and the like could not deter Ambedkar
or draw him back from pursuing his mission. Open letters from the commoners
regarding insult, injuries, or atrocities to them proved the modicum of success of the
paper in initiating organized mass-based Dalit politics.
The papers launched or organized by Ambedkar were published in Marathi to
make them intelligible for the generality of outcastes in the Maratha country. They
were lowly priced. Hence, no steady fund was available for their sustenance. Also,
no regular and substantive donation nor any steady advertisement was secured.
Despite the short life of the journals due to the above reasons, the historic role
they played in arousing ‘the consciousness of kind’ of the Dalits and in promoting
their activism to fight for their cause can hardly be overemphasized. Ambedkar spent
his time, energy, and even money for their publication while he deprived his wife
and other family members of the necessary wherewithal for even a modestly liveable
life.
Ambedkar started exposing the basic vulnerability of the institution of caste for a
people claiming to have social solidarity and encountering the forces and processes
of social change. Apart from his activism in inspiring and organizing the untouch-
ables for their struggle against the ‘touchables’ of the Indian society to establish
an egalitarian order endowed with fraternity, he shared his knowledge of anthro-
pology/sociology (gained by him in Columbia, Ambedkar, 1916) with his audience
through his ingeniousness in furnishing suitable analogies for analysing the Indian
caste system in the very first issue of Mooknayak: ‘The castes which constitute the
112 S. K. Bhattacharyya

so-called Hindu society are arranged in a hierarchy. Hindu society is like a tower,
each floor of which is allotted to one caste. The point worth remembering is that this
tower has no staircase and therefore there is no way of climbing up or down from
one floor to another. The floor on which one is born is also the floor on which one
dies. No matter how meritorious a person from a lower floor might be, there is no
avenue for him to climb up to the upper floor. Likewise, there is no means by which
a person entirely devoid of merit can be relegated to a floor beneath the one to which
he has been assigned… The interrelationship between castes is not founded upon the
logic of worth… Because of the strict taboos against inter-dining and inter-marriage
between members of lower and upper castes, the respective caste bodies are destined
to remain always already segregated from each other’. Messages based on sociolog-
ical insight into the contradictions in the status quo were spread among the common
people in all the journals with which Ambedkar was associated. They worked hard
to find the ways beyond the existing oppressive system.
In 1920, Ambedkar sailed back for London for higher studies even at the cost
of psychological and material deprivation of his family. This time he provided for
himself from his savings, supplemented by a loan from a Parsi friend. His D.Sc.
thesis on the ‘problem of the rupee’ was accepted in 1923. He also qualified as a
Bar-at-Law. On coming back to Bombay, Ambedkar enrolled at the Bombay High
Court, ‘as Gandhi had once done, except that the younger man was able to main-
tain a successful legal practice’ (Guha, 2010:205). He busied himself with different
activities in the public sphere, starting, for instance, a society to spread education
among the Depressed Classes. He was nominated in 1927 to the Bombay Legislative
Council. His brilliant debut in the Council asked for the budget to be framed under
less secrecy. Meanwhile, he had also started delivering lectures at the city’s Law
College (he later served a term as its principal).
All through Ambedkar had been striving to bring to the fore the plight and prob-
lems of the untouchable community and searching for probable solutions to them.
He found no hope for deliverance of the materially wretched untouchables from their
degraded existence in the attempts of savarna social reformers or even in the deeds
of the conveyors of the Bhakti tradition. The former fought shy of any step towards
the basic change of the prevalent power structure bolstered by the varna/caste system
and displayed sort of condescending attitude to the untouchables without making
any efforts to empower them for a sustained fight against the system that perpetrated
untouchability. The saint-poets of the Bhakti tradition, beholden to the spiritual realm
pervaded by the idea of equality of one and all in the eyes of the Divine, seemed
oblivious of inequalities and inequities suffered by the untouchables in their day-to-
day life at the mundane plane. The way out of the morass lay in consolidation of the
untouchables under their own leadership for gaining political power that would put
an end to the hegemony of the savarna Hindus.
The political leaders of India contending the British rule were overwhelmingly
from the upper caste Hindus. They agitated for political reform that would ensure
measures of autonomy or freedom for the Indians from the colonial rulers from
Great Britain. But they would not work for ‘social reform’ to put an end to (what
might be deemed) ‘internal colonization’ of the mind and body of the members of
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 113

the untouchable community by the purveyors of casteist Brahminism (AOC, p.4–

5). Ambedkar, therefore, did not mind, rather, had recourse to collaboration with
the British rulers who would, scuttling the demand of Hindu Indians for political
independence, provide the members of his community with an identity distinct from
that of the Hindus and legal and political rights to assert the same.
On behalf of Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha (The Society for Welfare of the Socially
Excluded) Ambedkar in 1928 (pace Amartya Sen, supra) submitted a memorandum
on the rights and safeguards for the Depressed Classes to the Simon Commission.
The Depressed Classes should be, like the Muslims, treated as a ‘distinct indepen-
dent minority’ by the British Government. The Report of the Commission (though
abortive) did not, however, concede to the demands of the Memorandum.
(e) Direct Action by the Untouchables, if Necessary
Ambedkar also encouraged and participated in direct action for realization of the
rights of the untouchables, launching Satyagrahas for the untouchables’ access to
the water from public wells or tanks and entry into the temples, which they were
denied. There was determined opposition and even ‘open violence’ by the upper
castes. In his speech in 1927 (Dangle (ed.), 1992) on the occasion of Mahad Satya-
graha, Ambedkar alleged, ‘The caste Hindus of Mahad prevent the untouchables
from drinking the water of the Chavadar Lake not because they suppose that the
touch of the untouchables will pollute the water or that it will evaporate and vanish.
Their reason for preventing the untouchables from drinking it is that they do not
wish to acknowledge by such a permission that castes declared inferior by sacred
tradition are in fact their equals’. Untouchability patently indicates the denial, by
the Brahminical social order to the untouchable, of the minimum power or strength
and ability to live their life even with the minimal dignity. Ambedkar ceremoniously
burnt the Manusmriti on 27 December 1927 to decry publicly and collectively the
‘religious’ sanction behind the Brahminical conduct.
Ambedkar indicted the British for their failure to protect the rights of untouchables
and to forbid the savarnas to indulge in violence against the former. He warned, ‘If the
government dilly-dallied in helping the untouchables thinking that it should not rub
the savarnas the wrong way at this juncture then this would paralyze the government
and would cripple the system of governance’ (Gajbhiye, 2017:39–40).
The first three editorials of the Bahishkrit Bharat were devoted to Mahad Satya-
graha. They focused successively on the responsibility of the savarna Hindus, of
the British Government, and of the Untouchables. In the first piece of the aforemen-
tioned, written on 22 April 1927, Ambedkar stated: ‘We have to say only this much.
Till today, we believed what Mahatma Gandhi said–that untouchability is a big blot
on the Hindu religion. But now we have changed our view. We now believe that
untouchability is a blot on us. If we believed that untouchability was a blot on the
Hindu religion, we gave the responsibility of removing it to you [i.e., the savarna
Hindu]. But now that we know that it is a blot on us, we have decided to take in our
hands the sacred task of removing this blot. And we will not back out even if some
of us have to risk our life for success in this venture. You people have done the most
despicable act by purifying the tank (Chavdar Talab)’ (Gajbhiye, 2017:28–29). Even
114 S. K. Bhattacharyya

if he had an abiding faith in non-violence and democratic means, Ambedkar could

not help issuing the note of caution for the savarnas, ‘We earnestly wish that blood
is not spilt in this important endeavour for our liberation and for the liberation of our
people. But if there is blood-spilling due to the obduracy of the people stricken with
Brahmanism, we won’t be responsible for it. They should remember this’ (ibid).
Ambedkar recalled later in 1945 that even Gandhi, considered an ardent fighter
against untouchability, ‘issued a statement against the campaign of satyagraha’ by
the untouchables against the caste Hindus in 1927 or in 1929 for establishing their
civic rights in the matter of temple entry and taking water from public wells. Gandhi’s
argument was that satyagraha was to be used only against foreigners, it must not be
used against one’s kindred or countrymen. And, as the Hindus were kindred and
countrymen of the untouchables, by rules of satyagraha the latter were debarred
from the weapon against the former. ‘What a fall from the sublime to the ridicu-
lous!’ (Ambedkar 1945). In the same tract as contained the preceding narrative and
comment, Ambedkar mentioned how Gandhi advised in 1935 the untouchables of
the village of Kavitha in Ahmedabad district of Gujarat to vacate ‘the inhospitable
village’ on their suffering boycott and other life-threatening mischiefs by the caste
Hindus because of the former’s insistence on admission of their children in the
common school of the village. Gandhi did not ask the social workers following his
tenets to prosecute the savarna Hindus inflicting the boycott on the untouchables or
help the latter in any other way to vindicate their rights (ibid.).
(f) Assertion of Dalit Leadership for the Uplift of Untouchables/Dalits
Thoroughly disillusioned and disappointed with the social reformers from the ranks
of savarna Hindus, Ambedkar was convinced that social exclusion of the untouch-
ables hinges basically on the issue of distribution of power in society governed by
the institution of caste—its monopolization by the caste-Hindus and its denial to the
‘Depressed Classes’. Social reform changing the destiny of the untouchables could,
therefore, be brought by the latter through their own leaders who would effect it with
the help of purposive action of the state then controlled and directed by the British
power. He led the political agitation for greater representation for the depressed
classes at all levels of public service and, finally, for separate electorates for them in
the emerging dispensation of power.
At the end of the Second Round-Table Conference in 1932, Ambedkar scored a
remarkable victory over Gandhi when the MacDonald Award (Ramsay MacDonald
was the then Prime Minister of Great Britain) granted a separate electorate for ‘the
Depressed Classes’, which was stiffly opposed by Gandhi. In protest, Gandhi went
on a fast unto death in Yerawada Jail of Poona. The Communal Award left space
for changes if the communities concerned suggested and agreed on an alternative
scheme. Through this leeway, Ambedkar was persuaded to agree to a compromise to
save the life of Gandhi. The resultant agreement, known as the Poona Pact, accepted a
joint electorate of the Depressed Classes with the Hindus but with a larger number of
seats reserved for the former. Ambedkar rued this decision for the rest of his life—
the opportunity for untouchables to free themselves from the thraldom of casteist
Hindus was lost forever. The joint electorate was to him a mechanism for selecting a
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 115

member of the Depressed Classes, who was acceptable to caste Hindus and pliable
by them rather than someone who would authentically represent the interest of the
untouchables (Ambedkar, MGEU, 2006 [1943]:14–15). However, the limited gain
made by the untouchables paved the way for their legal safeguards in the Indian
Constitution of 1950.
Through the 1930s and 1940s, Ambedkar essayed a series of tracts of carping
criticism of Hindus and Hinduism, Gandhi and Gandhism. He formed in 1936 the
independent Labour Party to fight the elections mandated under the new Government
of India Act of 1935. The party changed its name twice in later years—becoming,
subsequently, the Republican Party of India. In June 1942, he was nominated to the
Viceroy’s Executive Council, the first untouchable to be so distinguished. But, this
set him more firmly in opposition to the Congress, which in August of the same year
started its Quit India Movement.
It is noteworthy that Ambedkar could not later get himself elected to pre-Partition
India’s Constituent Assembly from Bombay or any other part of Maharashtra. He
went there with the backing from Jogendra Nath Mandal, a Depressed Class leader,
from Bengal. After Partition, of course, the Congress got him in the Constituent
Assembly of India in place of Dr. Jaykar who resigned. He was, in recognition of
his astute legal acumen and extensive knowledge of the constitutions of modern
states, made the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly.
As a chief architect of the Constitution for the emerging Republic, he displayed the
qualities of a modern intellectual and visionary who strove hard to design a political
and administrative framework for a society having a linkage with a millennia-old
tradition, part of which proved incongruous with the needs of life in the modern
world, and simultaneously attempting to secure for its members democracy, liberty,
equality, and fraternity as also individual dignity and national integrity.
The new Congress Government of independent India offered Ambedkar the port-
folio of law minister. He served in the post for four years before resigning in
September 1951. By then he became intensely attracted to the Buddha whose message
he assiduously perused and whom he came to refer to as ‘my master’. Completely
frustrated with the working of Hinduism, irredeemably sunk in the mire of inequity
and inequality resulting in untouchability, Ambedkar declared at Yeola, Nasik, on
13 October 1935: ‘I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu’. He redeemed
his pledge after two decades by converting to Buddhism in October 1956 in the city
of Nagpur. Six weeks later, he passed away in New Delhi.
(g) Struggle at Home and in the World: Ramabai and Savita Ambedkar
Babasaheb was accompanied by his second wife Dr. Savita Ambedkar in the Dhamma
Deeksha Ceremony at Nagpur in 1956. His first wife, Ramabai, was no longer beside
him to witness Bhimrao’s fulfillment of the promise he made to her to create a new
egalitarian sacred space (at Deekshabhumi) when the couple was denied entry into
the interior of the temple of Vithova at Pandharpur because of their untouchable caste.
After a protracted struggle against perpetual financial stringency verging at times on
penury and also the inequity of the social system dominated by Brahminism, she had
breathed her last on 27 May 1935.
116 S. K. Bhattacharyya

Suraj Yengde aptly highlights the importance of nurturing legends in Dalit lore
and literature about subaltern female figures such as Ramabai Ambedkar and Savitri
Phule along with the deeds of their male spouses. ‘The female icons have varying
characteristics; some demand valour, while some epitomize strong motherhood, some
ask to rebel against patriarchal culture while some ask to be loyal wives’ (op. cit.
Ch. 3, p.137). But, struggled they must have and struggle they must for eking out a
living with an iota of dignity in society.
Born in a poor Depressed Class family Ramabai was married at the age of nine
to a teenager Bhimrao. Ramabai lost four out of her five children. Without adequate
nutrition and medical facilities, they died infants. Ramabai herself slept sometimes
on an empty stomach. The sufferance endured by the couple blurred the line between
private space in the family and the public sphere in relation to amelioration of the
conditions of the lowliest in the social hierarchy governed by caste. How the two
of them sacrificed their personal happiness and peace on the altar of social work
for altering the conditions of Dalits was described by Ambedkar in the editorial, ‘Is
Bahishkrit Bharat’s debt not public debt?’ published in B. B. on 3 February 1928:
This writer: who wrote 24 columns for Bahishkrit Bharat for a year for spreading social
awareness without getting a penny in return and who, while doing this, did not care about
his health, happiness, and peace–she (Ramabai) made him the cynosure of her eyes. That is
not all. When this writer was abroad, she carried the burden of the family on her shoulders
and still does that. Even after this writer was back from abroad, she did not flinch in carrying
basketfuls of cow dung on her head during periods of financial distress. And this writer could
not find even half an hour in 24 hours for this extremely affectionate, amiable and venerable
wife (cf. Gajbhiye, 2017:152).

Ramabai, herself deprived of formal education, could anticipate the importance

of higher studies by her husband in changing the destiny of her community. She
did not dissuade her ‘Saheb’ from proceeding first to America and then to England
though it meant, she knew, acute financial distress for herself and the children. The
consequent under-nutrition and starvation and grief over the loss of her children cut
her life short. She died at the age of 36. Bhimrao deeply mourned her death. He
dedicated his Thoughts on Pakistan in the most touching words to her (Ambedkar,
1941). Ramabai is remembered and revered also in several other pieces of literature
and the two biopics on her in Marathi and Kannada. It is entirely in the fitness of
things that a statue of Matoshree Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar was unveiled by Shri
Ram Nath Kovind, the erstwhile honourable President of India, in a ceremony at
Pune on 30 May 2018.
Deeply devoted to the memory of Ramabai, Ambedkar decided not to marry again.
But, because of his ailments due to high blood pressure and diabetes he married at last
Dr. Savita Ambedkar (27 January 1909−29 May 2003) who offered him the necessary
medical guidance. Savita (Sharada) Kavir came from a ‘progressive’ Brahmin family
of Bombay Presidency. Her marriage to Bhimrao took place by registration under
the Civil Marriage Act. She was a constant source of inspiration for Ambedkar’s
drafting of the Indian Constitution and his composition of Buddha and His Dhamma
and other writings. A social activist in her own right, Savita actively participated in
the promotion of the egalitarian movement of Buddhism (Navayana) and uplifting the
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 117

lot of Dalits. Besides her helping Ambedkar’s work in public, she took utmost care
of Babasaheb’s family life and health. In gratitude, Ambedkar noted in the Preface
to his Buddha and His Dhamma that Savita’s personal care extended his life for ten
years.
It is curious to note that Savita’s overly zealous care of Ambedkar’s daily living
and health made her suspect in the eyes of even Ambedkar’s son. She was accused
of killing Ambedkar by slow poisoning though the charge was dismissed after inves-
tigation. Savita remained steadfast to the ideal of Ambedkar and, therefore, thrice
refused the offer of membership of Rajya Sabha extended to her by political leaders
not subscribing to Ambedkar’s ideas. She continued to engage in ameliorating the
conditions of the Dalits, the neo-Buddhists.

7.5 Ambedkar and Contradictions in the Structure

and Process of Indian Society

Ambedkar’s critical analysis of the society and culture of India sought to meet the
contradictions besetting it. Ambedkar’s foregrounding the valour of the ‘Untouch-
able’ Mahar soldiers in the Bheema-Koregaon Battle may be juxtaposed with his
admiration for M. G. Ranade deploring the final defeat of the Peshwas at Kirkee.
Moreover, his movement for participation of the (ex-) untouchables alongside the
Brahmins in Ganesh Utsav in Bombay and exclamation on the killing of Gandhi by
a Maharashtrian are also worth mentioning here.
First, the events at Koregaon by the side of river Bheema, in Poona may be taken
up. On 1 January 1818 at the village of Koregaon on the banks of river Bheema a 900-
soldier-strong British Army including the Mahars and other Indian natives foiled the
attempts of 2000-strong army (backed by a contingent of another 18,000 soldiers) of
Peshwas to teach the former a lesson. Neither side won a decisive battle. The British
troops did, however, manage to recover their guns and carry the wounded officers
and footmen back to their camp at Seroor. The success of the British side in thwarting
the Marathas was declared to be ‘one of the proudest triumphs of the British army in
the East’ (cited in Kumbhojkar, 2012), and an obelisk was erected at the battle site to
commemorate it. The list of casualties inscribed on the memorial includes more than
twenty names which ended with the suffix ‘___nac’, e.g., Esnac, Gunnac, Rynac. The
use of the suffix was restricted to the untouchables of the Mahar caste that loyally
served the troops of the British East India Company (Kumbhojkar, 2012). The rest
of the natives in the troop at Koregaon were, however, not untouchables. The Mahars
spotlighted the Bheema-Koregaon Battle to harp on the bravery and martial quality
of their forefathers, i.e., the virtues which were denied of the untouchable Mahars
by the caste system upheld by the Peshwa regime. The Mahar leader Shivram Janba
Kamble organized quite a few meetings of the Mahars at the memorial site in the
initial decades of the twentieth century. Kamble invited Ambedkar, who gained by
then prominence in Indian politics, to Koregaon on the anniversary of the battle on
118 S. K. Bhattacharyya

1 January 1927. Ambedkar immediately recognized the significance of the memorial

for carrying forward the battle for emancipation of the untouchables. He delivered
an inspiring speech on the occasion and also broached and bolstered the idea of
reviving, through annual visits to the site of the obelisk, the memory of the valour
of the untouchables’ forefathers trouncing the vanity of the Peshwas upholding the
oppressive Brahminical order in the Maratha country.
In fact, many Ambedkarites have a different meaning of nationalism and foreign
power. To wit, the manifesto of the short-lived Anti-Revolutionary Party organized
by Kamble declared: ‘The Party will regard British rule as absolutely necessary until
the complete removal of untouchability’. Ambedkar shared the mentality of Kamble
though he did not put the matter that bluntly. It should, of course, be noted here that
in the very year 1927, Ambedkar wrote in ‘Elimination of Untouchability’, the fifth
editorial of his journal Bahishkrit Bharat:
In our view the British rule and the Brahminical rule are like the two leeches stuck to the
bodies of The Hindu People and they are incessantly sucking the blood of the Indian People.
The British rule has enslaved the bodies of the people while the Brahminical rule has enslaved
their soul (mind). The British rule has exploited the health of India while Brahminical rule has
deprived it of the mental wealth of self-respect (Gajbhiye (ed) 2017: 33, emphases added).

However, a slightly different attitude is revealed in Ambedkar’s evaluation of the

reactions of M. G. Ranade to the British conquest of the Maratha territory in the
Battle of Kirkee (or Khadki) near Ganeshkhind, Poona (Pune). Babasaheb did, in
his address to the Deccan Sabha in 1943, record that a section of the population was
happy that the ‘cursed rule of the Brahmin Peshwas’ was brought to end by the battle.
‘But there can be no doubt that a large majority of the people of Maharashtra were
stunned by the event. When the whole of India was’, continues Ambedkar, ‘enveloped
by the foreign horde and its people being subjugated piece by piece, here in this little
corner of Maharashtra lived a sturdy race who knew what liberty was, who had fought
for it inch by inch and established over miles after miles. By the British conquest they
had lost what was to them most precious possession’ (Ambedkar, (2014), (1943) in
Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah contained in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and
Speeches [BAWS] vol. 1, p.216, 2014 reprint, emphases added).
Ranade like other sensitive Maharashtrians could not but bemoan the defeat of
the Marathas at the hands of the British. But, he had, Ambedkar points out, the
unflinching faith that ‘[t]his country of ours is the true land of promise. This race of
ours is the chosen race’ (idem.). He engaged in a dispassionate analysis of the causes
of downfall, which lay in several points of weakness of the caste-ridden Hindu society
and its religious system. It is admirable of Ranade that he founded and nurtured the
Social Conference to remedy the evils. Though, his efforts failed, regrets Ambedkar,
in the face of resistance by the socially conservative dominating the political leaders
of India who prioritized political freedom over social freedom for all the people of the
country. The significance of Ambedkar’s appreciation for Ranade’s concern over the
fate of the Marathas and their probable resurrection even after his bitter experience
with the Poona Pact would hardly be missed by the perusers of his writings.
Ambedkar even sought to alleviate the anxieties of those Indians who opposed
the partition of India lest the country sans the Muslims become vulnerable to foreign
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 119

aggression with the assurance that there ‘is enough fighting material in Hindustan’.
In addition to the Sikhs and Rajputs, ‘there are Mahrattas who proved their calibre as
a fighting race during the last European War’ (Ambedkar, 1945, Chapter V, Section
III). He exclaimed that ‘who does not recall that the Mahrattas who set out to destroy
the Muslim empire in India became a menace to the rest of the Hindus whom they
kept under their yoke for nearly a century’ (ibid, Introduction).
But, how could Babasaheb condone the casteist Marathas’ obstruction to the
entry of the Mahars and other untouchable aspirants into the British Army? After
the Mutiny when the British began to recruit soldiers from the ranks of Marathas,
the position of the low-caste men who had been the backbone of the Bombay Army
became precarious, not because the Marathas were better soldiers ‘but because their
theological bias prevented them from serving under low-caste officers. The prejudice
was so strong that even non-caste British must stop recruitment from the untouchable
caste’ (Ambedkar, 1919. Evidence before the Southborough Committee on Franchise
included in BAWS 2nd edn. 2014, vol. 1, pp. 261–262).
Meandering is the course of history and sometimes inscrutable is its meaning.
Ambedkar got Keshav Sitaram Thackeray Prabodhankar, an anti-caste activist and
social reformer (and father of erstwhile Shiv Sena Supremo Bal Thackeray), as a
comrade in a movement to facilitate the participation of the untouchables alongside
the Brahmins, in the worship of Ganesh in Ganesh Utsav in Dadar in Bombay. The
movement attained a partial success though it could not rid the organizing committee
of the Utsav of the ‘toxic upper caste authoritarianism’ wielded by the Brahmins.
As a counter-response to the Brahminical dominance in Ganesh Utsav, the public
celebrations of Navaratri adoring Shri Maybhavani (Bhavani, the Mother Goddess) in
Maharashtra were launched by Prabodhankar with the active support of Ambedkar—
the mother allows access to everyone regardless of their caste. And irony had it
that later the Shiv Sena, the Maratha outfit, opposed the publication of Ambedkar’s
Riddles of Hinduism by the Maharashtra Government. Also, how is it to explain that
the attempt at renaming of Marathwada University after Ambedkar provoked riots
involving the Dalits and non-Dalit Marathas?
Ambedkar’s execration for the Marathas’ observance of the tenets and practices
of caste-ridden Brahminical system remained all too evident. But could Ambedkar
tear his umbilical cord with the Maratha, could he remain a rationalist dry as stock
or stone on getting the news of assassination of Gandhi, his staunchest detractor?
Answer may be found in his exclamation on the brutal killing of Gandhi ‘… Gandhi
should have met his death at the hands of a Maharashtrian! Nay! It would be wrong
for anybody to have committed such a foul deed…’ (cited by Gopal Guru, 2017:98
[from Nanak Rattu, 1995:63], emphasis added).
120 S. K. Bhattacharyya

7.6 In Lieu of a Conclusion

A modernist at heart and simultaneously a critical analyst of the Indian tradition,

Ambedkar never totally abjured the latter as is evident from his embracing Buddhism.
Herein lies the importance of Ambedkar’s sociology. He was one of the first Indian
social analysts to notice that caste was a constricted form of class and at the same time
insisted on understanding the significant fact that caste had its own specificity which
is hardly shared by class. Like Max Weber and Thorstein Veblen, he pointed out
the various dimensions of inequality: class, status, and power. Max Weber’s general
outline appears concretized in Ambedkar’s analysis of the phenomenon of Indian
caste. His analysis of the facts of inequality in Indian society laid bare the intercon-
nections of religion or ethnic component (cf. Parkin 2002, Chap. 4), society, power
system, and the economic structure where status-power rooted in collective caste-
psyche challenged the very elemental trait of dignified human existence, namely,
fraternity. All the world over it is this fraternity that is threatened every time, and
Ambedkar’s intellectual tirade sought to squarely face the challenge.

Endnotes

1. This first outcome of the self-resourced project by Swapan Kumar Bhattacharyya

and Gayatri Bhattacharyya (formerly of the Calcutta University) on Ambedkar
and His Thoughts is presented to the beloved memory of late Professor Yogendra
Singh. Bhattacharyyas offer thanks to Dr. Subhas Biswas, Dr. Debarshi Talukdar,
and Shri Sharannyo Banerjee for their unstinted assistance.
2. Bose, (2018); Mukherjee, (1979), Nagla, (2008); Oommen and Mukherji (eds.)
(1986); Patel, Sujata (ed.) (2011); Sharma (1985); Singh (1986); Uberoi et al.
(eds.) (2007).
3. A variant of the narratives in CAE is furnished in Ambedkar’s Waiting for a
Visa (WV), 1990b, claimed to be based on his reminiscences, discovered posthu-
mously. Though differing in detail, both the accounts reflect the same basic agony
suffered by Ambedkar and his brethren: Denial of the fundamental conditions of
living, such as the service of barbers, washermen, cartmen, accommodation in
touchables’ houses, hostels, inns, dharamshalas, or even access to potable water.
However, WV counts the days of his stay at Baroda to be 11 instead of 2, as noted
in CAE.

References

Ambedkar, B. R. (1941). Thoughts on Pakistan. Thacker & Co., Ltd.

Ambedkar, B. R. (1946). Pakistan or the partition of India. Thacker & Co., Ltd.
Ambedkar, B. R. (n.d.) [1916]. Castes in India: Their mechanism, genesis and development. In
BAWS (Vol. 1). Bheem Patrika Publications.
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 121

Ambedkar, B. R. (1919). Evidence before the Southborough committee on franchise. In BAWS (Vol.
1, No. 4). Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.
Ambedkar, B. R. (1943). Ranade, Gandhi and Jinnah. In BAWS (Vol. 1, No. 4). Dr. Ambedkar
Foundation.
Ambedkar, B. R. (1945). What congress and Gandhi have done to the untouchable. In BAWS (Vol.
9). Dr. Ambedkar Foundation.
Ambedkar, B. R. (1990a) [1948]. The untouchables: Who were they? and why they became
untouchables. In BAWS (Vol. 7, No. 2). Maharashtra Government, Education Department.
Ambedkar, B. R. (1990b). Waiting for a visa. In BAWS (Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 661–669). People’s
Education Society.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2004). Conversion as emancipation. In BAWS (Vol. 17, No. 7). Critical Quest.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2006) [1943]. Mr. Gandhi and the emancipation of the untouchables. Critical
Quest.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2007a). Buddha or Karl Marx. Critical Quest.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2007b) [1936]. Annihilation of caste. Appendix I ‘Gandhi’s response to
Annihilation of caste. Dr. Ambedkar’s indictment. Critical Quest.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2014). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and speeches. In BAWS (Vol. 1). Dr.
Ambedkar Foundation, Government of India. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2019a). Mooknayaki, (Sheoraj Singh Bechain, Comp. and Trans. from Marathi
into Hindi). Gautam Book Centre.
Ambedkar, B. R. (2019b). Mooknayak (Vinoy Kumar Vasnik, Trans.). Samyak Prakashan.
Bahadur, R. (2017). A glance at Dr. Ambedkar writings. Forward Press, 10 February 2017.
Bandyopadhay, S. (2004). Caste, culture and hegemony. Oxford University Press.
Bandyopadhay, S. (2011). Caste, protest and identity in colonial India: The Namasudras of Bengal
1872–1947. Oxford University Press.
Béteille, A. (Ed.). (1984). Social inequality. Penguin Books Ltd.
Béteille, A. (1991). Society and politics in India: Essays in a comparative perspective. The Athlone
Press.
Bhattacharyya, S. K. (1990). Indian sociology: The role of Benoy Kumar Sarkar. The University of
Burdwan.
Bose, N. K. (1976). The structure of Hindu society. (Andre Beteille’s English translation of Hindu
Samajer Gadan [1949]). Sangam Books.
Bose, P. K. (2018). Conceptualising man and society: Perspectives in early Indian sociology. Orient
Blackswan.
Bottomore, T. B. (2012/1975). Sociology as social criticism. Routledge.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago
Press.
Chandramohan, P. (1987). Popular culture and socio-economic reform: Narayana Guru and the
Ezhavas of Travancore. Studies in History, 3(1), 57–74.
Chaudhury, K. (2019). Jater Vinash: Ambedkar O Tnar Agrajader Abadan (Annihilation of caste:
Contribution of Ambedkar and his predecessors). Bhabna and Dafodwam.
Dangle, A. (Ed.) (1992). Poisoned bread: Translations from modern Marathi Dalit literature. Orient
Longmans.
Dewey, J. (2004) [1915]. Democracy and education. Aakar Books.
Gajbhiye, P. (trans.) (2017). Bahishkrit Bharat mein prakashit Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar ke
sampadakiya (Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar’s editorials in Bahishkrit Bharat–Hindi translation of
pieces in Marathi). Samyak Prakashan. Eng. Trans. Amrish Herdenia for Forward Press.
Ghurye, G. S. (1933). Untouchable classes and their assimilation in Hindu society. Included
in Ghurye, 1973a, 316–323. [Though Ambedkar is not named,it seems a nice paraphrase of
Ambedkar’s views].
Ghurye, G. S. (1969). Caste and race in India. Popular Prakashan.
Ghurye, G. S. (1973). I and other explorations. Popular Pakashan.
Giddens, A. (1991). Identity, self and society in the late modern age. Polity Press.
122 S. K. Bhattacharyya

Gore, M. S. (1993). The social context of ideology: Ambedkar’s political and social thought. Sage
Publications.
Gouldner, A. (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology. Basic Books.
Grusky, D. B., & Szélenyi, S. (Eds.). (2012). [Indian Reprint]. The inequality reader: Contemporary
and foundational readings in race, class and gender. Rawat Publications.
Grusky, D. B. (2012). The stories about inequality that we love to tell. In Grusky & Szélenyi (Eds.),
The inequality reader (pp. 2–14). Routledge.
Guha, R. (Ed. & intr.). (2010). Makers of modern India. Viking–Penguin Random House India.
Guru, G. (2015). Experience and ethics of theory. In G. Guru & S. Sarukkai (Eds.), The cracked
mirror: An Indian debate on experience and theory (pp. 107–127). Oxford University Press.
Guru, G., & Sarukkai, S. (Eds.). (2015). The cracked mirror: An Indian debate on experience and
theory. Oxford University Press.
Guru, G. (2017). Ethics in Ambedkar’s critique of Gandhi. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(15),
95–101.
Jaffrelot, C. (2015). Dr. Ambedkar and untouchability: Analysing and fighting caste. Permanent
Black.
Kumar, A. (2020). Reading Ambedkar in the time of Covid-19. Economic and Political Weekly,
55(16), 34–37.
Kumbhojkar, S. (2012). Contesting power, contesting memories. Economic and Political Weekly,
47(42), 103–107.
Lenoir, R. (1989). Les exclus: Un Français sur dix. Editions du Seuil.
Mauthner, N. S., & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative
data analysis. Sociology, 37(3), 413–431.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.
Moon, V. (2018). Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. National Book Trust.
Mukherjee, R. (1979). Sociology of Indian sociology. Allied Publishers.
Nagla, B. K. (2008). Indian sociological thought. Rawat Publications.
O’ Hanlon, R. (Ed. & tr.). (1994). A comparison between women and men: Tarabai Shinde and the
critique of gender relations in colonial India. Oxford University Press.
Omvedt, G. (2005). Dr. Ambedkar prabuddha Bharat ki aur. Penguin Books.
Omvedt, G. (2007). Jotirao Phule and the Ideology of Social Revolution in India. Critical Quest.
Oommen, T. K., & Mukherjee, P. N. (Eds.) (1986). Indian sociology: Reflections and interpretations.
Popular Prakashan.
Parkin, F. (2007). Max Weber. Routledge.
Patel, S. (Ed.). (2011). Doing sociology in India. Oxford University Press.
Ramanujam, S. (2020). Dalitness and the idea of Brahmin. Economic and Political Weekly, 55(2),
12–15.
Rattu, N. C. (1995). Reminiscences and remembrances of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Falcon Books.
Sarkar, B. K. (1937). Creative India: From Mohenjo Daro to the age of Ramakrishna-Vivekananda.
Motilal Banarsi Dass.
Sarkar, B. K. (1940a). Digvijayer Dharma O Samaj [The Religion and Social Order Propelling the
Conquest of Quarters]. In Sarkar (Ed.), pp. 105–137.
Sarkar, B. K. (Ed.). (1940b). Samaj–Vignan. Chakravartty, Chatterjee and Company Ltd.
Sarukkai, S. (2015). Experience and theory: From Habermas to Gopal Guru. In G. Guru & S.
Sarukkai (Eds.), The cracked mirror: An Indian debate on experience and theory (pp. 29–45).
Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2007). Social exclusion: Concept, application and scrutiny. Critical Quest.
Sharma, S. (1985). Sociology in India: A perspective from sociology of knowledge. Rawat
Publications.
Siddharath (2020). Bahiskrit Bharat: Brahmanbad–Manubad ko Ambedkar ki nirnayak chunauti.
Forward Press (January 30, 2020).
Singh, Y. (1986). Indian sociology: Social conditioning and emerging concerns. Vistaar Publica-
tions.
7 Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach 123

Uberoi, P., Sundar, N., & Deshpande, S. (intr. & Eds.) (2007). Anthropology in the East: Founders
of Indian sociology and anthropology. Permanent Black.
Wakefield, D. (2000). Introduction. In C. Wright Mills (Eds.), Letters and autobiographical writings
(pp. 1–18). University of California Press.
Yengde, S. (2019, digital update). Caste matters. Viking-Penguin Random House India.
 Part II
Thematic Domains
Chapter 8
Power in Caste: The Decline
of the Dominant Caste in a Village
in Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Hira Singh

Abstract Situated in Mahuari, a multi-caste village in Eastern Uttar Pradesh in the

1950s, the decline of the Rajputs as the dominant caste is essentially the story of
power in caste. Max Weber in his famous essay, ‘Class, Status, Party’, identified
caste as ‘status’, cultural power independent of economic and political power. My
article is a logical and empirical-historical refutation of Weber’s concept of caste
as cultural power exclusive of economic-political power. For over three centuries,
owing to the monopoly of landownership, the Rajputs were economically, politically,
and culturally the dominant caste in the village. Following the juridical abolition of
zamindari (landlordism) in the early 1950s, the age-old dominance of the Rajputs
was challenged from below for the very first time in the history of the village. It is
argued that the abolition of zamindari ended the monopoly of landownership, foun-
dation of economic, political, and cultural power of the Rajputs as the dominant
caste. My findings refute Weber’s notion of caste as ‘status’ (cultural power) inde-
pendent of economic and political power, uncritically used in mainstream sociology,
Subaltern Studies, and most of Dalit studies following B.R. Ambedkar, mystifying
caste. Finally, rather than an isolated incident, the story of Mahuari is the microcosm
of the macrocosm of the reality of caste in India as the intersection of economic,
political, and cultural power.

Keywords Caste · Power · Political economy · Mainstream sociology · Subaltern

studies · Dalit studies

8.1 Introduction

The story narrated here is based on what I saw as an elementary school child in the
village I was born in and grew up. I narrated this story in the very first article I wrote
after completing my Masters studies in sociology from Lucknow University.

H. Singh (B)
York University, Toronto, Canada
e-mail: hsingh@yorku.ca

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 127
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_8
128 H. Singh

Related to the above is another story. Following the completion of my Masters

studies, I got a teaching position in Sociology at Rajasthan University, Jaipur. At
Jaipur, I met Professor Yogendra Singh, who was then an Associate Professor in the
same Department. I also met Rajendra Singh, his younger brother, while Professor
Singh was away as a visiting professor at McGill University in Montreal, when
I joined the Department. By the time he returned from McGill, I had become a
frequent visitor to the family, thanks to Rajendra Singh. Prof Singh was a generous
host. His living room was a big lord’s table, and the visitors were invited to join the
table for breakfast, lunch, or dinner depending on the time of the visit. I have very
fond memory of sitting at the table talking about politics, films, and yes, sociology in
between. I was a young academic, talkative, and immature. Prof Singh was a patient
and discreet listener. He had a way of saying serious things, without appearing to be
serious or intimidating.
As I recollect, it was the evening of Holi, I was at Prof Singh’s house for dinner.
Holi in Jaipur used to be a wild affair going from house-to-house sampling alcoholic,
non-alcoholic beverages, along with other stuff. By the evening it was normal to feel
a bit elated. It was in that state of elation, I started talking about a book rather
critically. Prof Singh, as usual, listened patiently and said ‘why don’t you go and
write something rather than talking?’ That’s what I did. I narrated the story I had
witnessed as a child in my village, shared it with him for feedback, sent it to EPW,
and to my utter surprise, it was accepted for publication.
As mentioned above, the abolition of the age-old zamindari system, and the intro-
duction of universal adult franchise, legitimizing the leadership aspirations of all the
castes in the village for the first time in the history of the village, caused strains in the
traditional, taken for granted leadership of the age-old dominant caste in the village.

8.2 The Venue of Observation

Some twenty-two miles from the district town of Jaunpur in East UP, the village
Mahuari is situated in a relatively isolated locale. Surrounded by paddy fields on
three sides and bordered by a small rivulet on the fourth side, the village is rela-
tively inaccessible to traditional or, until recently, modern means of transport, save
elephants (for men) and palanquins (for women) of the upper castes, particularly
during rainy season.
Its total population of 1,125 makes Mahuari larger than an average UP village
with 527 heads. It is a multi-caste village consisting of 14 castes, divided into 156
families.
8 Power in Caste: The Decline of the Dominant Caste in a Village … 129

8.3 Rajputs, The Dominant Caste

In the past, the leadership of the village, both formal and informal, was in the
hands of three zamindar Rajput families. The scope of formal leadership was
formerly extremely limited. There was in the village a statutory gaon panchayat—
an administrative-cum-judicial body. The head of this body was known as mukhiya.
Both judicial and administrative powers were vested in the mukhiya. In his judi-
cial capacity, he had to hear petty suits that fell within the jurisdiction of the gaon
panchayat. Most of the cases brought before the gaon panchayat were, I was told,
decided informally. In his administrative capacity the mukhiya acted as an interme-
diary between Government and the villagers, but such occasions inviting Government
intervention were few and far between. The office of mukhiya being hereditary was
always held by a member of a single Rajput family in the village.
The scope of informal leadership during zamindari days was quite large, pervading
all aspects of village life—economic, political, social, and cultural. As noted among
others by Singh (1956) and Yogendra Singh (1961) zamindari, though essentially
an economic phenomenon, combined economic power, political power, juridical
authority, and social honour. The power of the dominant caste, the zamindar, was
all-pervasive, and taken for granted. The zamindars thus had two interconnected
features, viz., traditional authority2 and an all-pervasive informal leadership.

8.4 Formal Leadership

Two changes of major importance in the post-Independence period deserve mention.

The abolition of zamindari ended the officially sanctioned economic and the political
power of the traditionally dominant Rajput caste. The other significant change has
been the extension of universal franchise to all adults, followed by the introduction
of new formal political institutions like the gram panchayat, the adalat panchayat
samiti, and the zilla parishad.
Simultaneously, there have been some important changes in the relative economic
and educational positions of the non-Rajput castes. Being numerically dominant, also
they have accounted for the bulk of the exodus to urban industrial centres in search
of employment and thereby improved the economic position of their families. The
total number of school-going Rajput boys (Rajput girls were not yet allowed to go
to school) is smaller than that of the other castes combined. Rajput boys are lagging
behind even in educational performance compared to other castes.
The new political institutions have widened the scope of formal leadership
(Chandra, 1959; Chauhan, 1967; Hitchcock, 1960). The main formal institutions in
the village are the gram panchayat, the village co-operative society, and the managing
committee of the elementary school. Besides, the adalat panchayat, the panchayat
samiti, and the zilla parishad provide for new formal leadership opportunities and
positions.
130 H. Singh

The most important formal position of leadership in the village is that of the
pradhan—the head of the gram panchayat. Since the inception of the gram panchayat
some 15 years ago the office of the pradhan has been held by a Rajput of the former
zamindar family. There has never been any contest for this post and the incumbent
Pradhan has been a unanimously chosen each time. The village co-operative society
is an exclusively Rajput body. The membership of the adalat panchayat and the
panchayat samiti is decided predominantly by the Rajputs. Many in the village are
not even aware of the existence of the panchayat samiti or the zilla parishad.
The primary school of the village was started by the Rajputs, and until recognized
and aided by the Government, it was financed and looked after by them. Now, a
Government grant is available and the Rajputs though absolved from their financial
burden, still continue to have a major say in the constitution and working of the
school.
In brief, formal leadership is still in the hands of the age-old dominant caste of
the village, Rajputs.

8.5 Informal Leadership

The formal political institutions have not been able to do away with the popularity and
sanctity of informal leadership in the village. If we take a day-to-day or problem-to-
problem view, we find that the occasions for informal leadership greatly outnumber
the formal ones.
The informal leadership is exclusively in the hands of three former zamindar
Rajput families. The members of these families are the most ‘reputed’ ones in the
village and the surrounding villages; they have a dominant role in decision making
and despite a general setback in their position following the abolition of zamindari,
they are the most influential persons in the village.
The scope of informal leadership is very wide. The crucial role of informal leaders
lies in the settlement of disputes relating to economic, political, social, and moral
issues. Economic issues figure prominently at the time of the fission of a family
when the joint property is to be divided. These divisions are always informal in the
first instance; nevertheless, they are more or less binding. The moral issues involving
kidnapping, illicit sex relations, cheating, etc. are decided by the informal leaders.
Deviations in respect of social relations are brought to the notice of the informal
leaders. If a young man, for instance, does not treat his parents properly or if a man
behaves atrociously towards his wife or children, the informal leaders try, frequently
with success, to intervene.
Except the Rajputs and the Brahmans, each has its caste panchayat. The caste
panchayats operate today almost as efficaciously as they did during zamindari days.
But they have never been effective for the whole village. Vertically the jurisdiction
of each caste panchayat is confined to its respective caste, while horizontally it
has always extended along caste lines far beyond the village boundaries—which
weakened its effectiveness as a village unit.
8 Power in Caste: The Decline of the Dominant Caste in a Village … 131

8.6 Challenge from Below

The present leadership of the traditional leaders does not, however, represent a smooth
continuity from past to the present. The age-old authority of the Rajputs was seriously
challenged by non-Rajputs particularly the middle castes—peasants, former tenants
of the zamindars–of the village immediately after the abolition of zamindari in the
early 1950s. Two incidents are specially relevant to our purpose. In one case, there
was a dispute between a former Rajput and his former tenant, Ahir, a middle caste.
Ahir family used to cultivate a piece of land as tenant of the zamindar Rajput family
in return for rent and other customary dues and services. After the abolition of
zamindari, the Ahir tenant refused to pay the rent and other dues to the Rajput.
The latter asked him to quit the land. In response, all the Ahirs of Mahuari and the
surrounding villages3 got together and took possession of the land in dispute by force.
They also sent a message to the eldest of the head of one of the three Rajput families
in the village that the Rajputs could come out for a trial of strength with Ahirs, if they
so wished. This infuriated the Rajputs of the village and in a short time all the Rajputs
(and some Brahmans) of Mahuari and other nearby villages got together to confront
the Ahirs. As soon as the Rajput party marched towards the disputed spot, the Ahirs
fled away. The Rajput party vandalized the hamlet of the Ahirs. Subsequently, the
former zamindar Rajput filed a suit in the adalat panchayat of the village which was
headed by a Brahman. The Rajputs and the Brahmans joined hands and heavy fines
were imposed on the Ahirs.
The other incident of a similar nature, involving a former zamindar Rajput and a
former tenant, Pasi (lower caste, untouchable), took place a year later. The former
landlord asked the Pasi tenant to quit the piece of land under the latter’s cultivation,
which the latter refused. One day while the tenant was ploughing the land in dispute,
the Rajput, accompanied by other Rajputs of the village, went there to stop him. No
sooner did the Rajputs arrive, the Pasis accompanied by some of the Ahirs of the
same hamlet attacked them from three sides. In the fierce fight that followed, both
parties sustained injuries. Next morning the Rajputs and the Brahmans of the village
organized a raid on the residence of the tenant. The male members of the Pasis and
the Ahirs involved in the fight a day earlier had already run away from the village
anticipating the reprisal from the Rajputs. The Rajput party vandalized the house of
the Pasi tenant in broad daylight.
The Pasi reported the case to the police and also filed a suit against the Rajputs
in the District Court, but the case was dismissed as the Pasis failed to produce
any evidence against the Rajputs. On the other hand, the Rajput filed a suit against
the Pasis in the adalat panchayat (judicial court of the village) and once again the
Brahman head of the adalat panchayat helped the Rajput plaintiff by imposing heavy
fines on the Pasi family (Table 8.1).
132 H. Singh

Table 8.1 Number of

Caste Number of families Total strength
families and persons by caste
in village Mahuari towards Ahir 54 400
the end of the 1960s Chamar 42 294
Brahmin 19 137
Pasi 16 105
Nai 9 59
!akur 3 30
Teli 2 25
Kahar 2 10
Lohar 2 15
Dhobi 2 14
Gareria 2 14
Kumhar 1 10
Gosain s1 7
Kayastha 1 5
Total 156 1,125

8.7 Structural Factors

These two incidents ‘re-established’ the authority and dominance of the Rajputs in
the village. Besides, they brought together three Rajput families which were split
into three open factions during zamindari days. They also brought the Rajputs of
Mahuari closer to the Brahmans and the Rajputs of the neighbouring villages, since
they came to realize that they could defend themselves better against the other–
traditionally lower castes if they stood united. This new unity in addition to the
Rajputs’ major share in the village lands appears to be the main force behind their
continued dominant position in the village.
Our findings indicate that monopoly of landownership by the zamindar Rajput
families was the determining factor behind their leadership position in the village|.
Right from the beginning village leadership had been in the hands of the Rajputs. The
monopoly of landownership by Rajputs was accompanied by monopoly of political
power, juridical power, and social honour. This situation was essentially similar to
that described by Oscar Lewis (1958) in his study of a north Indian village, where,
“every jat (equivalent of Ahirs in U.P) was a leader for a non-jat”.
The individual attributes were, important, nevertheless, even if they could not tran-
scend the limits set by the caste. There were some criteria, conventionally implied,
which individual leaders or families were expected to meet in order to legitimize their
leadership status and role. Thus, among Rajput families, the family which stood
higher in terms of wealth, social reputation, and social contacts had a greater say
in leadership matters. On the other hand, individuals who were supposedly honest,
truthful, humble, loyal, hospitable, and of known moral integrity were more popular
8 Power in Caste: The Decline of the Dominant Caste in a Village … 133

and easily accepted as leaders, affirming the claim made by Wolfe (1967), that tradi-
tionally, the legitimacy of authority or dominance of a particular group in the village
cannot be explained exclusively or even mainly in terms of coercion or a major share
in the lands. On the contrary, as pointed out by Singh (1967), the legitimacy of a
leader’s role was recognized largely to the extent that he could fit into the cultural
image of a leader held by the people.
The role of leaders in the village was not specific but of a general kind. Leadership
did not consist in the performance of any particular task or in the attainment of any
specific goal, but in leaders’ ability and ingenuity to find the resolution of issues
of a wide variety ranging from the economic, political, and social to the moral and
cultural spheres. They were not the products of any particular crisis situation but the
ones which normally arose in the day-to-day life of the villagers.
These issues, if not satisfactorily resolved, could, however, pose serious threat to
the village social order. To the extent that the leaders succeeded in resolving these
issues, they contributed to the maintenance of the village social order, and that was
the function of leadership.
It follows that the leadership of the village was in the hands of individuals of the
dominant caste, who constitute the social core of the village. They performed for
the village community a set of multiple roles in the economic, political, social, and
the cultural fields. They were analogous to Keller’s (1963) ‘strategic elites’4 even
though structurally they were the latter’s exact antithesis.

8.8 Continuity and Change

Following the abolition of the zaminadri, there was an apparent continuity in village
leadership insofar as the age-old dominant Rajput caste was able to reassert its domi-
nance by forging an intracaste unity supported by the Brahmans in the face of a
challenge to their leadership from below by traditionally subordinate, dependent
tenants of the middle castes. They could, however, no more take their leadership
position for granted as they did in the past.
Here, we are confronted with a question of fundamental importance: who will
lead in the future? And what will the nature of leadership be like? The abolition of
zamindari and the introduction of a universal adult franchise had a transformative
impact. Formerly, the zamindar was one class; the non-zamindar tenant and the
rest were another class. Between them there was an abyss, the leadership being the
prerogative of the former, taken for granted.
The abolition of zamindari closed the traditional gap between the zamindars,
rulers, and tenants, and the rest ruled thereby ending the leadership prerogative of
the former. The antiquity (purity) of blood (ideological justification of Rajputs’ right
to rule), to use a popular phrase, was finished once for good. The leadership was no
more ascribed. It had to be achieved against other competing groups. On the other
hand, the universal franchise and the civic incorporation of the masses have made it
134 H. Singh

theoretically possible for members of all castes to participate in the village polity on
an equal footing.
It implied, above all, that the non-Rajput castes could now legitimately aspire for
leadership positions in the village. Any such aspiration in the past was illegitimate
and inconceivable. The legitimization of the leadership aspirations of the other castes
was the single most important factor in the context of the village leadership in the
future. The continuity of old leaders for the time being did not mean the persistence
of the age-old caste order.
The changing economic, social, and educational conditions were prone to creating
a climate conducive to the growth and development of pluralistic tendencies in the
village polity. Outside employment was likely to improve the economic lot of the non-
Rajput castes. Education was making them more conscious. Growing contact with
the outside world was breaking through their apathy. With adult franchise numerical
strength had already become a major political power undermining the old order.
Under the changed circumstances, a fundamental change in village leadership was
not a mere theoretical plausibility. The process of change had already set in. Formerly,
the Rajputs looked at the non-Rajputs as their subjects thinking of themselves as the
‘natural’ leaders. The changed circumstances were a reminder that leadership is not
natural, but historical.
I may add that last time when I visited the village (in 2005) pradhan of the
gaon panchayat was a Pasi woman (formerly an untouchable caste). The idea of
Rajput [men] as ‘natural’ leaders of the village will sound as most unnatural in the
village today. Finally, rather than an isolated incident, the story of Mahuari is the
microcosm of the macrocosm of the reality of caste in India as the intersection of
economic, political, and cultural power (Park and Tinker eds., 1960; NICD, 1965;
Pareek ed., 1966; Vidyarthi ed., 1967).

8.9 Epilogue

Towards the conclusion, I want to briefly address two questions that are important
to caste studies. One, the question of power in caste. Two, persistence and change in
caste.

8.9.1 Power in Caste

Max Weber in his seminal essay, ‘Class, Status, Party’ outlines three sources of
power–economic, cultural, and political constitutive of class, status, and party,
respectively (see Gerth and Mills 1985). Caste, in his classification, is status, cultural
power independent of economic, political power. Caste privileges and disprivileges,
according to him, are sanctioned by rituals, in addition to convention and law. That
sets caste apart from other forms of status–master–slave in antiquity, lord−serf in
8 Power in Caste: The Decline of the Dominant Caste in a Village … 135

feudalism. Mainstream sociology following Weber turned religion into the very basis
of caste and the caste system. This view found its extreme form in Louis Dumont’s
Homo Hierarchicus, claimed by many, most prominently Dumont himself as the
only ‘theory’ of caste so far. Many sociologists today distance themselves from
Dumont’s extreme position on caste as religious, creation of Hinduism, but end up
endorsing Weber’s notion of caste as status5 like mainstream sociology, Dalit studies,
barring few exceptions, treat caste as religious rooted in Hinduism, with Brahman at
the centre—Brahmanocentric view of caste. This view of caste can be traced back
in the works of B.R. Ambedkar himself. I disagree with Weber’s, Dumont’s, and
Ambedkar’s conceptualization of caste as cultural, albeit religious. Contrary to the
characterization of power in caste as cultural independent of economic and political,
it is argued that power in caste is economic, political, and cultural. Mainstream soci-
ology, following Weber and Dalit studies following Ambedkar separate economic,
political, and cultural, making caste as cultural, albeit religious. That is a mystifica-
tion of caste. On the contrary, in the political economy (Marxist) perspective, caste
is the intersection of economic, political, and cultural power, very much like, but
not identical with, class. Separation of economic, political, and cultural power is
logically flawed and historically−empirically inaccurate. It mystifies caste. Political
economy view of caste as intersection of economic, political, and cultural power is
logically consistent and historically−empirically verifiable. It demystifies caste.

8.9.2 Persistence and Change in Caste

Sociologists of the mainstream and most of Dalit studies insist on the persistence
of caste from the past sometimes going back to the Rigvedic period. I disagree.
R.S. Sharma rightly points out the fallacy of the persistence of caste from past to
present. Instead, he insists on the need to specify what is persistent and what has
changed in caste over time and how to understand and explain that. Based on the
material presented above, I argue that the basis of caste lies in the social relation of
production, that is, rank in caste is the result of access to the means of production
and the means of subsistence, land, the most important means of production and the
means of subsistence at the point of the origin of caste. Persistence and change in
caste are a consequence of persistence and change in social relations of production.
Rajputs as zamindars had a monopoly of landownership in the village. Monopoly
of landownership was accompanied by monopoly of political power and juridical
authority, in addition to social honour. The abolition of zamindari ended Rajput’s
monopoly of landownership. Universal adult franchise ended their monopoly of
political power. Adalat ended their juridical authority. On the other hand, ownership
of land under occupation granted to former tenants belonging to the Ahirs, middle
caste (now, Other Backward Castes) empowered them to challenge the economic,
political, and cultural dominance of the Rajputs. Denied of direct access to land and/
or alternative means of subsistence, the Dalits, on the other hand, remain deprived
of economic power. Adult franchise has, however, allowed them access to political
136 H. Singh

power that was previously denied. Rajputs, Ahirs, and Dalits of Mahuari today, locked
in competition for power challenging the centuries-old dominance of Rajputs taken
for granted, is a concrete illustration of change in caste. To conclude, Mahuari, rather
than being an isolated case is indeed, the microcosm of the macrocosm of power in
caste as pan Indian historical reality.

Endnotes

1. Adapted from “Strains in Leadership: From Status Group to Pluralism in an East

UP Village”, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 4, no. 18, 1969. The paper was
written within Weberian framework entitled, “From Status Group to Pluralism”.
The article has since had many avtars. Meanwhile, I have moved away from
that framework but have retained the original format as much as I could, mainly
to remind myself, and share with the readers, of the twists and turns in the
trajectory of my academic journey–from the conservative through the liberal to
the historical-materialist interpretation of social reality.
2. Traditional authority, as used by Max Weber and Talcott Parsons refers to a
situation where the area of personal influence is not clearly separated from that
of the official authority.
3. Mahuari is surrounded by a few villages where the Ahirs are not only numerically
strong, but also known for their rebellious activities against the upper castes, the
Rajputs, and the Brahmins, erstwhile dominant castes.
4. Keller’s usage of ‘strategic elites’ refers to the persons selected on the basis of
individual motivation and capacity. Structurally they are diverse in the sense that
they may be selected from any class and in this respect they are opposite of the
leaders selected from one single caste (see Keller, 1963: 30–35).
5. Status group is used here in the Weberian sense. In Weber’s (1964:342) usage
status group has three distinct features: (a) peculiar style of life; (b) hereditary
charisma, concretized in a claim to a position of prestige by birth; (c) monopoly
of political power.

References

Chandra, P. (1959). Rural leadership in India. Eastern Anthropologist. September-November 1959.

Chauhan, B. R. (1967). Phases in village power structure and leadership in Rajasthan. In L. P.
Vidyarthi (Ed.), Leadership in India. Asia Publishing House.
Gerth, H. H., & Wright Mills, C. (Eds.). (1985). From max weber: Essays in sociology. Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Hitchcock, J. T. (1960). Leadership in a North Indian village: Two case studies. In Park and Tinker
(Eds.), Leadership and Political Institutions in India.
Keller, S. (1963). Beyond the ruling class (pp. 30–35).
Lewis, O. (1958). Village life in Northern India. University of Illinois Press.
National Institute of Community Development (NICD). (1965). Emerging patterns of rural
leadership in Southern Asia. NICD.
8 Power in Caste: The Decline of the Dominant Caste in a Village … 137

Pareek, U. (Ed.). (1966). Rural leadership in India. / Vidyarthi, L. P. (Ed). (1967). Leadership in
India. Asia Publishing House.
Park, R., & Tinker, I. (Eds.). (1960). Leadership and political Institutions in India. Oxford University
Press.
Singh, R. D. (1956). Social change in a UP village. Far Eastern Quarterly, December 1956.
Singh, Y. (1961). Changing power structure of village community: A caste study of six villages in
Eastern UP. In A. R. Desai (Ed.), Rural sociology in India. Popular Prakashan.
Singh, A. K. (1967). Unconscious image in Indian leadership. In L. P. Vidyarthi (Ed.), Leadership
in India. Asia Publishing House.
Vidyarthi, L. P. (Ed.). (1967). Leadership in India. Asia Publishing House.
Weber, M. (1964). Theory of social and economic organisation. Free Press.
Wolfe, A. W. (1967). Concepts of authority: An African study’ in ‘Leadership in India’. In L. P.
Vidyarthi (Ed.), Leadership in India. Asia Publishing House.
Chapter 9
Village Meaning Home: The Exodus
from Urban India During the Pandemic
of COVID-19

Tulsi Patel

Abstract Professor Yogendra Singh had been suggesting that a new way of seeing
and describing the world would be required in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Social life has changed drastically; the world over human beings are helplessly
isolated from each other to stay alive without being infected by this deadly virus.
The economies of most countries are reaching a standstill. Trillions of US dollars
have been lost due to economic lockdown the world over. In India, crores of skilled
and unskilled workers who had migrated from rural areas for better wages lost their
jobs, and not many had savings to pay rent and sustain them and their dependents,
especially children in the city. The mass exodus of several crores of Indians rendered
unemployed suddenly owing to a complete countrywide lockdown in March 2020 is
termed as a major tragedy of the century. It is comparable to the mass migration and
the suffering in the wake of the partition of India in 1947. The large volume of people
rendered jobless in the city turned towards their villages to get back home. There are
vivid descriptions and visuals in mass media telling the story of hundreds of millions
of those Indians who abandoned the city and walked the long highways for thousands
of miles to return to their village homes. Having to walk with meagre belongings,
small children, and infants with little or no money on them in the scorching heat of
May and June 2020, they were leaving their urban residences to reach home (their
native villages thousands of kilometers away). Many died along the way before
reaching home. What does a village mean to the distressed migrant? The rendering
of a village in historical and present discourse is revisited to arrive at the Indian
village in the COVID-19 lockdown.

Keywords COVID-19 · Migration · Depeasantization · Agricultural stress ·

City · Village · Home · Imagining the city · Migrating for better remuneration

T. Patel (B)
Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
e-mail: pateltulsidse@gmail.com
Presently at Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, India

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 139
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_9
140 T. Patel

People have been on the move historically until the present time. Rural-to-urban
migration is more commonly known. Those who moved out of their hinterlands to
explore the urban world in search of greener pastures set examples for others through
their success stories. In 1980–81 during my fieldwork in a Rajasthan village, I noticed
how the idea of destination was constructed in the people’s minds. Let me recount
the same briefly. The construction of the destination is drawn from the stories and
instances related by those migrants who visit their village homes on festive and
other life cycle events. The glitter of city life is partially visible in the clothes and
accessories of the migrants when they visit their homes/villages. They symbolize
as it were the material prosperity that city life is about. The enchantment of better
monetary gain and the possibility of goods that could be acquired float in the minds
of the potential migrant. During my fieldwork in Rajasthan villages (1994), the
tales of migrants who had moved to cities were repeated frequently, especially the
remittances they sent, and urban gadgets, clothes, utensils, and such goods they
would bring home on their visits. The push–pull model of migration by Harris and
Todaro (1970) explains a great deal about why people migrate from their homes. The
incentives and processes of migration by individuals and groups to leave their place(s)
of origin and head to places of destination are worked out through push–pull factors.
The images of places of destination formed in the minds of those in the hinterland
and their routine life experiences in the hinterland form a comparative assessment of
the two different locations. The digital and audio-visual mass media now brings into
people’s homes the attractions and prosperity of city life through advertisements,
serials, etc., adding to the enchantment. Besides curiosity, the urge is to experience
the city life that holds more employment opportunities and higher wages than the
disguised unemployment in villages. When a comparison seems to reveal urban/
city life as a better paying option, it weighs heavier in favour of migration. The
contemplation to leave one’s home to move to the city firms up. The volume of
migration thus rises. In the Indian context, rural–urban male migration continues to
be the largest in volume, notwithstanding the higher total size of female migration.
The latter is marriage-related migration and not essentially the rural–urban one alone.
The push from the village needs hardly any labouring. Agriculture has become a
non-profitable occupation in most parts of India and particularly in the arid and semi-
arid regions where returns depend on timely and sufficient rains, both elusive. Studies
have shown cultivators and their sons do not prefer to be farmers. The self-sufficient
peasantry is long gone. Depeasantization is happening in rural India including in parts
of western Uttar Pradesh, agriculturally a more productive region than Rajasthan,
and in many other areas in India (see Gupta, 2005 for Punjab and Haryana). Enor-
mously high investment required in agricultural inputs, farming technology, and
vagaries of weather push out of cultivation the small and marginal landowners who
are unable to make even (Kumar, 2017). Those households with a migrant earning in
the non-farm sector do somehow strive to continue with agricultural activities. With
village common lands disappearing to highways, roads, and other institutions besides
encroachments, even animal husbandry as a subsidiary occupation along with agri-
culture is becoming a challenge. Agriculture at present is profitable only to farmers
with large landholdings. Gupta (2005) rightly points out the missing peasant protests
9 Village Meaning Home: The Exodus from Urban India During … 141

and rising protests instead by large farmers led by M. S. Tikait or the farmers’ protest
at Delhi’s borders which began in August 2020 and continued for long.

9.1 Rising Urbanization

The Bollywood film actor Sonu Sood and several other individuals sponsored the
return journey of thousands stranded penniless in India’s urban metropolises, once
a few trains, buses, and flights resumed their services. Numerous religious and civil
society organizations provided some food along the way to many trudging, distressed,
and hungry returnees. They were all anxious to reach what they called home. The
people in this exodus are oddly and commonly termed ‘return migrants’, not forced/
distressed return migrants. Almost all these adult ‘return migrants’ had left their
native homes for the pull of urban life, especially the economic resources they could
not obtain in the village besides the expectations of bettering their lives in the city.
This paper tries to explore what the relationship of rural migrants is with the city and
what the village is to them. With 68% of the country’s population still being rural,
the meaning of the native place is emotionally conveyed through their silent march
back home. Census classification of villages with more than 5000 population and a
density of over 400 persons per square kilometer as urban and declaring smaller towns
over time into metropolises by incorporating bordering villages has also increased
the urban population of India, technically speaking. The number of census towns
between 2001 and 2011 increased by 2774, compared with 2279 villages during the
same period. In the 2001–2011 decade, urban population growth increased more
(+0.3%) in comparison with that of the rural (−5.9%). The rural–urban continuum,
as Redfield (1938) described for Mexico, is an ongoing process where several towns
in India also manifest cultural and socio-economic features of both rural and urban
areas. Gupta (2005) observes profound changes in the Indian village which was once
described as ‘unchanging’ and ‘idyllic’ particularly along caste rigidities besides
agricultural stagnation pushing the rural youth towards urban employment.

9.2 The Village in Colonial and Sociological Writings

The Indian village had been a sort of enigma and interest to colonial administrators
and other scholars and Indian nationalists since the nineteenth century. Srinivas
(2000: 3) provides a detailed account of this exercise. It was the Fifth Report from
the Select Committee on the Affairs of the East Indian Company (1812) that depicted
the Indian village that had never altered its boundaries irrespective of political or
economic changes at higher levels since time immemorial. This image of the Indian
village was retained by scholars for over the next 150 years. Sir Charles Metcalfe
(1832) repeated the earlier understanding of the report of East India Company that
India’s villages were ‘little republics’, ‘almost independent of foreign relations.’
142 T. Patel

This image was furthered by both Marx and Maine as Dumont states, both saw in it
what Maine called, “the infancy of society” (1966: 80). Marx considered the village
as singularly resistant to change and foundation(s) of oriental despotism (Thorner,
1966: 11). For Marx, the self-sufficient image of the village lay in the domestic
union of agriculture and manufacturing pursuits across castes and his unsubstantiated
impression that the ownership of land was communal. Marx had an appreciation for
the British rule in India which, while being exploitative, set in motion the destruction
of traditional Indian society.
The British rule brought about economic exploitation and organizational destruc-
tion of Indian society and its villages. The drain of wealth to Britain, destruction of
its handicrafts, and consequent impoverishment of artisans and craftsmen became
evident by the late nineteenth century. The British were unable to understand the
social and cultural organization of the village. They failed to see how education
in villages was carried out to all including Scheduled Castes without any finan-
cial support from the State. Dharampal’s (2015) meticulous historical and archival
research on Madras Presidency clearly reveals the robust self-sustained indigenous
educational system prevalent in the area that was destroyed by the British rule. In
agriculture, the high tax collection through the land revenue system either deprived
the peasantry of their land or indebted them to moneylenders.
Marx’s descriptions of the exploitation of India by the British contributed among
the nationalist leadership a feeling against the British rule. While the village was
central to the nation, its construct was not uniform across the minds of different
nationalists. Also, while the colonial construct of the village was influential among
the Indian nationalists, it differed in terms of why the Indian village was exces-
sively exploited by the British. Gould (1964) among others stated, “After the British,
the political structure became a mélange of competing factions” (in Madan 2002:
143). Emanating from the differences in perceptions of the village among nationalist
leaders, their views on the future course of action for redemption of the village were
also at variance. Views of M. K. Gandhi, J. L Nehru, and B. R. Ambedkar drawn on
the substantive realities of the village in India are compared by Jodhka (2002) in his
analysis of the sociology and anthropology of the Indian nationalist movement. For
Gandhi, the village was an ideal socio-economic and politically autonomous unit
which needed to be retained and whose moral basis was being ruined by the British
rule. This idea was deployed to delegitimize the British rule over India in the struggle
for India’s independence. His well-known concept of ‘Gram Swaraj’ was proposed to
save the Indian civilization from what he saw as the undesirable route of the Western
type of industrialization. The riches of the city, better wages, and profits Gandhi said
were because the city sucks the blood of the villagers (1977). In contrast to Gandhi,
Nehru observed “…the old Indian structure which has so powerfully influenced our
people … was based on three concepts: the autonomous village community, caste
and the joint family” (1946: 244 mentioned in Jodhka, 2002: 3343).
Yet another perception of the Indian village was that of Ambedkar, “The Hindu
village is the working plant of Hindu social order. One can see there the working
of Hindu social order in full swing” (in Jodhka, 2002: 3343). Nevertheless, the
common thread among these differences was that while the village is the core of
9 Village Meaning Home: The Exodus from Urban India During … 143

Indian society, it needs to be recovered from its scarcity and misery. While Indian
planning since independence has considerable influence on the ideas of Nehru and
Ambedkar, Gandhi’s views have gained a renewed significance in the last quarter
of the twentieth century. The new social movements, especially the environment
movement and the critique of development, draw heavily on Gandhi’s philosophy
and what he considered as a desirable social order against greed and mass produc-
tion rather than production by the masses. Gandhi’s thesis on trusteeship (see Ishii,
2001) is also of equal significance in this regard. His idea of self-sufficiency was
not for an individual or a family but for the village community. Despite Nehru’s
association with Gandhi, he differed from Gandhi in his conception of the Indian
village. He was much influenced by Western culture and hoped the village would
be on the road to development with modern technology and large industry. Along
with modern industry, Nehru agreed with Gandhi, the village community would
require reviving handicrafts and cottage industry to employ the rural population. On
the village being a self-contained governmental and political unit, both Gandhi and
Nehru held similar views. Ambedkar like Nehru admired Western culture, but his
construct of the village was derived from the downtrodden ‘untouchables’ perspec-
tive. Ambedkar argued that the Indian village was a Hindu village socially and
spatially, where the dominant touchables live in the main village while untouchables
outside in ghettos. The village was not a community but “…a sink of localism, a
den of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and communalism” (in Jodhka, 2002: 3351), a
setting where the untouchables were exploited. Ambedkar described villages as hide-
bound, cesspools of cruelty and caste prejudice. Though Gandhi was aware of the
problems that needed attention, of uncleanliness, lack of education, and prevalence
of untouchability in villages, he also wanted untouchables to remove untouchability
among themselves.

9.3 Village Economy and Caste Relations

Social scientists explored the Indian village in socio-economic terms. The notion
of the village as a community continued in the first sociological works of Baden-
Powell (1899) through his focus on jajmani relations. Wiser (1936) later conceptu-
alized it as the systemic nature of economic relationships (xviii–xxiv), studied as a
jajmani system for over 50 years after Baden-Powell. But exploitation of the service
castes by the upper caste was also found in jajmani relations. In independent India,
village studies were encouraged for the nation’s planning. Sociologists and Social
Anthropologists engaged in providing empirical accounts of village life. The first
two decades after independence are considered as the period of village studies in
different parts of India. Both Indian and foreign scholars produced a plethora of
village studies in different parts of India. The village autonomy and jajmani relations
attracted a great deal of attention from scholars. Gould (1964) reviewed around a
dozen studies of villages in North India to examine the nature and relative magni-
tude of economic transactions among different castes and occupational specialists
144 T. Patel

and the kind of ecological unit appropriate for a study of such interactions. Gould’s
analysis reveals a range of occasions and life cycle ritual events when payments to
specialists of a service are made in kind or cash or both, in addition to those made
annually or biannually. Usually, a village may not have all ritual and artisanal service
specialists and they come from neighbouring villages to serve on ritual and/or secular
occasions. He also found that jajmani ties were not restricted to the dominant castes
alone. Specialists serving high caste patrons were themselves jajman and retained a
roster of service caste links. Besides, Gould found that members of different castes
also entered into functional interchangeability within certain categories of castes.
For instance, in Sherupur, there is no sweeper; the defiling work is done by the Kori
found in large numbers. Like agriculture, agriculture labour is not traditionally caste
linked. Kori engages in both the above tasks. Gould (ibid.) reports that the majority of
the village ethnographers, including Gould himself, initially conceptualized jajmani
relations as exploitative. But on revisiting the village studies and his own field, Gould
(ibid.) observes, “Only Brahman and Thakur households could own land outright.
Such castes as the Ahir, Kurmi and Murau were technically serfs of the Raja, as were
the various artisans and menials in his domain. The early writers who discussed condi-
tions in the pre-independendence period of Indian history almost always confined
themselves to the elite echelons of the society. This created a precedent for viewing
jajmani relations from the top down and gave rise to the unexamined assumption that
jajman status could not be adopted by members of non-elite caste” (Madan, 2002:
142). He further concludes that emphasizing strictly economic meanings, a kind of
a feudal, pre-industrial-oligarchic social order seems unwarranted. “… not a quality
like ‘feudal status’ or a ‘common inclination to exploit the weak’ but the mutual wish
to practice certain rituals and a way of life necessitating the avoidance of impurity”
(Gould 1964, in Madan, 2002: 143).
There were ample opportunities for violence by the landed upper caste. Other
landed peasants also resorted to violence and through it, a section of them claimed
Kshatriya status. But with the establishment of Pax Britannica, the wings of dominant
peasants were effectively clipped. Nonetheless, Srinivas (2000: 23–25) provides a
vivid description of mutuality in inter-caste relations in the village. Collective flight,
usually to another landlord was sanctioned which the landed could ill-afford for
want of a supply of labour for agriculture. Besides the lack of other opportunities
for work, the near absence of road network and communications until the nineteenth
century, except some cartable roads usable during dry season, held the castes together
besides the demographic advantage of population to land. Srinivas (ibid: 22) refers
to Kingsley Davis’s survey (1951: 24) observing near stationary population during
the 2000 years between the ancient and the modern period and up until the coming
of European control. This demographic stagnation resulted in the relative ease with
which land was available for cultivation. High land revenue and the existence of virgin
lands made labour valuable. Land-owning castes competed with each other to keep
a steady supply of labour to meet the burden of revenue payments to monarchs and
kings. “Strong employer-employee bonds provided a countervailing force to caste…”
(Srinivas 2000: 23). Numerous diverse forms of employer–employee relations took
place. Kumar (1965: 34) reports that while the lowest caste was the most servile,
9 Village Meaning Home: The Exodus from Urban India During … 145

the caste system not only confirmed the social and economic disadvantages of the
agricultural labourer, but it also gave him some rights, some economic, and others of
social and ritual nature (see Mencher, 1970 in Madan, 2002: 174) where Paraiyans led
a successful boycott for 6 months before the two feuding Nayakar brothers presented
some semblance of agreement. The Paraiyans successfully acted as an organized
corporate group before the Nayakars before agreeing to resume work for them.

9.4 Post-Colonial Indian Villages

Over time, the jajmani system has nearly disappeared from rural India since land
reforms and the abolition of zamindari. Villages have factions. The demographic
scene has undergone change, especially after independence. Life expectancy has
risen consistently during the twentieth century, the great demographic divide of 1951
to 1981 saw a high annual growth rate (2.4%) of India’s population. Consequently,
scarcity of land began to be felt; alongside the village common lands shrank. Housing
for an increasing population, public institutions like schools, dispensaries, roads, and
other developmental projects came up on the village commons, reducing free access
to fuel, fodder, and edible plant products. Yet functional ties between castes in ritual
and social terms are traceable though modified in the form of cash payments for each
service rendered. No longer are caste-specific services ensured between households
agnatically from generation to generation. Amidst functional-transference, caste-
functions are also loosening though at the varna plane there is a likelihood of finding
ritual and secular functional specialists in villages even today. Even in old parts of
towns, the ritual payments are possible to find. City people, who have rural linkages
such as agricultural land and or a house, often retain ritual functional ties with
caste specialists such as Brahmins, mendicants, potters, carpenters, drummers, and
musicians from their villages. They are paid in cash and kind and also if they visit
the city-dwelling jajmans (term used in 2021 also) on certain auspicious days of
the annual calendar, e.g., solstices, eclipses, and festivals. Even menial specialists
employed as municipal staff visit homes in areas where they are posted and expect
some payments in cash and/or kind in many cities even today.
But in the early period of India’s independence, the complex system of jajmani
interdependence was worked out as earlier. Srinivas (2000: 37) recalls how in pre-
British India there was a general acceptance of caste, and the idiom of caste in
governing relationships between individuals and groups. Post-independence, many
occupational specializations have become redundant with the coming of technology,
e.g., piped water supply has obviated the need for water carriers, and many tradi-
tional, labour-intensive agricultural activities. Many defiling occupations are given
up by castes that performed them. Even if some low-caste persons who provide these
services out of poverty, they do so grudgingly. Policies of positive discrimination
have improved the status of many a Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe members,
but the caste divide in some covert form still persists, including that among the lower
castes themselves.
146 T. Patel

The construct that the village is not a community was presented by Dumont
(1966) claiming the village was a demographic entity rather than a community.
Caste inequality was central to the village, and this came in the way of making it
a community. When a villager refers to the village, he has his own caste residence
section in mind; the menial castes do not have the same feeling for the village,
they argued. The low castes reside in ghettos on the outskirts of the main centre of
the village. They had overlooked the complex maze of relationships in the village.
It is true that a village is referred by the most populous caste (see Dube’s, 1958
work covering 120 village studies as part of the National Community Development
Project in U.P. Villages called Rajput village, Tyagi village, Gurjar village, etc.);
other castes’ attachment to the locality also exists. In Singh’s (1970) Chanukhera
village in U.P., the lower castes were protected through reciprocal jajmani relations
and other obligatory relations to keep the labour on the farms amidst dominance and
subordination ties. Srinivas (2000: 21–22) provided data on fights between various
non-dominant castes in villages, and these for instance were often not regarding the
land of the dominant Okkaligas. Kathleen Gough’s (1955:46) accounts of village
fights corroborate Srinivas’ observations. Cohn (1987) gives a nuanced account of
different castes’ pasts with the village. He reports four different accounts of castes
in the same village reported by the four castes he explored. Cohn thus suggests the
inclusion of a multiplicity of pasts provided by various castes constituting a village
and each stressing its belongingness with the village. Srinivas (2000: 26) states, “The
leaders were required to show respect for certain values common to all castes, and
for the customs of each caste even when they differed significantly from those of the
dominant caste…. The leaders of the dominant caste were expected to protect the
interests of the village as a whole and were criticized if they did not.” Further, he
wondered if Dumont did not consider whether unequal groups living in small face-
to-face communities for a long time can also have common interests binding them
together. Additionally, Shah and Desai (1988) show that caste differences without
hierarchy exist in urban Gujarat, implying contra Dumont that caste difference is not
about hierarchy alone.
The relationships among villagers themselves, their local deities, and the land on
which they live are normally recognized as significant social units, notwithstanding
the internal divisions and external links to other settlements. On village rituals, Fuller
(1992, in Madan 2002) states, “There should always be harmony between the deities
and the population and territory that they protect and rule over, as well as compati-
bility between the people and their land whose qualities are ingested by eating food
grown in village fields and drinking water drawn from village wells” (in Madan
ibid: 269). Fuller examines Srinivas’s account of the active participation of all the
castes in the festival of the single goddess Bhadrakali in the Coorg village, Kuklur
in 1941. Srinivas speaks of the compatibility between its castes. “Village rituals are
one manifestation of the social significance of the local community and in much of
India the unity or solidarity of the community is strikingly expressed in the celebra-
tion of village festivals” (Fuller ibid: 272). The untouchable Poleyas lead the festive
procession until it reaches the temple which they do not enter. The low-ranking
Panikar oracles stand behind the shrine when the Brahmin priest conducts worship
9 Village Meaning Home: The Exodus from Urban India During … 147

inside while the semi-untouchable Medas play music and the Coorg headman spon-
sors the festival. While Fuller finds stratification in the festival along caste lines, he
states, “Despite all this variation villages are still recognized as local communities
rather than places in which people merely happen to live and work. For majority of
the Indians, including many urban migrants, the village where they were born and
brought up or have lived for a long time is home in the full sense of that word. Village
rituals are one manifestation of the social significance of the local community, and in
much of India the unity or solidarity of the community is strikingly expressed in the
celebration of village festivals” (p. 272). Fictive kinship across castes in a village also
fostered relationships between families and households manifesting village bonds.
In yet another account by Lambert (1996), the village being a social fact is
revealed through the gender lens. The village is not a self-contained totality but
a social universe and more generally a locality (place, territory) as a component
of social identity. The shared locality (women from the same village married into
another village) of origin in relation to which the hierarchy of caste is rendered
irrelevant. She highlights the phenomenon of sisterhood recognition among women
across different castes married into a village, who come from the same natal village
based on her data from Chawindiya, a Rajasthan village. Besides, in these fictive
kin relations all members of the adopting household become consanguinal kin of
the in-married woman who is henceforth treated as the adoptive father’s daughter, or
adoptive brother’s sister (see other studies, e.g., by Mayer, 1960; Atal, 1968; Sharma,
1986 for making similar fictive kinship across caste and village). It linked the two
households from different villages into fictive kinship ties for at least one generation,
and often longer (my observation in Rajasthan villages supports this practice Patel,
1994).
The village has never been a self-sufficient, stagnant, and changeless entity.
Srinivas and Shah (1960) countered the colonial perception of the self-sufficiency of
the village. The Indian village is neither a static nor a self-sufficient unit, showing
economic, political, social, and religious links, especially through weekly markets,
periodic fairs, and pilgrimage links with the outside, i.e., other villages and cities in
India. Participation of the peasantry in Gandhi’s call to undo the British wrongs and
injustice was a critical link with urban India not to mention the seasonal migration
of villagers to the city for work. Gandhi dissuaded the urban seasonal migrant from
having to leave the village because he brought back corruption, drunkenness, and
disease to the village (Jodhka, 2002: 3396). However slow, the village increased
its links with other towns and cities Almost all village studies in India (especially
those referred to in this essay) report seasonal migration of young males to the
city for work. Sharma (1986) shows the two households serving as buffers for each
other to improve the family status economically, educationally, and socially. The
rural wing of the family subsidized the urban wing through agricultural produce,
grains, dairy products, etc., and the urban wing enabled educational and employ-
ment search opportunities and remitting cash with the aim to buttress the agricultural
household income. Though long-distance migration, for example crossing the sea,
was considered a taboo not only by villages but also by city dwellers, until the East
India Company occupation, Hindus, even the upper castes, considered it a loss of
148 T. Patel

one’s respectability and spoilage of one’s cultural character and that of future gener-
ations if one crossed the sea. Gandhi managed to overcome this challenge before
leaving for England for studies under oath to his mother that he would not touch
three things—wine, women, and meat. Nehru and Ambedkar too went abroad for
studies.

9.5 Planning Future Outside the Village in Post-Mandal

and Post-Liberal Economy

Since 1990, with the implementation of Mandal Commission, the group of erstwhile
cultivating and animal husbanding lower castes, termed as “Other Backward Classes
(OBC)” have benefitted from the Mandal Impact. It reserved a 27% quota for OBCs
in central services and government undertakings. Political representation of OBC
castes increased substantially (11% M.Ps. in 1984 to 20% in the 1990s). Urbanward
migration of OBCs has been on the rise. Some OBC castes more than others bene-
fitted more through Mandal Commission reservations, known as Mandal II, which in
2006 reserved 27% quota for OBCs in higher education. Younger OBCs have been
migrating to urban areas for higher studies, to find work and urban jobs even though
most are not in highly paying ones. These jobs contribute to improving the living
conditions of the agricultural–rural family households, as agriculture itself is in flux.
Gupta (2005) correctly observes that the villagers are desperately seeking a way
out of the contemporary agrarian impasse. The village is no longer the site where
futures can be planned. The Chayanovian logic of balancing drudgery and needs
works on few farms (2005: 751–52). He provides figures from the Periodic Labour
Force Participation Survey of 2017–2018 that 92% engaged in non-farm sectors
in urban areas. Post-economic liberalization threw open some non-agricultural job
opportunities though casual and contractual ones are common; even these are much
sought after by urbanward migrants. Government jobs of permanent nature have
been shrinking, and non-recruitment of vacant positions in public educational and
health sectors plague India. It thus makes better sense for the village households not
to put all eggs in one basket. A foothold in the urban sector along with agriculture is
preferred.
Migration of the menial lower castes to the city from the village took off perhaps
earlier facilitated by policies of positive discrimination for SCs and STs than those of
the OBCs propelled by Mandal. Agricultural stagnation, unwillingness of untouch-
ables to work for wages on farms of cultivating castes, and urban employment with the
opening up of the economy in 1991 were conducive to urbanward migration. More
if not equally significant is the flexibility in caste relations and better chances of
claiming higher caste status in the city. While 31.1% of the population in India in the
2011 Census lived in urban areas, 12.6% of them were Scheduled Caste (SC). Their
urban population increased from 20.4 to 23.6% over the decadal Census. Urban-
ward migration for SC is synonymous with social development, opportunities for
9 Village Meaning Home: The Exodus from Urban India During … 149

better education and health care, and standard of living than in villages. Konda
(2020) provides NSSO data for 2011–2012 on rural–urban disparity in monthly
per capita consumption expenditure: Rs 1,252 and 2,028 respectively, a proxy for
monthly income. But Konda (ibid.) finds the SC concentrated in marginalized urban
spaces that manifest poverty and exclusion, 20.3% of those in slums are SC. Despite
Ambedkar’s call to SCs to embrace cities for their liberation from caste oppression in
the village, caste identities and hierarchies do not disappear in cities. Slum dwellers
are the most vulnerable section neglected in city planning and public services, such
as transport, education, and health.
While village rituals in the past have been discussed above, these continue to be
significant for urban migrants. Chhat puja in Eastern U.P. and Bihar is a festive ritual
around December when migrants return to their native homes from metros. The sea
of people on special trains and other means of transport from Delhi to Bihar around
chat puja is phenomenal. It serves as an important occasion to be with the family and
reiterate the significance of home (village) fertility and lineage. Not everyone leaves
Delhi for the festival, many remain in Delhi as well. It is difficult to accept Gupta’s
(2005) view that the village in India is vanishing. The village is changing and also
effecting the change.

9.5.1 The Village as a “Structure of Feeling”

In a review of some more recent village studies, Harriss (2012: 199) reiterates the
summarizing note by the editors Mines and Yazgi (2010) of the book Village Matters:
Relocating the Village in Contemporary Anthropology of India as, “…in a sense…the
village is not just a territory but a ‘structure of feeling’…an embodied reality that
actors carry forth into the world in which they act.” (p. 11). People are concerned
about the village ‘unity’ that may cancel party loyalties. Harriss (ibid.) quickly adds
that unity too constitutes an instrumental resource that is worked for rather than being
“a feature of timeless tradition…or… a partial anthropological fiction linked to (neo)
functional agendas.” (p. 81) Harriss provides illustrations from Gold’s essay on the
sacred groves in rural Rajasthan—foundational to local identities and collectivities
and in one case an object of collective action on the parts of the village people:
Banerjee-Dube’s essay on a particular radical religious sect in Orissa as a constant
point of reference in configurations of identity and community as sites of memory.
The significance of the Tamil village for its members by Daniel is another example
cited in the review. Village is home not only for those residing there but also for
the other family members in the city who are not residing in the village (see Patel,
2020: 23; Dhal, 2014 for how migrants are for decades considered as outsiders
by non-migrants). Male migrants from rural Rajasthan for instance often go to the
city for work leaving their wife and/or children with the family in the village. It
is only by and by that they move to the city with their spouse and children. Many
elderly return to their villages leaving the younger generation to take over the family
businesses in the city. Just before the COVID-19 led nationwide lockdown from
150 T. Patel

March 24, 2020, was announced, numerous migrants who had come home for Holi
celebrations (the festival of colours, a few days earlier) had not left their villages. Had
they all returned to their respective towns and cities of work, the quantum of distress
migration would have been much larger. Migrant workers in urban areas usually
return to their village homes during festivals, on occasions of weddings, deaths,
and such rituals and ceremonies. Many continue to hold weddings in the village
home even if it means families and kindred are scattered across different cities from
where they come. Mostly they come for working on the family farms during peak
agricultural seasons by taking leave from their urban jobs whether these jobs are
permanent/temporary or casual. It is mostly the OBCs who come to work on family
farms as they are small and medium landholding castes for whom hired labour is
highly uneconomic. Changing caste dynamics in the village is reflected in agricultural
work. Though agricultural wage work is a deigned activity, as mentioned earlier, the
lower castes consider it avoidable as it reinforces caste hierarchies, especially when
OBCs need hired labour. They prefer to do odd jobs elsewhere than work on the
farms of other co-villagers.
The magnitude of distressed migrants is in millions but the lack of database on
migrants and unorganized sector workers is a serious drawback in India. Media has
been reporting about many a homeless urban with no links to the village, with nowhere
to go, sitting under trees in hospitals, most susceptible to COVID-19 infections.
Nearly 54 lakh slum dweller daily wagers in Delhi applied for e-coupons for food
as they had no ration cards. This was revealed through a petition filed by Delhi
Rozi Roti Adhikar Abhiyan (see Counterview December 8, 2020). The precarity of
employment in urban India, where sudden unemployment, accompanied by loss of
income and shelter, robbed the distressed migrants of hope in the city. Employers
were unable and/or unwilling to continue paying and/or sheltering their workers
during the lockdown. Most employers themselves were small-time businesse who
also lost their incomes, savings, and shelters. Many had to abandon the city and
return home to the village. Basic survival in terms of food grain was the assurance
many hoped to find at home. At least they would be able to find a roof with no rent to
be paid. Simmel (1903) compared the psychology of the rural individual with those
in the metropolis. The latter constantly adapted and adjusted. The rural dwellers’
psychology is a combination of meaningful relationships established over time unlike
metro dwellers whose relationship is mediated through money exchange, the primary
source of trust. The metropolis is the nexus point for the circulation of capital,
commodities, and people. Man depends so much on the coexistence of others’ work.
Notwithstanding the profound disruption creating the fluctuations and discontinuities
of the external milieu which one deals with in a metropolis, the metropolitan type
reacts in a rational manner in terms of money. (Simmel also calls it matter-of-fact
attitude in the treatment of persons and things). Money is concerned with what is
common to all, i.e., with exchange value, which reduces all quality and individuality
to a purely quantitative level (1903: 12). The social intercourse in the metropolis is
characterized by brevity and rarity allotted to each individual while in a small city
(or village), frequent and long association ensures to each person an unambiguous
conception of the other’s personality (ibid: 18).
9 Village Meaning Home: The Exodus from Urban India During … 151

The village is not a safe haven, it has inequalities, hierarchies, conflicts, and
factions. The villager desires to work in the city for better wages. Yet, human rela-
tionships are not mediated through money alone but through obligations of kinship,
family, lineage, and clan (Baviskar’s, 1995 village is constituted by a single clan;
many in Haryana are similarly constituted as per media reports on khaps) that overlap
with those of money. With all its ills and drawbacks, the COVID-19 pandemic
presents the village more as a “cooperative-conflicting unit”, like the household.
The household has its age, ability and gender inequalities, and disparities, yet its
members have ties that are both cooperative and conflicting. Similarly, the relations
constituting the village as a community may come alive.
The village is home. It continues to hold value for most rural–urban migrants.
This point hardly needs labouring after having witnessed the massive exodus of a
huge mass of jobless and homeless humanity forced to walk thousands of miles to
return to their village home rather than die of hunger if not of COVID-19 in the city.

Acknowledgements I am thankful to Prof. Gita Dharampal, Vinay Patel, Savita Patel, Drs.
Kulwinder Kaur, Ruby Bhardwaj, and Saroj Dhal for their help with assembling material for the
paper and commenting. I thank the copy editor and editor of this volume for their comments.

References

Atal, Y. (1968). The changing frontiers of caste. National Publishing House.

Baden-Powell, B. H. (1899). The origin and growth of village commnuities in India. Swan,
Sonnensehein & Co.
Baviskar, A. (1995). In the belly of the river: Tribal conflicts over development in the Narmada
valley. Oxford University Press.
Cohn, B. S. (1987). An anthropologist among the historians. Oxford University Press.
Dhal, S. K. (2014). Situating migrants in an industrial setting: A sociological study [Unpublished
thesis]. University of Delhi.
Dharampal (2015). Some aspects of earlier Indian society and polity and their relevance to the
present. In G. Dharampal (ed.) (1986), in Essential writings of Dharampal (pp. 31–82). Govt.
of India, Publication Division.
Dube, S. C. (1958). India’s changing villages: Human factors in community development. Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Dumont, L. (1966). The ‘village community’ from Munro to Maine. Contributions to Indian
Sociology, 9, 67–89.
Fuller, C. J. (1992/2002). Rituals of the village. In V. Madan (ed.) (2002) The village in India.
Oxford University Press.
Gandhi, M. K. (1977). Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi. LXVIII. Government of India.
Gould, 1964 Gould, H. A. (1964/2002). A Jajmani system of North India: Its structure, magnitude
and meaning. In V. Madan (Ed.), The village in India (pp. 126 143). Oxford University Press.
Gupta, D. (2005). Wither the Indian village. Economic and Political Weekly, 19, 751–759.
Harriss, R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: A two sector
analysis. American Economic Review, 60(91), 126–142.
Harriss, J. 2012 (2012). The social significance of villages. Review of Agrarian Studies, 2(1),
196–200.
152 T. Patel

Ishii, K. (2001). The Socio-economic thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi: As an origin of alternative

development. Review of Social Economy, LIX, 3, 297–312.
Jodhka, S. S. (2002). Nation and village: Images of rural India in Gandhi, Nehru and Ambedkar.
Economic and Political Weekly, 37(32), 3343–3353.
Konda, G. R. (2020). Slum numbers show cities don’t help shed caste. Indian Express, November
29, page 7.
Kumar, D. (1965). Land and caste in South India. Cambridge University Press.
Kumar, N. (2017). The changing socio-economic life of peasants in U.P. with special reference to
the Process of Depeasantization [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Delhi
Lambert, H. (1996). Caste, gender and locality in rural Rajasthan. In C. J. Fuller (Ed.), Caste today
(1996) (pp. 93–123). Oxford University Press.
Mayer, A. C. (1960). Caste and kinship in Central India: A village in its region. Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Mencher, J. P. (1970/2002). A tamil village: Changing socio-economic structure in Madras state.
In V. Madan (ed.). The village in India (pp.165–181). Oxford University Press.
Mines, D. P., & Yagzi, N. (2010). Village matters: Relocating the villages in the contemporary
anthropology of India. Oxford University Press.
Patel, T. (1994). Fertility behavior: Population and society in a Rajasthan village. Oxford University
Press.
Patel, T. (2020). New faces of the Indian family in India in the 21st century: Some explorations. In
D. Prasad, S. Juva, & M. Nayar (Eds.), The contemporary indian family (pp. 23–41). Routledge.
Sharma, U. (1986). Women, work, class, and the urban household: A study of Shimla, North India.
Tavistock Publication.
Simmel, G. (1903). The metropolis and mental life. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from www.Blackw
ellPublishing.com.
Singh, Y. (1970/2002). Chanukhera: Cultural Change in Uttar Pradseh. In V. Madan (ed.), The
village in India (pp. 105–126). Oxford University Press.
Srinivas, M. N. (2000). Collected works. Oxford University Press.
Srinivas, M. N., & A. M. Shah (1960). Myth of the self-sufficiency of Indian Village. Economic
Weekly, 10, pp 1375–1378.
Thorner, D. (1966). Marx on India and the asiatic mode of production. Contributions to Indian
Sociology, 9, 33–66.
Wiser, W. H. (1936). The hindu jajmani system. Lucknow Publishing House.
Chapter 10
The Text and Context of Tribal Studies
in India

Vidyut Joshi

Abstract Whether knowledge is a social or rational construct is an unresolved epis-

temological issue. This paper takes the position that knowledge is a social construct.
With this view, it takes stock of tribal studies in India and shows that whenever there
was a change in the broader contexts, there was a change in the nature of tribal studies.
In order to show this, the entire gamut of tribal studies has been divided into four
phases: (i) The Ethnographic study phase (1774–1920), (ii) The Constructive phase
(1920–1950), (iii) The Development study phase (1950–1990), and (iv) The Identity
study phase (1990 onwards). The first phase of tribal studies grew under the influ-
ence of British anthropology. It was devoted to ethnographic studies to understand
tribal communities to administer them. The second phase is marked by a national
movement where Indian scholars debated whether tribals should be isolated, assim-
ilated, or integrated with the Indian mainstream. In the third phase, the state of India
is found committed to tribal development and most of the studies pertain to various
aspects of development. The fourth phase is marked by somewhat disenchantment of
the tribals with the pattern of modernization, and a strong sense of identity emerges
among them. There are three clear trends in this phase. One is by anthropologists
speaking for tribal autonomy. The second trend relates to those tribal scholars who
reveal the search for tribal identity. The third set is by TRTIs which are devoted to
the certification of tribal status. Thus, we find four different patterns of tribal studies
in four different phases.

Keywords Text and context · Tribal studies · Ethnography · Development phase ·

Identity phase · Tribe · First nation

V. Joshi (B)
Centre for Social Studies, Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute, Ahmedabad, India
e-mail: vidyutj@gmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 153
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_10
154 V. Joshi

10.1 Introduction

Whether knowledge is rational or empirical is an unresolved epistemological issue.

This has been temporarily resolved by synthesizing both trends in the form of logical
empiricism. However, the empirical trend remains powerful in social sciences. Empir-
ical studies have research questions or hypotheses, which rest on a set of beliefs
and assumptions of a researcher, derived from his experiences. As experiences take
place in specific contexts, the research questions are social constructs. This being so,
the nature of research, specifically in social sciences, changes with change in larger
contexts. The researchers’ view of looking at things changes. Kuhn (Chalmers, 1982:
90) provides one of the most influential arguments for such theory-laden observation.
He says concepts are part of the perspective that a researcher holds. Kuhn names this
change of context as a paradigm shift.
The objective of this paper is to take stock of tribal studies in India and show
that the nature of tribal studies has changed with the changes in a broader context.
For this purpose, tribal studies in India have been divided into four phases: (i)
Ethnography study phase (1774–1920), (ii) The Constructive phase (1920–1950),
(iii) The Development study phase (1950–1990), and (iv) Identity study phase (1990
onwards).
Tribal studies in India have been carried out by missionaries, European admin-
istrators, and economists, psychologists, political scientists, and historians. But this
mainly covers works done by sociologists and anthropologists. By tribal studies we
mean research, survey, or any kind of academic study, empirical or non-empirical,
being carried out where the reference point is a tribal or scheduled tribe. This paper
excludes those works carried out by Census or NSS in tribal areas Joshi, 2014: 26.
This paper also excludes physical anthropology studies.

10.2 The Ethnographic Study Phase (1774–1920)

Anthropology and sociology, like other social sciences, emerged after the enlighten-
ment phase in Europe. Immanuel Kant said that man and his relationship with other
men is the subject matter of philosophy. This is an important mark of the enlighten-
ment phase. Auguste Comte, the father of sociology, wanted to find out the rules of
social order and social dynamics. Anthropology was influenced by Herbert Spenser’s
evolutionary thesis that, like organisms, the society also has evolved from a simple
society to a complex society. British believed that the UK was a complex society as it
has a developed civilization. It has developed systems like state, church, market, and
education. In contrast, wherever such institutions had not developed, were consid-
ered tribal or primitive or simple society. This sort of knowledge of being advanced
in evolution satisfied the colonial hegemony. When the Britishers came to India,
they came with this set of knowledge. Hence, their interest was to understand Indian
people, their life, and culture and to rule them with this perspective (Joshi, 2017: 17).
10 The Text and Context of Tribal Studies in India 155

10.2.1 The British Anthropologist’ Concept of Tribe

Indian languages had no genetic term like tribe to address a set of people. Ours
was a complex hierarchical society, and we had different names for different people.
British anthropology used to define tribe as a “socially cohesive unit, associated with
a territory, the members of which regard themselves as politically autonomous” (
Mitchel, 1979: 232). Often a tribe was marked with a distinct cultural trait. The
term primitive tribe was used by Western anthropologists to denote “a primary group
of people living in a primitive or barbarous condition under a headman or a chief”
(Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, vol. 15). Various anthropologists define tribe as
a people at the earlier stage of evolution. This sort of anthropological knowledge
gave a moral tone that tribals are yet to develop and become civilized. It is for this
that they were also called ‘primitive’, ‘barbarous’, or ‘aboriginal’ people. This sort
of moral tone adopted by anthropology was reduced by using terms like ‘pre-state
society’, ‘folk society’, or ‘simple society’ (Joshi, 2017: 16).

10.2.2 The Tribal Administration

“When contractors of the East India Company went to the tribal areas in, they were
beaten up by the tribals for entering their region and cutting their forests. This
compelled the British administrators to understand the tribal society and culture.
Moreover, the British Raj also assumed the role of tribal transformation which they
took as ‘Transforming tribal society form a pre-state to a state society, pre-literate to
a literate society, from animistic religion to an organized religious society, and from
a simple society to a developed complex society. This task was handled more by the
missionaries when the Raj was interested in forest resources. In 1849 or so when the
first British contractor went to forest to cut teakwood to lay down the railway track,
they were beaten up by tribals—‘why are you cutting our forest?’ So they appointed
commissioner oversee how to peacefully clear fealty forest. And the first Forest Act
was carried out in 1864 with the objective to clear fealty forest, not to regrow the
forest. Today forest department claims that the objective of the British at that time
was to clear fell forest. Their interest was to peacefully manage tribal areas to clear
fealty forest and to exploit resources. So, they studied tribals, their lifestyle, their
behavior pattern, and did not disturb them much. It was the isolation approach, as
practiced by Verrier Elvin that is to put them in isolation and manage them well”
(Joshi, 2017: 16–17).
156 V. Joshi

10.2.3 The Studies in the Formative Phase

The Tribal studies in this phase were carried out by British scholars since the foun-
dation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1774. The British administrators, mission-
aries, travellers, and a few other anthropological-oriented individuals collected data
on tribal and rural groups and wrote about their life and culture in the Journal of
the Asiatic Society of Bengal (estd.1784), Indian Antiquary (estd.1872) and later in
the Journal of Bihar and Orissa Research Society (estd.1915), and in Man in India
(estd.1921). Some scholars also produced a collection of handbooks on tribes and
castes. During the Census, enumeration especially in 1931 and 1941, some British
and Indian anthropologists were associated with the collection of anthropological
data on the tribes and castes of different parts of India.
Some scholarly British administrators also had an anthropology background. They
were posted in different parts of the country. H. H. Risley, E. T. Dalton, and L. S.
O’Malley were posted in East India, Russell was posted in central India, E. Thurston
was posted in South India, and W. Crools in Northern India. These people wrote
encyclopaedia inventories on the tribes and castes of India which, even today, provide
basic information about the life and culture of the peoples of the respective regions.
These accounts were so important that the Anthropological Survey of India has
prepared a plan to reprint some of them with suitable additional notes. In addition
to the handbooks on the tribes and castes of different regions, general books on
Indian ethnology were also published by these scholars. Campbell (1856), Latham
(1859), and Risley (1891) are noteworthy among them. with a view to acquainting
government officials and private persons with classified descriptions of tribes and
castes in India. These works about the land and people of the regions were followed
by efforts to prepare detailed accounts of specific tribes and some castes. Among
them, mentions may be made of Shakespeare (1912), Gurdon (1914), Mills (1922,
1937), N. E. and many others.
These ethnographic studies by Britishers clearly proved two things. One, Britain
is a civilized society and tribals are at a primitive stage of social evolution. Two,
Anthropological studies in India… began as the administrative necessity of the British
colonial rules.

10.3 The Constructive Phase (1920–1950)

This is a phase of diversification of tribal studies in India where debate on what

to do with tribals emerges and three clear approaches emerge. One is the isolation
approach. “The Britishers did not want to disturb tribal area because if revolt took
place, it would be difficult to rule and they wanted forest wealth. So, they had a
theory of isolation: Let them be kept in reserves, let them be separated from the
mainstream of society, let them remain there and we will manage them well” (Joshi,
2017: 5). Verrier Elvin was to welcome it as a spokesman of this approach. Second,
10 The Text and Context of Tribal Studies in India 157

Ghurye (Ghurye, 1943) believed that tribals are backward Hindus and they should
be assimilated into the mainstream. The third approach was to integrate tribals into
the mainstream keeping their cultural autonomy intact (Singh, S. K. in EPW, no.
33–34), which happened because of the newly emerging context.

10.3.1 Emergence of Indian Scholars

With the onset of the nationalist movement, this phase witnessed a phenomenal
change in the nature of tribal studies. Now sociology and anthropology were included
in the curriculum of the two important universities in Bombay (Sociology in 1919)
and Calcutta (Anthropology in 1921). These two centres attracted scholars who
undertook significant research. Very soon, specialized subjects like kinship studies,
social organization, etc. were undertaken by trained scholars like Ghurye (1943,
1952, 1954), Chattopadhyay (1922, 1925), Srinivas (1942, 1946), Majumdar (1937),
Karve (1940–1941), and a few others.
During a joint session of the Indian Science Congress Association and the British
Association, on the occasion of the Silver Jubilee of the former in 1938, a review
of the progress of anthropology in India took place, and eminent anthropologists
from abroad deliberated with Indian anthropologists and discussed plans for future
anthropological research in India.
Thus, Indian anthropology, born and brought up under the influence of British
anthropology, matured during this phase. Except for some studies of Indian institu-
tions like caste (Briggs, 1920; Iyer, 1929; Hutton, 1946), the tradition of tribal studies
remained the focus of anthropology. This practice continued till the end of the forties
of the twentieth century. On the lines of the anthropology taught at Cambridge, and
Oxford, Indian anthropology was characterized by ethnological and monographic
studies with a special emphasis on culture, kinship, and social organization of tribals.

10.3.2 The Nationalist Movement

The freedom movement reached to masses, in this phase under the leadership of
Gandhi. “In 1922 Chauri-Chaura occurred, and Gandhi stopped the Freedom Move-
ment, asserting that we cannot run the freedom movement with violence. And he
asked his workers to go to tribal areas and train the tribals to be a part of the main-
stream” (Joshi, 1980: 22). This increased tribal–non-tribal interaction and starting
of social reform movements among tribals. A fresh trend of studies started with the
nationalist movement. Ashrams were opened in tribal areas.
These two contexts set a different academic environment and apart from ongoing
ethnographic studies, studies depicting tribal issues in Indian contexts were also
initiated. Apart from being descriptive studies, as was in the first phase, tribal studies
also became analytical in this phase. The question, “why tribals are backward?”
158 V. Joshi

was now being asked by tribals themselves, may be under the influence of construc-
tive workers who went to tribal areas and established ashrams. A series of studies
of tribal backwardness were conducted in this phase. Briggs (1922) wrote on the
‘Chamar’. Some missionaries like P. O. Bodding were also attracted to ethnographic
and linguistic research. These scholars were influenced by British anthropologists
like Rivers (1906), Seligman (1911), Redcliffe Brown (1922), and Hutton (1931).
They conducted studies on different tribes and published their monographs. The
works of S. C. Roy were acknowledged by contemporary British anthropologists as
competent studies. Srinivas’s study on marriage and family in Mysore (1942) and
N. K. Bose’s book entitled Hindu Methods of Tribal Absorption (1928:1941) were
milestones in Indian anthropology.
When Verrier Elwin entered the Indian scene with his works on the tribes
of Madhya Pradesh and Orissa (now Odisha) like the Baiga (1939), the Agaria
(1942b) or Maria (1942a) gave further recognition to Indian anthropology. Furer-
Haimendorf’s (1943) works on the tribes of Hyderabad provided refined models for
research workers in India (Vidyarthi, 1972: 39). In Indian universities, various depart-
ments of sociology and anthropology inherited this sort of evolutionary perspective
and started distinguishing between castes and tribes. The trend of ethnic studies was
well set in this phase.
I do not want to list out studies. That work has been done well by the Survey
of Research volumes of ICSSR (1971). What we want to emphasize here is the
fact that studies of life and labour, race and culture, marriage and family, and a
tribe or tribes of a particular area became a trend in this pre-independence phase.
Many Indian anthropologists and sociologists took up this line and wrote many
ethnographic accounts like The Dublas of Gujarat by Shah (1958). Hutton was
enumerating Census those days. And he put, first time, some sections as animist
tribes which Ghurye opposed saying this cannot be done. He meant that tribes are
backward Hindus and not animistic. This raised another issue and a wave of studies
of how different tribes were from Hindu caste people started. So studies on races
and culture, life and living, and marriage and family, all sorts of studies were made.
“Through such studies British Raj succeeded in establishing some people as tribal
group, pre-state, homogeneous, dialect-speaking, territorially bound groups, which
is separate from mainstream India. They wanted to do it and they could successfully
do it” (Joshi, 2017–2018).

10.4 The Development Study Phase (1950–1990)

This phase brings a paradigm shift in tribal studies because of independence and its
consequent impact on them. Now the Constitution of India gave special treatment to
tribals.
10 The Text and Context of Tribal Studies in India 159

10.4.1 Tribal Welfare

The British Raj wanted to rule tribal areas mainly in order to exploit forest wealth.
But now, the Indian state declared itself as a welfare state that was wedded to tribal
welfare and development. Looking at the sensitive nature of tribal areas, the state put
tribal affairs directly under the tutelage of the President of India. The evolutionary and
the separatist/isolationist approach for tribal affairs, as adopted by British anthropol-
ogists and administrators, was not accepted by the Indian state. Even after adopting
a welfare and integration approach, it was difficult to evolve a common definition
encompassing all Indian tribes. Finally, it was left to the will of the President to
identify a group as a tribe. We all know many examples where mistakes have been
committed in this regard.

10.4.2 The Development Perspective

The issue of the development of tribes with three different approaches—isolation,

assimilation, and integration-perspective—was debated a lot in early independence
days. We all know that social scientists readily shifted away from the isolation
approach of the British—separating tribes from the rest of the Indians. They also
did not accept the assimilation approach propagated by Prof. G. S. Ghurye. They
all accepted the integration approach given by Jawaharlal Nehru. The integration
approach was a new development perspective, and it was believed that with educa-
tion and other development inputs, the tribals will develop and integrate with the
mainstream.

10.4.3 Institutional Setup

“We all know that the anthropological survey of India ‘started tribal studies with
the development perspective. The ethnic studies got a back seat and development
studies came in forefront.’ Tribal research and training institutes (TRTIs) were
specially established to boost development efforts of the governments. Many univer-
sities opened sociology and anthropology departments which took up tribal studies.
Research institutes under ICSSR also have carried out many tribal development
studies. Various departments of the central and state governments also have grants
for tribal development studies. All these efforts provided academic inputs in tribal
development policy and programmes” (Joshi, 2017: 19).
“Now with change in political context, the perspective also changed. The Indian
state ‘did want to exploit forest resources. But it also wanted to develop tribals as
it was wedded to tribal welfare. So the term changed so scheduled tribes, and we
all know how difficult it was to prepare a list of scheduled tribes. A lot of debate
160 V. Joshi

went on in the constituent assembly and they could not specify clearly the features
of a tribe. So finally, when the constitution was in making, they decided that special
groups selected under the 5th schedule shall have the status of tribe as decided by
the President of India. The President wrote to all chief ministers to enlist the tribes in
their areas. It so happened that Gujarat was part of the Bombay state and Saurashtra
was a separate state, and Nalsarover where there are some 11 villages of padhar,
seven fell in Saurashtra and four fell in Gujarat part of the Bombay state. The chief
minister of Bombay said that our tribes are in eastern forest belt, so padhars of four
villages were not incorporated in the schedule. Dhebarbhai was the chief minister
of Saurashtra. He said that there are no tribals in Saurashtra. Manubhai Shah was
commerce minister, and it is said that he talked to Dhebarbhai to find out the tribals
in Saurashtra, because of central grant for tribal development. So, they identified
padhars of seven villages as tribals. So, two real brothers living in different villages
acquired different status, one of a tribe and other one of general stream. Many such
examples can be given. But what is important here is the fact that the status of
‘tribe’ was not given either based on anthropological knowledge or anthropometric
measures, but based on general impression. Birth in an ascriptive group becomes the
criteria. Mina is a tribe in Rajasthan. They are backward in south Rajasthan, but not
so in other parts of state. But they fall in one category” (Joshi, 2017: 19–20).
There were many such issues. British had, rightly or wrongly, a clear view of
evolutionary anthropology. But we had a clear need of developing people living
in forest and hill areas. So, we prepared a list of tribes and started development
programmes for them. This started a trend of studying development programmes to
help these development actions. Now, tribal development was the buzzword. Almost
all TRTIs carried out development studies in this phase. The notion of development
and integration of tribals with the mainstream was based on the “Nehruian Tribal
Panchsheel” model; I need not elaborate on those things.

10.4.4 Studies in the Third Phase

We started with education and tribal development studies. I have seen some TRTIs’
list of grants to outside agencies for the publication of books. They are mainly on
education, development, health, and migration studies. I have also gone through the
list of studies carried out by TRTI, Gujarat. There were 15 studies on education and
78 studies on development issues. This is more or less true for Maharashtra and MP
TRTIs also. There are migration books and books on education. “Tribal education
got so much importance that ICSSR specially started a cell under J.P. Nayak where
Gore, Desai and Chitins edited three volumes on education of scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes in India. Several people did several kinds of studies. I was also
a part of it. I studied tribal education- ashram schools and I have written some
books on it. There was the liberal belief in those days that people really developed
through education. That belief remained till 1990s. Then health and development,
particularly anthropological survey of India took up the task of preparing volumes on
10 The Text and Context of Tribal Studies in India 161

people of India, their health and nutrition status and all sorts of studies. TRTI took
up several studies. In Rajasthan, a TB study was conducted. Area particular area
planning schemes integrated rural development plan, tribal development plan, and
various sub-plans were made. Indian Institute of Management was given a special
grant for Dharampur, to prepare a tribal block development plan. Many tribal area
development exercises were carried out in this phase” (Joshi, 2017: 20–21).
Forest and development studies were also in vogue in this post-independence
phase. Most of such studies were survey reports meant to provide inputs in devel-
opment actions. The issue was the nature of the relationship between forests and
tribals. As they are a part of the forest, they must depend on the forest. There were
studies on forest labour cooperatives. Impact of forest labour cooperatives on tribal
development, minor forest produce, ‘bidi patta’, and many such studies have been
carried out in Rajasthan. Gujarat, MP, and Chhattisgarh. Agriculture and develop-
ment studies were also conducted, particularly with reference to what sort of crop
suits more to tribal farmers. Various experiments were also conducted. Under the
scheme of Integrated Rural Development Plan (IRDP), there was a provision for
providing buffaloes to tribals. The author of this paper was then in Thandala block
of Jhaluna district to study the impact of IRDP. I asked them where are the buffaloes
given to you? They said the buffaloes are with the baniya (trader). Since buffaloes
cannot graze in undulating terrain, tribals living in hills cannot keep them. Their
preferred domestic animal was the cow. They should have been given cows instead
of buffaloes, but they were not consulted before giving them buffaloes. As a result,
all the buffaloes went to baniyas of the region.
Another scheme under the IRDP, for ‘primitive tribes’, was that of giving storage
bins. Now, primitive tribes are so poor that they do not have paka houses or grain
to store. Aluminium boxes were given to them to store grains. When I was in the
field in a tribal area known as Rajpipla in Gujarat, a merchant came to me, asking if
I wanted aluminium grain storage boxes for cheap. On enquiry, I was told that the
primitive tribes have not taken the boxes given to them. They live in huts, and there
is no space to store these boxes in their huts. Many such studies on the evaluation of
schemes have been carried out in this phase which show these schemes partly suited
and partly did not suit the tribals.
When I criticize tribal studies, I criticize myself as well, as I am a part and parcel
of these studies. “In western Rajasthan, Dr S.L. Doshi carried out some studies.
Dr Doshi, Professor Madhusudan Trivedi (1991), Dr Bhargawa, Dr Mridula Trivedi
(2007), P.C. Jain, Ambasht, Ruhela all have been engaged in one or the other aspect
of tribal studies. But, in the latter half of second phase, we started realizing that
something is wrong. The vision that the tribals will integrate with the mainstream
was not coming true. So, the larger thesis of modernization that India is a melting
pot where all ethnic identities will melt and a pan-India identity will emerge did not
come true. So, in the later half, stratification studies began. Surat centre, CSS had
organized a special seminar on this and put an emphasis on stratification studies.
Even in Rajasthan, stratification studies were undertaken with questions like why
only a small part of the tribals develop and form into an elite group and rest of them
remain as they were.” (Joshi, 2017: 22).
162 V. Joshi

The latter half of this phase is marked by stratification studies. CSS Surat, under
the stewardship of I. P. Desai, gave impetus to tribal stratification studies. “Of course,
much earlier Bailey started this trend. Sharma (1996) carried it out in Rajasthan urban
setting. This shift came more from universities and autonomous research institutes
and less from ASI and TRTIs. Stratification studies clearly suggest that as a result
of the development programmes, an elite class has emerged among tribals, as it
has happened in non-tribal society. Tribal group, as a whole, could not develop and
integrate with the mainstream. It remains to be seen whether the elite tribals integrate
themselves with the non-tribals elites or not. Another trend was to study development
and deprivation. The Narmada Rehabilitation studies carried out by Joshi (1986–19)
are a pointer here” (Joshi, 2017: 22).
I have deliberately not mentioned many famous studies mentioned by Vidyarthi
(1972 ICSSR survey) and Naik (1972 ICSSR Survey) as there is no point in naming
names. However, mention must be made of Majumdar’s and Barremen’s studies
of polyandrous Khasa, Surajit Sinha’s study of the Bhumij, Vidyarthi’s study of
the Maler hill village and a mixed tribal village of Chotanagpur, and Edward Jay’s
study of a Muria village. Majumdar (1993) conducted a good study of the tribe-
Hindu continuum. Berreman has accepted these people as Hindus without any doubt
(1963 and 1964). Sinha also believes in such a continuum. In the study of Bhumiji
of Manbhum, his analysis brings out clearly the prevalence of the Bhumij-Rajput
continuum (1957b; 1962). Vidyarthi’s (1965) work on a tribal village of Chotanagpur
clearly indicates how the Manjhi tribe has attained the status of a caste. Such studies
opened up a new direction of interpretation of change among tribals.
There were also family, marriage, and kinship studies in this phase. Robbins
Burlings’ (1963) work on Renganggri, a Garo village, with special reference to family
and kinship, is a milestone. There were also some unconventional studies. Vidyarthi’s
(1963) study of Maler culture provides an alternative model for understanding tribal
complex in terms of the interrelatedness of ecology, economy, society, and spiritual
beliefs and practices. Other unconventional studies have also been attempted by the
anthropological survey of India under the guidance of N. K. Bose. Among these, the
study of the material culture of India, the land use survey in a Juang village (Bose,
1961), etc. deserve special mention (Vidyarthi 1972: 39).

10.5 Identity Study Phase (1990 Onwards)

“Sociologists and anthropologists associated with tribal studies complain that the
golden days of tribal studies are over. Gone are the days when a participant observer
was spending many days in tribal areas to understand tribal society and culture”
(Joshi, 2014: 25) There were times when we used to walk in tribal areas, stay there
with them, enjoy the area, enjoy the courtesy of tribal people, talk to them, live with
them, be a part of them, and write reports and memories. I have written a Gujarati
memoire “Aa Pan Gujarat Chhe Dosto” which is very popular. So, those days are
gone. Perhaps, the nature of tribal studies has changed.
10 The Text and Context of Tribal Studies in India 163

The issue is to find out what has happened that those days are gone. And what has
happened to scholars of anthropology and sociology and why they feel that they are
becoming irrelevant. Is it sociology as a whole that is becoming irrelevant? Or the
sociology that we practice and anthropology that we practice are becoming irrelevant?
Maybe we will have to ask the question and I will begin with the Wallerstein report
“Open the Social Science”. In 1996, an international commission was appointed,
the task was restructuring social sciences, and they submitted this report that was
published with the title “Open the Social Science” (Wallerstein, 1997).
The identity phase in tribal studies starts with Rio de Janeiro, in 1991. In the
United Nations conference on environmental development (UNCED), there was a
special section on tribal development. Tribal leaders and activists from world over
had come there. Not only tribals, all subaltern groups like women, dalits, blacks, and
LGBT were there.

10.5.1 Change in Development Perspective

By 1990, it was realized that this sort of development programmes will not bring the
desired results of integrating tribal society into the mainstream. A movement started
in the US, Canada, and other developed countries for tribal voice in development. This
was reflected in India also. The UNCED held at Rio de Janeiro had a special section on
indigenous people (tribals) where many Indian tribal NGOs participated. Now they
have a world forum of indigenous people that meets every year and sets an agenda
for tribal development. Every year they also publish a report on “The Indigenous
World” (IWGIA, 2004). India is covered in this report. Now they demand tribal
self-rule. They want control of their resources. They want sustainable development.
Many young elite tribals hold this view.
Now, this new set of researchers and activists oppose metanarratives of modern-
ization and development, proclaiming that the kind of development being talked
about really does not percolate beyond a stratum. It stays on the upper layers and
benefits only a few. They oppose this type of development and say that they want
sustainable tribal development instead. Sustainable development means where all
the stakeholders get their share, and future generation also gets its share, and the
resources are not overexploited but regenerated. They also say that there is nothing
like linear modernization. This finally broke the modernization myth of only one set
of modernism. There can be many kinds of modernism, depending on what is the
meaning of being ‘modern’ for an individual and a group.

10.5.2 Emphasis on Human Rights

Under the regime of liberalization, privatization, and globalization, tribal area

resources have suffered a lot. Now the tribals oppose any use of their resources
164 V. Joshi

that does not have their participation. They demand their rights. This has of course
put government administration in some difficulties in administering tribal areas. The
Naxal movement is the extreme form of this approach.
The way development has taken place is America-led globalization-centred.
Wallerstein’s “Open the Social Science” report criticizes the way social sciences
are structured to satisfy the post-1945 need of Europe and America. Then if that is
the case—What about blacks? What about minorities? What about females? What
about scheduled tribes and scheduled castes? Scheduled tribes from all over the world
have got united. They are meeting every year. They don’t call themselves tribes. They
call themselves first nations, claiming that they are the first nation and everyone else
is the latter nation. Now tribes claim their rights—human rights—to be an integral
part of all discussions and decisions taken for the tribes. Human rights acts were as
such passed in 1949, but this type of rights of other people were specially added to
UNO after 1980 with this pressure. Unfortunately, we don’t teach these things in
anthropology and sociology.

10.5.3 Emergence of Tribal Identity and Tribal Elites

This is actually a logical corollary of stratification studies. Now those tribals who
benefitted from development programmes did not merge with the mainstream.
Instead, they want their own separate identity to be preserved. Kotada in Udaipur
district has Adivasi Ekata Samiti. I visited Kotada in 1988 and stayed with them for a
week. At state level, there is Adivasi Ekata Samiti. Now Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madya
Pradesh, and Maharashtra have one Adivasi Ekata Samiti also. This is across party
lines. They meet once every year and discuss developmental issues. They also want
to revive tribal culture in the changing circumstances.
So far as sociology and anthropology and other social sciences are concerned,
the days of grand theories and metanarratives are over. This is anti-foundationalism
that has come to stay. This has changed our research practices also. The days of the
hegemony of research institutes are over. The days of an anthropologist spending days
in fieldwork are over. The days of action research, identity research, and participation
by tribals in research have come to stay.
Zeenabhai Darji, a non-tribal Gandhian leader who was running several very good
institutes in south Gujarat in the Vyara area, was once told by young tribals to leave
the area and turn the institution over to the tribals. Harivallabh Parikh, who was
running Rangpur Ahshram, also faced such opposition. Harivallabh Parikh was sick
and I went to see him. There were some tribals outside the Ashram. They refused
to come inside the Ashram and asked me to accompany them to their village for a
discussion. In a conversation that lasted the whole night, they told me that they will
respect Harivallabh Parikh till he is alive, but as soon as he passes away, they will
take over the Ashram. These kinds of things have started happening. They further
argued—what do you call freedom after all? “My village, My Rule”. Why did we
take back India from the British? So that we will have our rule, our regulations, our
10 The Text and Context of Tribal Studies in India 165

justice, and our culture in our village and this is how the village will be structured.
This is what Nehru said, which did not come true through the development phase.

10.5.4 Tribal Studies in the Fourth Phase

The tribal studies in this phase require a detailed survey. Roughly, we can say that
there are three sub-sets of studies in this phase—all known as identity studies. The
first sub-set is by those anthropologists and sociologists who are critical of main-
stream development studies. The second sub-set is by tribal elites who want to assert
their identity and express themselves through literature. The third sub-set is the certi-
fication studies or status enquiry studies by TRTIs (Rathod, 2003). All three sub-sets
are qualitatively different.
The pioneer of the first sub-set is a Canadian anthropologist, Hugh Brody, with his
book Maps and Dreams. He came to Gujarat on a World Bank mission that opposed
the Sardar Sarover project on Narmada River. He said that you acquire land, build
dams, and you go through the records prepared by the government. But what is the
concept of land among the tribals? There are three layers of land holdings among
tribals. The first is the ‘house’ land, the second is the ‘farm’ land, and the third is
the ‘grazing’ land, where their cattle are grazed. When the grazing land is acquired
by the government, no kind of compensation is paid to the cattle breeders who are
dependent on the land for feeding their cattle. The question is that since they have
their own norms of governance, and have been running their society on such norms,
they also want to run other organizations as per their norms. This kind of identity
search is emerging in a big way in tribal areas in India, at least among tribal elites.
After Hugh Brody, I came across anthropologist Felix Padel and Das’s book Out
of This Earth (2010). Padel studied Vedanta in Odisha. He said that to a tribal the
hill alumina (Dungar) is their God. We are snatching away their god and disturbing
them. He asked the Indian anthropologists and sociologists to leave them alone, and
let them do what they want with their hills. We already know what results have
come in Odisha of a movement against Vedanta. Another book by the same author
“Sacrificing People” is a classic case of colonial intrusion in a tribal area of Odisha.
Padel believes that this sort of colonial expectation has continued in the name of
development also.
Amita Baviskar (1995) is on the line of tribal rights, and tribal identity, supporting
the notion that they should be allowed to run their own affairs. Now, the world over,
this sort of identity studies have been institutionalized. Their paradigm is not the
development paradigm. They also do not follow the usual ‘survey’ method and do
not believe in ‘objectivity’. There is a whole range of such studies and one can prepare
a bibliography.
All such studies speak clearly in favour of the tribals running and managing their
own affairs, preserving of their culture and identity, and their active participation in
all decision-making. The government of India took note of these emerging pressures
leading to PESA Act, Forest Rights Act. Panchayati Raj Extension to Schedule Areas
166 V. Joshi

(PESA) Act lay down rules like acquiring permission from Gram Sabha before taking
over land from a village. But these rules were not implemented either. So, with
the emergence of extensive identity studies, the entire fervour of conducting socio-
economic development studies and anthropological studies by going to the tribal
areas has subsided.
The second sub-set of identity studies is by tribals themselves, and some people
helping them. Ganesh Devi established an institute called “Bhasha” in Gujarat. He
did an all-India survey of languages, specifically tribal languages, and declared that
tribal dialects and languages are dying. It was taken very well. Tribal youth, who have
become educated and who are in the organized sector or are professors or teachers or
bank officers or government officers, have seen these contradictions of development
and the other side of development. These tribal elites feel that mainstream develop-
ment destroys their culture—lifestyle, marriage rites, customs, languages, and the
like. To preserve these aspects of their culture, tribal elites have opened their pens
and started writing prolifically. They have also formed their own tribal literature
academy. So tribal elites are regularly writing on issues of tribal culture. They say
that we want to document the vanishing tribal culture. The question I would like
to ask is whether this is an issue of cultural identity or an issue of their rights and
participation in the development process. My clear impression is that real tribal issues
like forest rights, land acquisition, rehabilitation, PESA, and tribal participation in
their own development are not yet well expressed in tribal literature by tribal elites.
Another passion of these tribal elites is that of forest and environment (Chaudhary,
Adilok. July 2019, 04–08). In fact, this is rendezvous as all tribal elites have left their
traditional life behind.
The third sub-set is by government or government-aided institutions like TRTIs
(2012), who are solely busy with identifying who is tribal and who is not. There
are very many cases of fake tribal certificates by non-tribals, and governments are
busy identifying such cases. Such studies are not academic studies, but they are in
the form of investigative reports on complaints. However, they depend on various
government records for identification whether a particular person is a tribal or not.
This has created a large database on tribals and also debate on whether a person or a
section is tribal or not. There are court cases and such documents become evidence
in such cases.
Thus, there are three clear trends in this phase. As a result, no central or mainstream
tribal issues emerge in this phase. This reminds me of three approaches that emerged
in the second phase. In the fourth phase also, three clear approaches emerge. They
are not contradictory, but there is a need for greater coordination between these three
approaches.

References

Adilok. (2012). A Gujarati journal by Tribals.

Baviskar, A. (1995). In the belly of the river. Oxford University Press.
10 The Text and Context of Tribal Studies in India 167

Brody, H. (1988). Maps and dreams. Douglass and Macintyre.

Chalmers, A. (1982). What is this thing called science. Open University Press.
Chaudhary, A. (2019). ‘Adivasi bacharo, Prakruti bacharo’ (Save tribals, Save nature). Adilok, July.
Doshi, S. L., Jain, P. C. (2001). Social anthropology. In Encyclopaedia of social sciences, vol 15.
Rawat Publications.
Ghurye, G. S. (1943). The Aborigines: ‘So Called’ and their future. D.R. Gadril.
ICSSR. (1971). Survey of research in sociology and social anthropology, vol. I–III. ICSSR.
International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). (2004). The indigenous word. C, 2002–
2003. IWGIA.
Joshi, V. (1980). Ashram Shalao: Ek Adhyayan (Gujarati). Samajik Seva Mandal.
Joshi, V. (1986). Suberging villages: Problems and prospects. Ajanta Publication.
Joshi, V. (1990). Organsing unorganized labour. Oxford IBH.
Joshi, V. (1991). Rehabilitation: A promise to keep. Tax Publication.
Joshi, V. (2002). Aa pan Gujarat chhe dosto (Gujarati) (2nd ed.). Parshwa.
Joshi, V. (2009). Adivasi Vikas Darshan. Gujarat Vidyapith.
Joshi, V. (2014). Text and context: The changing nature of tribal studies in India. Rajasthan Journal
of Sociology, 6.
Joshi, V. (2017). The changing nature of tribal studies in Western India. In V. Joshi, & C. Upadhyay
(Eds.), Tribal situation in India. Rawat Publications.
Latham, R. G. (1859). Ethnology of India. John Van Voorst.
Law, B. (1923). Some Kshartiya tribes of Ancient India. Calcutta University.
Mac, M. F. (1980). A select bibliography of scheduled tribes. CSSS (mimeo).
Mitchel, D. (1979). New dictionary of sociology. Routedge & Kegan Paul.
Padel, F., & Das, S. (2010). Out of this earth. Orient Black Swan.
Rathod, J. N. (2003). An enquiry report of Naika: Naikada of Kadada Village. Ahemedabad TRTI.
(mimeo).
Sarkar, J., Basu, A., & Singh, A. K. (2012). Dimensions of anthropological research in India. The
Indian Anthropological Society.
Shah, P. G. (1958). The Dublas of Gujarat. Gujarat Research Society.
Sharma, S. L. (1996). Ethnicity and stratification among tribals in urban setting. Rawat Publication.
Singh, S. K. (1982). Transformation of tribal society. Economic and Political Weekly, XVII, 33–34.
Spencer, H. (1867). First principles. D. Appleton and Co.
Trivedi, M. (1991). Enterpreneurship among Tribals. Prinwell.
Trivedi, M. (2007). Towards social mobility. Himanshu.
TRTI. (2012). Publication catalogue (mimeo). TRTI.
Upadhyay, C. (1981). Pomlas of Gujarat (mimeo). TRTI.
Vasava, K. (2019). Adivasi sahitya (a published article).
Vidhyarthi, L. P. (1972). Tribal ethnography in India. In A survey of research in sociology and social
anthropolog. Popular Prakashan.
Wallerstein, I., et al. (1997). Open the social science report. Vistaar.
Chapter 11
Changing Issues in Population Research
in India

A. K. Sharma

Abstract As a sub-field of sociology, sociology of population deals with the social

aspects of five demographic processes: nuptiality, fertility, mortality, migration, and
social mobility. These social aspects appear as both determinants and implications of
population trends. For example, in certain contexts, poverty driven migrants are found
to be having lower fertility than the vast majority and this in turn helps the minority
community in improving their social status. However, in India, among the five demo-
graphic processes, social mobility is less studied than the other four processes. This
is largely due to greater international interest in mortality and fertility and stress on
implementing national population policy. Since the beginning of the planned era, the
Indian state has promoted the exploration of fertility and determinants of family plan-
ning acceptance. No wonder, therefore, that there is a lack of data on social mobility
in general and occupational mobility in particular. This paper focuses on changes
observed in research issues and theories in the field of population in India during the
last 100 years. An attempt has also been made to explain these changes in the light
of changing socio-economic milieus and political approaches to nation-building.

Keywords Population · Fertility · Mortality · Migration · Social mobility ·

Family planning

11.1 First-Half of the Twentieth Century

For a long time in history, human population was almost stationary. Therefore,
economists and political scientists paid little attention to this topic. For the first
time, in 1798, Malthus published the first edition of the book entitled An Essay on
the Principle of Population. Due to the subject being considered highly sensitive
at that time, the book was published anonymously. Malthus argued that the natural
tendency of the population is to grow faster than the means of subsistence avail-
able to it. Unless checked by powerful preventive checks, the operation of this law

A. K. Sharma (B)
Department of Humanities & Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India
e-mail: arunk@iitk.ac.in

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 169
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_11
170 A. K. Sharma

always produces misery in the form of vices and deaths. Since then, the relationship
between population growth and development led to a serious academic debate in
various academic disciplines. Two major criticisms of Malthus came from Marx and
Marxist writers who rejected the universality of population theory and connected it
with the mode of production debate; and those who believed in optimum population
theory. In the first half of the twentieth century also few intellectuals and academi-
cians took an interest in the population. The main concern was about technology and
economics which were seen to be of greater importance to planners and academics.
As elsewhere, in India also all major religions—Hinduism, Islam, and Chris-
tianity—supported high fertility. This is understandable. Since in traditional society,
infant and child mortality rates were high, among 8–10 children born in an average
family, hardly 5–6 survived to adulthood. Children, especially sons, were of high
value for several reasons: old age security, social power, agricultural requirements,
and culture. Gradually, the concern for eugenics at the macro level and social mobility
at the household level made control of family size rational among educated and
modernized couples.
Something significant happened on November 1, 1935. There was a summit
meeting between Mahatma Gandhi and Margaret Sanger (Sanger, 2020). It is notable
that in 1916, she opened the first birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, and
a week later, she was arrested and spent 30 days in jail. It appears surprising that she
came to India to meet Gandhiji on population control. She came to India to discuss
birth control with Gandhi and seek his support for the cause. Gandhi supported the
idea of birth control, but not the idea of contraception. Gandhi sensitized the thinkers
and activists about the importance of population control in India at that time on
moral and political grounds (Sanger, 2020). Gandhi asked: “Why should people not
be taught that it is immoral to have more than three or four children and that after
they have had that number they should live separately? If they are taught this it would
harden into custom. And if social reformers cannot impress this idea upon the people,
why not a law? …”.
Population census in India had begun in 1872. It was conducted at decadal intervals
uninterruptedly after that. Till 1921, the population did not exhibit sustained positive
growth. The population of India started showing a growing trend only after 1921.
In fact, due to the pneumonia epidemic affecting most parts of north India around
1919, the total population of India declined during 1911–21. In addition to the size
and growth of the population, the decadal censuses provided a lot of information
on sex, caste, urban–rural residence, and economic activities. The question of caste
was dropped in 1951 and only a question on Scheduled Castes/Tribes (SC/ST) was
included.
This explains why early economists or sociologists like Radhakamal Mukerjee
who wrote anything at all on population were influenced by Optimum Population
Theory (Mukerjee, 1941). To quote:
Accordingly, the true optimum of population is the integral optimum which is based on a
harmonious co-ordination of the optima in the successive levels of ecology, economy, and
state in respect of (a) the expectation of life, (b) real income, and (c) personal happiness
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India 171

and self-expression, all these from the individual standpoint; and of (a) the stability of the
economic base and occupational balance, (b) the regularity and continuity of employment,
and (c) national security and power, all of the latter from the collective standpoint.

Mukerjee also pondered on the relationship between national optima and the world
optima. To quote:
War or peace depends largely on the acceptance of certain universal and objective criteria
in respect of material and cultural standards of living by the nations; it also depends on
the statesmanship of each which can co- ordinate a national with an international optimum
population policy so as to bring about an approximation of the national standards of living
and conditions of security and guarantee a minimum standard for all peoples. Such coordi-
nation rests on a simultaneous combination of the qualitative and the quantitative optima in
population planning by each country. Population planning by each great nation according
to the notion of the integral optimum will then be the cornerstone of world peace, because
social justice and world peace are one and indivisible.

Interestingly, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, the architect of modern India devoted several
pages to his famous work, Discovery of India to the process of demographic transition
and provided a detailed discussion of the nature and causes of demographic transition
as revealed by trends in the West. He was a strong votary of the family planning
program. Thus, even before the independence, the National Planning Committee of
the Indian National Congress strongly supported the promotion of family planning
as a state policy (Sharma and Misra, 2018). For him, population control would be a
top priority for planning in post-independence India. At that time, the census of India
was the only source of population data and Kingsley Davis’s (Davis, 1963) famous
book Population of India and Pakistan is based largely on the statistics generated
by decadal censuses. From these data, one could develop a limited view of the size,
growth rate, and composition of the population.
The dominant explanatory theory of population during this time was the demo-
graphic transition theory (Davis, 1949; Kirk, 1996; United Nations, 1973; Weeks,
1996). It claimed that population transition occurs in certain stages. In the pre-
transitional stage, both birth and death rates are high, and thus the growth rate of
population is close to zero and fluctuates from year to year. Socioeconomic develop-
ment leads to a decline in the death rate, but the birth rate continues to remain high
for some time. In this intermediate stage, the growth rate of the population starts
increasing. Finally, the continued process of development leads to a reduction in
fertility also and the rate of population growth returns to zero. To use the functional
perspective, the equilibrium is restored. The theory of demographic transition was
produced by economists and statisticians. Among the major theoretical sociologists
Sorokin (1978) discussed the demographic and other consequences of the rising
growth rate, caused by mortality decline. It may be noted that Indian sociologists
and demographers have seldom referred to Sorokin in their works and referred only
to noted demographers like Frank Notestein, John C. Caldwell, Ansley J. Coale, Paul
Demeny, Ronald Lee, Tim Dyson, and others who contributed to developments in
the mainstream demography.
172 A. K. Sharma

11.2 Sociology of Population in the Post-Independence

Period

11.2.1 Initial Phase: The Phase of Modeling

In the year 1956, United Nations established the Demographic Training and Research
Centre (DTRC) in Mumbai as a center of demographic studies for the ESCAP region.
In 1970, its name was changed to International Institute for Population Studies (IIPS),
and in 1985, its name was further changed to International Institute for Population
Sciences. In its initial phases, demographic research focused on building models and
developing tools and techniques for analyzing data (which were often incomplete or
unreliable) and projections/predictions of the future population. The courses in IIPS
were divided into two groups: technical and substantive. Technical demography was
based on mathematical and statistical modeling. It was considered to be superior to
substantive or theoretical demography. Technical demography was based on Methods
and Materials of Demography (Shryock and Siegel, 1976); substantive demography
was based on The Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends (United
Nations, 1973). This explains that most of the early demographers associated with
IIPS had mathematical and statistical training, either from abroad or from Indian
Statistical Institute (ISI) or Banaras Hindu University (BHU) which had emerged
as major centers of statistical research. In 1959, the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI),
Calcutta, an institution devoted to research and teaching, and applications of statistics
in the natural and social sciences, founded by Professor P.C. Mahalanobis in 1931,
was elevated to the status of an Institution of National Importance by an Act of the
Parliament. It had a unit devoted to population studies. Some professors of statistics
at BHU also specialized in demography. BHU had conducted a household survey
of demographic variables and the statisticians modeled the open and closed birth
intervals. Open birth interval refers to the time interval between the date of the
survey and the previous birth. Close birth interval refers to the time interval between
two consecutive births.
In this phase, the most important questions before the demographers were as
follows:
(a) What are the various types of errors in census data and what technical methods
can be used to correct them?
(b) What are the true birth and death rates of the country? What is the total fertility
rate (TFR) of India? What is the life expectancy in India? At what rate is it
expected to increase further?
(c) What are the distributions of open and close birth intervals? Can one estimate
the probability of conception from data on birth intervals?
(d) Are there indications of fertility and mortality differentials in India as a whole,
and separately for different regions/states?
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India 173

(e) What are nuptiality patterns in India (i.e., age and marital composition of popu-
lation, patterns of age of marriage, and patterns of divorce and widowhood)
discernable from the census data?
In addition to IIPS, the Statistics Department of Banaras Hindu University (BHU),
the Population Studies Unit of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), and faculty
members of IIPS were also trying to solve the above questions. Stable and stationary
population, poisson probability distribution of births, cingulate mean age of marriage,
life table, multiple decrement life tables, and model life tables were the buzzwords
of population studies at that time.
Gradually, the situation changed and sociological questions became more
important. There were five main reasons for this:
1. Serious concern about the population explosion in developing countries and its
implications for development;
2. Creation of new sources of data in the country, such as Registration of Births
and Deaths, National Sample Survey, Sample Registration Scheme, large-scale
surveys including the first family planning survey by Operations Research Group;
covering national and state level populations, and administrative records.
3. Opening of State institutes. National Institute of Family Planning (The National
Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW), was established on 9th March
1977 by the merger of two national level institutions, viz. the National Institute
of Health Administration and Education (NIHAE) and the National Institute of
Family Planning (NIFP));
4. Emergence of Population Research Centers (PRC) in different universities; and
5. Entry of those basically trained in social sciences rather than statistics or
mathematics, in population studies in IIPS and PRCs.

11.2.2 Sociological Shift

Demographers and population sociologists noted that demographic transition is

linked with two other types of transitions: (a) epidemiological transition; and (b)
rural–urban migration. It has been observed that in the pre-transitional stage when
mortality was high, it was mostly due to the prevalence of contagious diseases, such as
plague, smallpox, cholera, diarrhea, influenza, and pneumonia. In the present demo-
graphic language, it may be said that, at that stage, the disease burden of contagious
diseases was very high. As death rates declined, mostly due to control of infectious
diseases, the disease burden of these diseases declined, and that of diseases of old
age (cancer, cardio-vascular diseases, and strokes) and injuries and accidents started
increasing. The present-day gap in life expectancy and disease burden between devel-
oped and developing countries is still indicative of this (WHO, 2020). This made the
examination of causes of death as central to demography as the estimation of fertility
and life expectancy. Further, it was observed that demographic transition leads to
174 A. K. Sharma

rural–urban migration and is a major cause of urbanization and urban concentration.

Thus, studies of urbanization began competing with the estimation of fertility and
mortality.
Within IIPS, Valsala Narain, M. K. Jain, Sumati Kulkarni, Asha Bhende, Tara
Kanitkar, and H. C. Srivastava had interest in substantive aspects of population,
and thus started exploration of what may broadly be called sociological themes,
such as urbanization, regional variations in urbanization, metropolitanization, city-
size distribution of urban population, values and costs of children in rural India,
fertility differentials by socioeconomic status, gender and reproduction, and tribal
demography. H. C. Srivastava who was an anthropologist by training examined parish
registers in Goa to arrive at estimates of fertility. Some technical demographers
and students attempted to link technical questions with sociocultural settings. For
example, Saxena and others attempted to explain the nature of errors in age data in
Indian censuses in the cultural context of India (Saxena et al., 1986). In the 1970s,
substantive works in demography were also done in the neighboring institute, Tata
Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), which published a journal, the Indian Journal
of Social Work, considered quite prestigious at that time. Studies on urbanization
and migration were also taken up at Jawarharlal Nehru University in Delhi. It was
observed that migration is not simply a matter of numbers. Migrants carry a culture
different from that prevailing at the place of destination. This may result in conflicts,
or in assimilation and absorption of migrants into the new culture and economy.
Migrants may be completely submerged into the new culture or may like to maintain
their distinct identity. In the sociological community in India, Punekar (1974) made
one of the first major attempts to study the assimilation process among the north-
Indian migrants residing in Bangalore City. She taught mostly at IIT Bombay. After
that, many other studies of social aspects of migration have been taken up in university
departments.
Asok Mitra, Ashish Bose, P. B. Desai, and M. K. Premi (JNU) made immense
contributions to the study of urbanization and urban planning in India (Desai, 1969;
Bose et al., 1974). In recent times, R. B. Bhagat and others are also writing about
changing patterns of urbanization and rural–urban migration. The major themes in
the study of urbanization are (a) level and speed of urbanization; (b) rate of growth
of urban and rural populations separately; (c) contribution of natural increase, rural–
urban migration, graduation and absorption in the growth of urban population; (d)
changing quality of urban population; (e) regional differences in urbanization; (f)
urban planning; and (g) role of urbanization in development (Bhagat, 2011; Misra
and Sharma, 2018; Keshri and Bhagat, 2010). Recently, National Council of Educa-
tional Research and Training (NCERT) has summarized population dynamics of
India for college students. It is a good document on population growth and its compo-
nents (NCERT, 2020–2021) and it also touches upon urbanization and urban-rural
differences.
A paradigmatic shift in research took place in the 1970s after the publication of
a paper by John Bongaarts (1978) in Population and Development Review, a journal
consulted by those population scientists who are more interested in the substantive
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India 175

theory than in technical demography. The paper was, however, technical. It aimed
at expressing Total Fertility Rate (TFR) as a product of a few demographic indices.
They are the index of proportion married; index of non-contraction; index of induced
abortion; and index of lactational in fecundability. Jain and Adlakha (1982) applied
this approach to arrive at the ‘preliminary estimates of fertility decline in India during
the 1970s’. Although the Bongaars model was based on the theory of intermediate
variables as proposed by Kingsley Davis and Judith Blake as early as 1956 and was
also included in UN’s Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends (1973),
Bongaarts’s paper (internet) revolutionized research on fertility by offering quanti-
tative measures of roles of different determinants of fertility in different countries
and informing national planners where to focus on. Thus, sociological studies of
different aspects and causes of fertility also started.
In the year 1970, the Indian Association for the Study of Population (IASP)
was formed in Delhi. Asok Mitra, Ashish Bose, and A. Chandrasekhar and several
senior professors of economics, statistics, mathematics, anthropology, and other
diverse subjects became its member. The first annual conference of IASP was held
at the International Institute for Population Studies, Bombay. Those regular annual
conferences of IASP provided an opportunity for demographers and social scientists
working on population dynamics and related subjects, from universities, govern-
ment, and private research organizations. All topics—fertility, mortality, migration,
and marriage—and both technical and substantive aspects are covered. Today the
demographic topics have certainly become more sociological and more and more
scholars are working on gender, malnutrition, reproductive rights, women empower-
ment, and vulnerable populations and presenting their papers in these conferences.
In 2006, another association the Indian Association for Social Sciences and Health
(IASSH) was also registered and began holding annual conferences and publishing
edited volumes on population dynamics in India. The new issues on which demog-
raphers are now working include mental health and mental health facilities, chronic
diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases, sustainable development and
programme implementation.

11.2.3 New and Improved Data Strengthening Sociology

of Population

With new and improved sources of data for India, as well as for the world (WHO,
2020), including World Population Data Sheet (2019) it was possible to do socio-
logical/substantive analysis with national and subnational populations as the units of
analysis. B. D. Misra and A. K. Sharma are two sociologists who taught the sociology
of population for a long time, though outside the university system. B. D. Misra taught
first at IIT Kanpur and then at IIT Bombay; A. K. Sharma at IIT Kanpur throughout
his teaching career. IIT Kanpur was the first institute to conduct research on family
planning, using an organizational perspective (Simmons et al., 1975) and submit
176 A. K. Sharma

recommendations to the government. Papers based on this study were published in

the topmost journals of the population. The first all-India survey on family plan-
ning was planned and conducted by a private organization in 1970 by Operations
Research Group promoted by Sarabhai Enterprises (Khan and Prasad, 1985; Bhat,
2020) under the leadership of M. E. Khan who had done his Ph.D. on fertility among
Muslims, from IIT Kanpur under B.D. Misra. These surveys provided scientific,
large-scale data on fertility, child mortality, marriage, and Knowledge, Attitude and
Practice (KAP) of family planning in India. For the first time, a question on children
ever born was included in the Census of 1971. The data on children ever born was
analyzed by religion and a report was published by Registrar General India. Misra and
Sharma published a paper in The Journal of Family Welfare, then considered to be a
journal of high repute internationally, showing the emergence of fertility differentials
in India (Misra and Sharma, 1978). Religious differentials were important because
they pointed out toward the onset of demographic transition and provided legitimacy
to the threshold hypothesis. According to the threshold hypothesis, fertility responds
to improvement in socioeconomic conditions only after a country has reached a
certain minimum level of development called the threshold level. In a more recent
attempt, Kulkarni and Alagarajan (2005) documented religious differentials in India
and commented on them. Now, of course, detailed data on ideal and actual family
size are available from National Family Health Survey (NFHS) for all major states of
India and also districts which has been analyzed in terms of education, rural–urban
residence, caste, wealth, and religion.
Availability of data on demographic indicators from National Sample Survey
(NSSO), Sample Registration System (SRS), other national-level surveys such as
the ORG survey on family planning, and international interest in India’s popula-
tion (Haub and Sharma, 2015) changed the situation and substantive issues started
getting increasing importance in demography. It is a truism that in India sociology of
population is just another name for substantive studies of demography. Scholars who
took interest in substantive issues of population had diverse backgrounds. Studies by
Bose (1991a, 1991b), Premi (1991; Premi and Das, 2012; Premi et al., 1983), Sharma
(1985), Bhende and Kanitkar (1978), Misra (1995), and Haq (2007) are some of the
important sociological studies of this time. Internationally, some of the best books
on the population of India are produced by Robert Cassen and Tim Dyson. In 1978,
Cassen’s Population, Economy, Society, a book on India was the bestseller of that
time (Cassen, 1978). This shaped the sociology course on population in IIT Kanpur
with the same name. The course was developed and taught by A. K. Sharma. Sharma
(2011) developed several web based and video based courses on population. Another
important book by Dyson (2018) is: A Population History of India: From the First
Modern People to the Present day. Dyson et al. (2005) have produced an inter-
esting book recently, Twenty-First Century India: Population, Economy, Human
Development, and the Environment. All these books provide detailed material on
society, economy, environment, and demographic transition in India. These books
are certainly written from an interdisciplinary perspective and cannot be called books
of sociology as such. Mamdani’s book, Myth of Population Control: Family, Caste
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India 177

and Class in an Indian Village (Mamdani, 1972) may be considered to be the first
serious sociological/anthropological book on population, specifically on fertility in
the Indian setting. It argued that fertility is unlikely to decline without a change in
the social structure. Mamdani’s Marxist bias is clearly reflected in the book which
was written to counter the overpopulation idea of Khanna Study: Population Prob-
lems in Rural Punjab, based on demographic experiments promoted by Rockefeller
Foundation.
In 1955, the Ministry of Health established Demographic Research Centres
(DRCs), in Delhi, Calcutta, and Trivandrum to undertake research on demographic
issues and guide the government on the implementation of family planning programs.
During 1978–79, their name was changed to Population Research Centres (PRCs)
as the emphasis was shifting from estimates of fertility, mortality, and nuptiality to
action research. To quote the Institute of Health Systems (2020): “At present, there
is a network of 18 PRCs in 12 Universities and 6 institutions of national repute
scattered over 17 states of India.” They were located in different departments but
asked to do the same kind of research. Today there are close to two dozen institutions
offering various programs in population studies—certificates, diplomas, and degrees
including Ph.D. degree (Tiwari et al., 2015).
A turning point came in 2007 in the Eleventh Five Year Plan with the emergence
of the concept of inclusive growth. From that point onwards, the Planning Commis-
sion documents and the documents of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
started discussing fertility, mortality, and unmet needs (a new concept signifying
that there are many couples who do not want more children but are not using family
planning methods) according to caste, urban–rural residence, slum and non-slum
areas, religion and other variables of inclusion (Planning Commission, 2013). Indian
Sociological Society created a separate Research Committee on social demography
in 2018.
Substantive studies of the population got a big boost in the early 1990s with
the launch of the National Family and Health Survey (NFHS). NFHS-1 conducted
during 1992–93 was the first all India survey on different socio-economic aspects
of health, fertility, and family planning with the aim of getting national-level esti-
mates. In subsequent rounds of surveys, state-level estimates, estimates for slum
and non-slum populations, and finally district-level estimates were also attempted.
New topics such as domestic violence and the empowerment of women were added.
Apart from socioeconomic issues, NFHS-4 included biomarkers, estimates of the
prevalence of HIV, and a few selected morbidities and malnutrition were made.
NFHS-5, 2019–21, provided district level estimates of several indicators related to
socio-economic status, wealth inequality, fertility, child mortality, nutrition, diseases
and domestic violence, though the survey was interrupted by Covid-19. NFHS-6
is in the process (IIPS 2017). In addition, Annual Health Surveys (AHS, 2023)
and Human Development Surveys (India Human Development Survey, 2020) also
generated a lot of information on the population. After 2005 Government of India
started conducting Annual Health Surveys (2023) which provided district level infor-
mation on education, marriage, fertility, illnesses, family planning and abortion
services, disability and injuries and, for the first time, developed the ‘Maternal and
178 A. K. Sharma

Child Health Deprivation Index’. Health Management Information System devel-

oped by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2020) provides data on various
aspects of fertility and mortality. National Aids Control Organization (NACO, 2020)
is a good online source on many aspects of health and reproduction. National Health
Mission (2020) of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare provides is indeed an
endeavour of great help to demographers working on India’s population.
Due to the limitations of logistics, sociologists and anthropologists working in
universities set up to conduct small, village level studies for research and theory
building. Among such village level or micro-studies, Patel (1994) conducted a village
study on the interaction between social structure and fertility. Such studies, however,
rarely provide inputs for policy making as the population planners are more dependent
on macro-studies.

11.3 Shift from Estimation and Modeling to Theoretical

Explanations

11.3.1 New Issues

Gradually due to changes in international concerns about population policy, gender

issues, sustainable development (Index and Sustainable Development Report, 2018),
and greater availability of good quality data, modeling of demographic processes
has given way to explaining demographic trends, reproductive health, nutrition, and
women empowerment (Sharma 2015; Sharma and Misra, 2018; Dixit and Sharma,
2017; Sharma, 2005). Increasingly the population scientists, and that includes sociol-
ogists, focus on reproductive health, sustainable development, gender, empowerment
of women, nutrition, domestic violence, disability, implications of declining fertility;
and declining female to male ratio (especially at birth) (Bhat (2020), Chaurasia,
2020; Anderson and Kohler, 2015; Clark and Sekher, 2007). Madhu Nagla’s book
Gender and Health explores theoretical and empirical issues connected with women’s
health in India (Nagla, 2013a). Certainly, among the sociologists working in India,
Nagla (1988, 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2020) has contributed significantly to the explo-
ration of various sociological dimensions of health, reproductive health, nutrition,
and medicine. Seigel’s book on demography opens new areas of application of
demography to business, government and social policy (Siegel, 2002).
As mentioned above, with the conduct of NFHS, Human Development Studies,
particularly, India Human Development Survey (2020), SRS, and other large-scale
surveys, and Health Management Information System (HMIS), it has been possible to
analyze social determinants and consequences of demographic processes, nutrition,
domestic violence, malnutrition, and diseases. Health is relatively a new health issue
(Barry and Yuill, 2008). WHO defines health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental
and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity’. As,
discussed above, for long-time health was defined in physical terms only (measured
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India 179

by life expectancy) but gradually attention is shifting toward social and mental aspects
also. Yet, mental and social aspects of health remained ignored for a long time. The
National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) conducted the
first National Mental Health Survey in India during 2015–16 (2020).
Sociologists explain health in terms of class, gender, and ethnicity. There is also
a scope for paradigmatic reflections on health, the major paradigms being Parsonian
functionalism, Marxism, and Foucault’s discourse analysis. Attempts have also been
made to explore people’s perspectives on health in diverse populations. Qualitative
sociologists and quantitative psychologists are the major contributors to this area.
A recent issue of Demography India (IASP, 2020) is devoted to the demographic
impact of Covid-19. Only one out of twelve articles is devoted to the impact of
Covid-19 on fertility, mortality, and migration. All other articles deal with the health
aspects of the pandemic; one of them specifically deals with gender, and one is
devoted to mental health issues.
The new developments in survey methodologies and policy concerns helped in
raising new research questions. In the twenty-first century, the major questions have
been as follows (Sharma, 2012):
• STD/HIV and reproductive health
• Social representations of health
• Health choices
• Access to health services
• Quality of services
• Factors affecting institutional deliveries
• Non-medical determinants of maternal mortality
• New institutional forms of delivering health services.
It is notable that in the year 1986, the first case of HIV in India was found in
Chennai. After that, both international and national organizations—government and
non-government—took a special interest in testing and treatment of HIV. In the late
1990s, several population scientists in India were working on some or other aspect
of HIV. There were several issues: estimates of the prevalence of STDs and HIV,
comprehensive knowledge of STDs and HIV, prejudices against people living with
HIV and AIDS (PLHA), measurement of stigma, defining and mapping of high-risk
groups in different States, developing methodologies for HIV research (Sharma and
Singh, 2008), and effectiveness of HIV interventions. 1992 saw the emergence of the
National Aids Control Organization in India under the Ministry of Health (NACO,
2020). A National AIDS Control Program was launched and those who were earlier
working on fertility and family planning took a keen interest in HIV. The research
was supported through funds from UNICEF, Ministry of Health, Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, and other agencies and the issue was linked with the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG).
On health, research has stressed that there are two different aspects of health:
objective and subjective. One looks at health from experts’ perspective, another
from patients’ or caregivers’ perspectives. The bio-medical perspective that studies
180 A. K. Sharma

health in a scientific and objective manner is the conservative perspective. The new
generation of social scientists is using the bio-psycho-social perspective which is
more holistic and cultural. In a paper on the social construction of illness, Conrad
and Barker (2010) argue that understandings of health and illness are shaped by social
and cultural contexts. Such a perspective is also called the constructionist perspective.
According to Conrad and Barker, there are three ways in which illness experiences
are implicated in culture. First, illnesses are embedded in cultural meanings and are
not simply derived from illness condition; second, a person’s experiences of illnesses
are shaped by the person’s cultural understanding of illness; and third, the medical
knowledge itself is constructed in certain paradigms—claims and counterclaims—
and are determined by power and interests. In an interesting study in India, Mishra and
others (2008) have explored the perceptions of illness among the Bondo of Orrissa
and their association with development and mobility (Dixit et al., 2008; Mishra,
2007). However, this area is majorly explored by social psychologists rather than
sociologists.
Health Choice is a new and interesting area. In the global age, in most societies
today, people have access to plural health practices. For example, in India Ayurveda,
Siddha, Yoga, Homeopathy, scientific or allopathic medicine, herbal practices, and
astrological consultations are commonly used. It is interesting to explore how people
decide how to approach an illness condition. Planners in India have, for obvious
reasons, focused more on the quality of health infrastructure and health services.
National Health Policy 2002 and National Rural Health Mission launched by the then
Prime Minister in 2005 (NHM, 2020) stressed that irrespective of gender, urban–rural
division, state, and caste good quality health services must be available to all. Many
health conditions, infant and child mortality, and maternal mortality depend on the
level of nutrition. Therefore in the health circle, experts often talk about malnutri-
tion–infection syndrome. And the attention of demographers and health planners
is shifted toward anemia and other nutritional deficiencies in body which heavily
depend on the background and biographical situation of the people. Of late, there
have several significant shifts in the provisions of health services. The introduction
of various forms of health insurance services, public–private partnerships, and insti-
tutional changes in the organization of primary health services are some new issues
on sociological research is focusing.
In the Indian context, ethnicity is substituted by caste/class. The categories of
caste are SC, ST, OBC, and others. The last category is consisting of those who
are outside the policy of positive discrimination. Other most important issues are
gender issues (Sekher and Neelambar, 2010), consequences of declining fertility
(Keyfitz 1986; NCERT, 2020–2021), and aging which are in reality all intertwined.
With improvement in life expectancy and declining fertility, the average age of the
population is going up. This is going to create more and more issues regarding forms
of geriatric care, palliative care, the interaction between political institutions and
market in providing care, commodification of care, and quality of care.
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India 181

Encouraged by Sulabha International, some sociologists have also ventured into

studies of sanitation. Nagla (2015) is one of them. Ashis Saxena of Allahabad Univer-
sity and Mohammad Akram of Aligarh Muslim University are two other sociologists
whose writings in the field of sanitation have been recognized.

11.3.2 Perspectives and Methodologies

Population studies emerged as a field of study due to the perceived negative impact of
‘population explosion’ on development. The sudden decline in mortality produced by
powerful state interest in controlling infectious diseases in the less developed coun-
tries in the 1950s led to the onset of a demographic transition. Thus, the discipline
of demography had a functional/managerial perspective. Only rarely someone like
Mamdani (1972) used a Marxist perspective to theorize about the decline in fertility. It
is also obvious from the above discussion that population studies which led to the soci-
ology of population had adopted a positivistic methodology. The demographic anal-
ysis was based largely on census data, large-scale sample surveys, Sample Registra-
tion Survey (Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2020), and routine admin-
istrative statistics obtained from government departments. This explains that most
studies took the definitions and concepts of fertility, labor force, migration, mortality,
violence against women, etc., as adopted by the Registrar General or the sponsors of
the surveys. There has not been a serious examination of the concepts and definitions
of population variables. Even the village studies conducted by university professors
used the standard definitions acceptable to planners and mainstream experts. For
sponsored research and policy research, conducting reflective-critical studies would
not be useful and practical. There are very few qualitative studies such as done by
Sekher and Hatti (2010), which explained the phenomenon of declining sex ratio, or
Sharma (1994) which argued that Muslims do not constitute a monolithic community
and the ideals of reproduction vary according to socioeconomic factors. University
departments are most suited for research experimenting with alternative paradigms.
Some of the questions that concern me are: Can we conceptualize lifestyle in a
better way than the wealth index of NFHS? Can we provide a better definition of
domestic violence than as used by NFHS? Can we develop a shorter but reliable
scale for measuring stigma against HIV and AIDS? Can we have some better defi-
nitions of migration than those used by Registrar General India in censuses and
NSSO? Lastly, alternative ways of analyzing data are not enough. Alternative ways
of conceptualizing population issues are also important. Only sociologists can do
this.
182 A. K. Sharma

11.4 Concluding Remarks

In sum, the seeds of the sociology of population are found in demographic studies.
Initially, the focus of demographic studies was more on the estimation and prediction
of population and the components of population growth; the studies were majorly
done by statisticians and mathematicians. With greater availability of data, not only
demographic studies have become more sociological, but the research issues have
also become more diversified. Yet, sociology departments of major universities have
not taken the lead in building a new sociological theory of population suited to Indian
conditions. One of the problems is that to do research on population issues some
basic training in statistical methods is essential. Unfortunately, few major universities
have introduced courses in social statistics. Even where such courses are introduced
students do not take them so seriously and have a kind of phobia for statistical tools.
However, development of statistical packages such as SPSS and SAS has made it
possible to apply statistical methods easily by other than statisticians also. Therefore
there is a need to introduce courses in social statistics at M.A. and Ph.D. levels.
Population sociologists are certainly coming out of their fear of quantitative methods,
because statistical packages have made researchers’ life much easier, and take up
both quantitative and qualitative studies of population issues. Several sociologists
are using logistic regression, common method variance and weighted Chi-Square in
their analysis.
In addition, there are certain new areas that can be explored by students of soci-
ology of population, using qualitative or phenomenological methodology. There is a
need to explore laypersons’ perspectives on marriage, reproduction, health, migra-
tion, mental health, emancipation, empowerment, and stigma. There is also a need to
explore determinants of geriatric care, commodification of care, new modes of deliv-
ering health care services, and new institutions in policy implementation. Specifically,
the following areas are suggested for further probing:
• Social mobility and its impact on family and kinship
• Sociology of gender and gender wage inequality
• Illegal migrants and their issues
• Estimation of labor migration in different states and cities and the various
vulnerabilities of migrants
• Integrating and disintegrating aspects of migration
• Morbidity in historical perspective
• Elderly care
• Caste and religious differences in education and the outcomes of education
• Consequences of declining fertility at family, community, and social levels
• Causes and consequences of inequalities in child and maternal health
• Mental health perspectives and facilities and the role of stigma in services
• Modernization, family instability, and early sexual activity.
The above list is not exhaustive. It only suggests some of the issues which can be
taken up for research by students of sociology in India. They cover a broad range
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India 183

of topics currently searing in both population studies and sociology. As said in the
beginning, Indian demography has largely ignored the question of social mobility.
India is a rigidly stratified society. It would be of interest to study what is happening
to social mobility. How does one measure mobility in India? Is intergenerational
change in occupation enough to change the status in society? How does mobility
impact family and kinship? Further, there is a dearth of estimates of illegal migration
from Pakistan, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The process of assimilation of inter-state
migration is also not well understood. In states like Kerala, there is both outmigration
(mostly to gulf countries) and in-migration of workers from Bihar, Orissa, and other
States (often called replacement migration). Educational inequalities among migrant
groups are also not well explored. While childhood mortality and maternal mortality
are part of the mainstream population research, there is a dearth of research on the
impact of government schemes on mortality in different segments of the population.
Of course, there is an increasing interest in studies of aging. The Longitudinal Aging
Study in India (LASI), currently conducted by IIPS, will answer several questions
related to the physical, mental, and social conditions of the elderly population by
producing panel data but it would not answer the questions typically raised by soci-
ologists in interactionist or phenomenological perspective. It will also not provide a
critical perspective on elderly care. Sociologists of the population have to intervene
and provide an alternative to mainstream positivistic research.

References

Anderson, T., & Kohler, H.-P. (2015). Low fertility, socioeconomic development, and gender equity.
Population and Development Review, 11(3), 381–407.
Annual Health Surveys. (2023). Retrived August 11, 2023, from https://data.gov.in/dataset-group-
name/Annual%20Health%20Survey
Barry, A.-M., & Yuill, C. (2008). Understanding the sociology of health. Sage.
Bhagat, R. B. (2011). Emerging pattern of urbanization in India. Economic and Political Weekly,
46(34), 10–12.
Bhat, P.N. (2020). Retrieved August 5, 2020, from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12317586/
Bhende, A. A., & Kanitkar, T. (1978). Principles of population studies. Himalaya Publishing House.
Bongaarts, J. (1978). A framework for analysing the proximate determinants of fertility. Population
and Development Review, 4(1), 105–132.
Bose, A. (1991a). Demographic diversity of India, 1991 census, state and district level data: A
reference book. B. R. Publishing Corporation.
Bose, A., Desai, P. B., Mitra, A., & Sharma, J. N. (Eds.). (1974). Population in India’s development,
1947–2000. Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.
Bose, A. (1991b). Population of India. D. K. Publishers Distributors (P) Ltd.
Cassen, R. H. (1978). Population, economy, society. Plagrave Macmillan.
Chaurasia, A. R. (2020). Population and sustainable development in India. Springer.
Clark, A. W., & Sekher, T. V. (2007). Can-career minded young women reverse gender discrimi-
nation? View from Bangalore’s high-tech sector. Gender, Technology and Development, 11(3):
285–319. http://gtd.sagepub.com
Conrad, P., & Barker, K. K. (2010). The social construction of illness: Key insights and policy
implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(5), 567–579.
Davis, K. (1949). Human society. The Macmillan Company.
184 A. K. Sharma

Davis, K. (1963). The population of India and Pakistan. Russell and Russell.
Davis, K., & Blake, J. (1956). Social structure and fertility: An analytic framework. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 4(4), 211–235.
Desai, P. B. (1969). Size and sex composition of population in India 1901–1961. Asia Publishing
House.
Dixit, S., & Sharma, A. K. (Eds.). (2017). Psycho-social aspects of health and illness. Concept
Publishing Company.
Dixit, S., Mishra, M., & Sharma, A. K. (2008). Conceptualisation of health and illness: A study of
social representations among Bondos of Orissa. Psychology and Developing Societies, 20(1),
1–26.
Dyson, T. (2018). A population history of India: From the first modern people to the present day.
Oxford University Press.
Dyson, T., Cassen, R., & Visaria, L. (2005). Twenty First Century India: Population, economy,
human development, and the environment. New York: Oxford.
Haq, E. (2007). Sociology of population in India. B. R. Publications.
Haub, K., & Sharma, O. P. (2015). India. Population Bulletin, 70(1). www.prb.org
Haupt, A., Kane, T. T., & Haub, C. (2011). PRB’s population handbook. Retrieved from https://
www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/prb-population-handbook-2011-1.pdf
IASP (2020). Demography India, 49 (Special Issue: Covid-19 and demographic impact). Retrieved
August 3, 2020, from https://demographyindia.in/articledetails/15.html
India Human Development Surveys. (2020). Retrieved August 6, 2020, from https://ihds.umd.edu/
Institute of Health Systems. (2020). Retrieved July 26, 2020, from https://www.ihs.org.in/Popula
tionResearch.htm
International Institute of Population Sciences (IIPS). (2017). National Family Health Survey (NFHS-
4). https://www.iipsindia.org
Jain, A. K., & Adlakha, A. L. (1982). Preliminary estimates of fertility decline in India during the
1970s. Population and Development Review, 8(3), 589–606.
Keshri and Bhagat, 2010 Keshri, K., Bhagat, R. B. (2010). Temporary and seasonal migration.
Genus, 66(3), 25–45
Keyfitz, N. (1986). The family that does not reproduce itself. Population and Development Review,
12(Supplement), 39–154.
Khan, M. E., & Prasad, C. V. S. (1985). A comparison of 1970 and 1d980 survey findings on family
planning in India. Studies in Family Planning, 16(6), 312–320. Retrieved August 5, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.com/stable/1967053
Kirk, D. (1996). Demographic transition theory. Population Studies, 50(3), 361–387.
Kulkarni, P. M., & Alagarajan, M. (2005). Population growth, fertility and religion in India.
Economic & Political Weekly, 40(5), 403–410.
Mamdani, M. (1972). Myth of population control: Family, caste and class in an Indian Village.
Monthly Review Press.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (2020). Health Management Information System. Retrieved
July 30, 2020, from https://hmis.nhp.gov.in/#/
Mishra, M. (2007). Conceptualization of health and illness among the Bondos in Orissa [Ph.D.
thesis]. HSS Department, IIT Kanpur.
Misra, B. D. (1995). An introduction to the study of population (2nd ed.). South Asian Publishers
Pvt. Ltd.
Misra, B. D., & Sharma, A. K. (1978). Fertility differentials in India—an analysis of census fertility
data. The Journal of Family Welfare, 25(2), 44–56.
Mukerjee, R. (1941). Population theory and practice. American Sociological Review, 6(6), 784–793.
Retrieved July 26, 2020, from http://www.jstor.com/stable/2085759
NACO. (2020). Retrieved July 26, 2020, from http://naco.gov.in/
Nagla, M. (1988). Medical sociology. Printwell Publishers.
Nagla, M. (2013a). Gender and health. Rawat Publications.
Nagla, B. K. (2015). Sociology of sanitation. Kalpaz Publications.
11 Changing Issues in Population Research in India 185

Nagla, M. (2020). Sociology of food. Rawat Publications.

Nagla, M. (2011). Sociology of health and medicine. Generic.
Nagla, M. (2013b). Sociology of health. In: Readings in Indian sociology (4).
National Health Mission. (2020). Retrieved August 3, 2020, from https://nhm.gov.in/index1.php?
lang=1&level=1&sublinkid=969&lid=49
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences. (2020). Retrieved August 6,
2020, from https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/National%20Mental%20Health%20S
urvey%2C%202015-16%20-%20Mental%20Health%20Systems_0.pdf
NCERT. (2020–2021). Demographic structure of Indian society. https://ncert.nic.in/textbook/pdf/
lesy102.pdf
Patel, T. (1994). Fertility behaviour: Population and society in a rajasthan village. Oxford University
Press.
Planning Commission, Government of India. (2013). Twelfth five year plan, vol. 3, pp. 1–46.
Retrieved July 29, 2020, from https://niti.gov.in/planningcommission.gov.in/docs/plans/planrel/
fiveyr/welcome.html
Poston, D. L., & Michael, M. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of population. Springer.
Premi, M. K. (1991). India’s population: Heading towards a billion. B. R. Publishing Corporation.
Premi, M. K., & Das, D. N. (2012). Population of India 2011. B. R. Publishers.
Premi, M. K., Ramanamma, A., & Bambawale, U. (1983). An introduction to social demography.
Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd.
Punekar, V. B. (1974). Assimilation: A study of North-Indians in Bangalore. Popular Prakashan.
Registrar General & Census Commissioner. (2020). Retrieved July 30, 2020, from https://census
india.gov.in/2011-Common/Sample_Registration_System.html
Sanger, M. (2020). Gandhi and Margaret Sanger debate birth control. Retrieved July 26,
2020, from https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sanger
Doc=320521.xml
Saxena, P. C., Sharma, A. K., & Verma, R. K. (1986). Errors in age-reporting in India: A socio-
cultural and psychological explanation. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 47(2), 127–136.
SDG Index and Dashboard Report. (2018). file:///D:/HP%20PC%20DATA%20OFFICE%2017-
9-2019/LOCAL%20DISK%20D%20DATA/Teaching/SOC479/02%20SDGS%20Country
%20profiles%20edition%20WEB%20V3%20180718.pdf
Sekher, T. V., & Hatti, N. (2010). Disappearing daughters and intensification of gender bias:
Evidence from two village studies in South India. Sociological Bulletin, 59(1), 111–133.
Sharma, A. K. (1985). Social inequality and demographic processes. Mittal Publications.
Sharma, A. K. (1994). Muslim fertility in urban U.P.: A qualitative study. Demography India,
23(1&2), 41–49.
Sharma, A. K. (2012). Population and society. Concept Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd.
Sharma, A. K., & Misra, B. D. (2018). Urbanization in India: Issues & challenges. Ane Books.
Sharma, A. K., Singh, R. (2008). Mapping high risk groups: The Bihar experience. Mumbai,
National Seminar on Methodological Issues in Measuring Millennium Development Goals in
Districts of India, International Institute for Population Sciences
Sharma, A. K. (2005). Perspectives on health, illness and wellbeing: an agenda for future research.
In A. K. Dalal, & S. Ray (Eds.), Social dimensions of health. Rawat Publications.
Sharma, A. K. (2011). FAQ: Population and society. Retrieved July 30, 2020, from https://archive.
nptel.ac.in/courses/109/104/109104044/
Shryock, H. S., & Siegel, J. S. (1976). Methods and materials of demography. Academic Press.
Siegel, J. S. (2002). Applied demography: Applications to business, government, law, and public
policy. Academic Press.
Simmons, R., Simmons, G. B., Misra, B. D., Ashraf, A. (1975). Organizing for government action
in family planning. World Politics, 27(4), 569–596. http://www.jstor.com/stable/2010015
Sorokin, P. (1978). Contemporary sociological theories. Kalyani Publishers.
Tiwari, R., Singh, R., Zodpey, S. (2015). Landscaping academic programs offered in demog-
raphy and population studies in India. Public Health Education, 59(3), 178–188. Retrieved July
186 A. K. Sharma

30, 2020, from http://www.ijph.in/article.asp?issn=0019-557X;year=2015;volume=59;issue=3;

spage=178;epage=188;aulast=Tiwari
United Nations. (1973). The determinants and consequences of population trends. Department of
Social and Economic Affairs, United Nations.
Weeks, J. R. (1996). Population: An introduction to concepts and issues. Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
WHO. (2020). Retrieved July 30, 2020, from https://www.who.int/
World Population Data Sheet. (2019). https://www.prb.org/worldpopdata/
Chapter 12
Disability, Social Inequalities,
and Intersectionality in India

Ritika Gulyani and Nilika Mehrotra

Abstract Disability is a familiar yet contested terrain in society today. It is a term

that is often employed using common sense to explain a variety of impairments, yet
the nuances of how disability may be defined cross-culturally are very varied. The
understanding of disability framed it either as a divine intervention or a notion of
charity and pity. Disability movements emerged in the global north since the 1960s
to contest these understandings of disability as well as lay claims on rights, accessi-
bility, and representation that had so far been denied to them. Knowledge emergent
from these movements helped research deeper in humanities and social sciences
and construct academic and disciplinary perspectives, which came to be known as
Disability Studies. However, these understandings have emerged primarily in the
West, where the lived realities as well as the social, political, economic, and cultural
situations are very different from the global south. Many intersecting factors such
as caste, class, gender, religion, and region among others give rise to a very diverse
understanding of disability. In a quest to uncover this, disciplines such as sociology
and social anthropology play an important role. Employing the lens of society and
culture, language, family, law and policies, identity, education, and social lived spaces
can add very significantly to the discipline of Disability Studies. The paper attempts
to uncover and sharpen these understandings by way of review of available literature
on disabled worlds are viewed and how an interdisciplinary approach is the way
forward. Here, it is worth noting that Disability Studies has contributed immensely
to the understanding of disability as a social, political, and cultural phenomenon
rather than a medical one.

Keywords Disability studies · Interdisciplinary approach · Global South

R. Gulyani (B)
Department of Sociology, Miranda House College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
e-mail: ritika.gulyani@mirandahouse.ac.in
N. Mehrotra
Centre for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi, India

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 187
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_12
188 R. Gulyani and N. Mehrotra

12.1 Introduction

The study of social stratification and inequalities in India has for a very long time now
ignored disability as a vital measure and axis around which inequalities and hierar-
chies can be measured and analysed. Within sociological texts, social stratification
is more often than not seen as a measure of economic terms where the divisions in
the society may be physically measured. Having been intricately linked to economic
terms, social stratification has often failed to throw light on other social phenomena
that lead to difference and inequality. Over the past few decades, with the movements
around understating and recognizing the role played by race, gender, and caste in
perpetuating inequalities, they too now have come to be seen as important concepts
in social stratification studies. Lately, scholarship on location as well as other socio-
cultural factors, such as religion, are also being seen as the basis for understanding
social divisions in society.
Disability, however, still remains conspicuously absent from this analysis. This is
despite the fact that disability has an almost universalizing effect, in the sense that it is
present in all human societies, cutting across various socioeconomic formations. By
virtue of these universalizing phenomena and due to its characteristic of interacting
with the divisions of caste, class, race, and gender within the communities, it should be
at the forefront of how intersectionality within different realms of social stratification
operates. For example, an upper-class disabled woman may experience disability
quite differently from a lower-class disabled man. In addition to this, the dimensions
of caste, rural/urban divide, age, religion, ethnicity, and capacities for access to social
resources like education, health care, and employment produce complex narratives.
In addition, not just how disability interacts with other markers of social inequal-
ities, but how hierarchy plays within the large whole called disability is also vital to
observe. Disability is not a homogenous whole, but rather there exist multiple hier-
archies within it as well, with physical disabilities being ranked higher than mental
ones.

12.2 Defining Disability

There are innumerable ways in which disability can be defined through time, location,
and cultural values of a society. As societies are getting more and more complex and
advanced, the purview of what may be included in the definition of disability keeps
expanding. (Oliver and Barnes, 1998).
The definitions around disability initially emerged from the medial model which
saw disability within the medical sphere, where bodily abnormality was seen as a
disorder or deficiency, which in turn resulted in functional limitations or a ‘disability’.
The functional incapacity of the individuals was the basis for defining them and
the solution to this lay in rehabilitative and medical interventions. Disability was
12 Disability, Social Inequalities, and Intersectionality in India 189

considered a personal tragedy and as a consequence, the individual had to necessarily

depend on the others around them for support (Barnes et al., 1999: 22–23).
Later in the 1970s and 1980s, the Disability Rights Movements started gaining
momentum in the UK and the USA and during these movements, an alternate way of
looking at disability emerged, wherein the medical model was increasingly criticized.
A social model emerged, which, as opposed to the medical model, conceptualized
disability as something that emerged not out of the individual’s psychology but rather
as a failure on the society’s part to not be able to provide accommodation to those
with disabilities in order to function in the society. It put the blame on society and
considered disability as an externality superimposed on an individual with bodily or
mental impairments. It was this disability that prevented the full participation of the
individual (Barnes et al., 1999: 27–28).
The social model, however, is limited in its approach. It stresses excessively the
separation between the body and the culture, between the understanding of impair-
ment and disability. The social model has no doubt helped in establishing the politics
of disability, but it has also raised questions on the politics of identity as, ironically,
despite its critique of the medical model, looks at impairment in terms of medical
discourse itself. The social model owed its emergence to the disability rights move-
ment where disability was understood not as a pathology of the body but as a pattern
of systematic exclusion.
Till the 1950s, the understanding of disease from a biomedical point of view was
not considered appropriate. However, after the publication of “The Social Systems”
by Talcott Parsons in 1951, the perspective changed. Within this model, the stability
of the social order was defined (Barnes et al., 1999: 40). One of the earliest notions
of the social psychology of illness behaviour was given by Parsons in an attempt
to understand social systems. For him, illness is behaviourally deviant as it disrupts
all the normal functions of life and relationships. It is neither a biological condition
nor a psychological one and neither is it an unstructured event. Illness is a role one
plays socially, the ‘sick role’ which is made up of different duties and obligations
between the patient and the doctor (Young, 2004: 4). It is made up of two rights
and two duties. The first duty is to seek the help of a medical practitioner upon
falling ill and to cooperate fully. Secondly, the individual is to see his condition as
being undesirable. Having fulfilled these conditions, there are two rights that the
individual can temporarily enjoy. Firstly, they are relieved of their normal social role
expectations and responsibilities. Secondly, the individuals are not held responsible
for their illness (Barnes et al., 1999).
An alternative to the sick role is the Labelling theory, which assumes that when
people are faced with a difference in behaviour or in a social event, they will judge
the difference in that behaviour based on the culture that they are a part of. Labelling
theory can be best understood in the work of Goffman’s 1968 work, ‘Stigma’. It looks
at how people are categorized through social interaction. In this work he discusses
how society establishes different means of categorizing persons and the complement
of attributes felt to be ordinary and natural for members of each of these categories
(Goffman, 1963: 2). Usually, one does not become aware of these demands till the
time the situation of whether or not they will be fulfilled arises. It is at that point that
190 R. Gulyani and N. Mehrotra

one realizes that certain assumptions about how the person ‘ought’ to be have been
made. According to Goffman, it is generally believed that a person with a stigma
is not quite human and this leads to a variety of discrimination. A stigma theory is
created which explains his inferiority and accounts for the danger he represents.
Similar to the concept of deviance in terms of stigmatizing behaviour as put
forward by Goffman, Durkheim too in his famous work ‘Rules of Sociological
Methods’ outlined what social facts are and how a normal social fact maybe distin-
guished from a pathological one. Social facts as defined by him as “ways of acting,
thinking and behaving which exist outside the individual and have a coercive power,
by the virtue of which, they exercise control over the individual.” Normal social facts
then referred to those facts which were found in most, if not all, individuals of the
society, while pathological were those which occurred only in a minority of cases
and for brief periods of time in the life of the individual. [Durkheim 1895 c.f.(Jones,
1986)].
Davis (1997) explains the idea of normal and pathological in the context of
disability, drawing attention to the fact that disability as we know it in the present
context, entered the public discourse only in the late eighteenth century. Around the
same time, words such as “normal,” normalcy,” normality,” “norm,” “average,” and
“abnormal” also entered the English language. These changes, when viewed from
a statistical point of view suggested that for a norm to exist there is a bell-shaped
curve, under which the majority of the population lies. Simultaneously there are also
entities that do not lie under this curve and are deviant. Taking this in terms of a
human body, a society that operates on the concept of the norm will view people
with disabilities as deviants.
Works within disability and cultural studies have often concentrated on just the
practices and the production of ‘disablism’, especially looking at those attitudes and
barriers that seek to subordinate people with disabilities. Since disablism promotes
the unequal treatment of people owing to their presumed disabilities, it also looks at
reforming this by changing the negative attitudes and wanting to assimilate people
with disabilities into civil society. This produces a serious gap in the understanding
of the production of disability and reinforces the understanding from an able-bodied
lens, from the perspective of the Other. It is important then to also look at how
disability produces as well as maintains this ‘ableism’. Ableist normativity leads to
a ‘compulsive passing’ where there is a failure to question the differences as well
as a lacuna to imagine human beings differently. The abled imaginary rests on an
unacknowledged and imagined shared community of able bodied and minded people,
who all believe in a common ableist homosocial worldview that prefers the norms of
ableism. Such thinking does away with the different ways in which human emotion
can be expressed, the way different bodies and thinking can be used in different
cultures as well as in different situations. The ‘Other’ in this situation is a disabled,
perverted or an abnormal body instead of being a neutral designation in the variety
of bodies (Campbell, 2018).
12 Disability, Social Inequalities, and Intersectionality in India 191

12.3 Disability in the Indian Context

Disability in South Asia, especially from the cultural point of view has been very
well encapsulated in the works of work of Miles (2000). He lays out how in South
Asian imagination, the “perfect world” consisted of one which was free from all
disabilities. In order to realize this dream, there have been three major ways adopted
within the cultures, firstly by preventive measures and management of disability.
Cultures within South Asia have long practiced natural therapies like Ayurveda and
Unani and these are validated today by modern research as well. These traditional
measures were adopted to limit the existence as well as the spread of disability.
The second measure adopted was to control as well as reduce the disabling factors
that existed outside the body, namely in society. A lot of ceremonies and cultural
events were performed to mitigate the cultural effects of disability so that those with
disabilities do not face social exclusion. And finally, by an active eugenic practice,
where infants with disability or odd appearance were killed, or neglected, which
would lead to their eventual death. However, these practices have been sporadic and
are nothing compared to the methodical efforts of twentieth-century Europe to kill
people with disabilities. These three practices have occurred simultaneously which
has led to a social ambiguity about how disability was perceived. Additionally, not
all social responses have been to envision the eradication of disability. Three other
categories emerge which can explain these social responses. Firstly, the informal
service is rendered majorly by the women of the household, where mothers, sisters
grandmothers, and aunts have actively looked after disabled adults and children as
well as old people. The services of these people have gone unnoticed for thousands
of years, and even to this day, they hardly receive the attention of the government
or the policy planners. Secondly, there existed formal and semi-formal institutions,
where some rulers would organize food and shelter for disabled people on charitable
grounds. Rural communities too engaged in practices where it would allot certain
roles to disabled people so that they could have a visible role to play in the community
in return for which they could ‘earn’ their food and shelter. Finally, disabled people
have always had their own self-help groups where they have devised ways to cope
with their disabilities as well as adapt and overcome the impediments put forward by
society. However, these methods and skills too have not been recorded and/or given
much importance (Miles, 2000).
A similar understanding of disability has existed specifically in the Indian subcon-
tinent as well, which ranges from religion to the understanding of human rights. The
state’s understanding of disability has also undergone a change from the ‘welfarist’
model, where it was believed that people with disabilities were in need of help and
assistance to a human rights model where the understanding is that persons with
disabilities too have rights that should be accorded to them.
In the Indian context various models of disability exist (Chopra, 2013; Karna,
2001; Mehrotra, 2013a, 2013b) such as religious one mainly focusing on cosmolog-
ical and textual views of treating disability through the lens of karma theory. Thus
the charity model becomes pronounced, looking at the disabled as dependents and
192 R. Gulyani and N. Mehrotra

they are to be treated with pity and sympathy. Disabled beggars are seen all around
and need to be helped. The medical model is also very common both at the level
of state policy and regular life where the role of medical professionals is seen to be
custodians of knowledge and a person with a disability is said to be in need of medical
intervention and rehabilitation. Activists and disability rights movements employ the
social model to raise issues about in-accessible disabling environments both physical
and social. The rights-based approaches highlight the existence of human rights both
at the international and national levels and the need for their realization at the ground
level. These have also become part of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (RPD).
While the social model is gaining prominence in the understanding of disability in
India, due to persistent awareness raising by disability rights activists, the concerns
around the prevalence, management, and prevention of disabilities in the context
of the governmental sector still show an equal reliance on both the social as well
as medical model. What is needed in the Indian context, is not just to implant the
theories of the West, but to rather look into the social implications of disability in the
country and then adapt the understandings on the basis of the local realities (Mehrotra,
2013a, 2013b). Prejudice against as well as exclusion of disability and also persons
with disability in society is deeply embedded in society. These exclusions are not
just confined to academic, legal, political, and medical discourses, but also enter the
experiences of life in general. Though not easily visible, they are deeply entrenched
in our family, the workplace as well as our social relations (Addlakha, 2013).
Within Indian society, cultural connotations pertaining to disability are strongly
associated with stigmatization and negativity. The understanding of disability is akin
to that of a flaw or as something lacking within the individual. Many understand-
ings about the individual stem from mythological or scriptural understandings where
disability is seen as a result of the deeds of the past life or else is a punishment from
God. Religious discourses and icons are often ambivalent in character. In some cases,
they are clearly negative, whereas in others like Lord Jagagnath, Ashta Vakra, atti-
tudes are ambivalent. The situation is even more difficult for women and other minori-
ties like LGBTQ people who even otherwise occupy a lower and often marginal
position in society. Various factors like caste, class, region, etc. decide to a large
extent the opportunities available to the individual. The added notion of disability
makes this process even more difficult (Ghai, 2002).
In India, traditionally, disability has been linked to the deeds of one’s past birth
(karma). The presence of disability in this birth is a sign of sins in the previous ones.
As a result, pity and avoidance have been the popular attitudes adopted towards the
disabled. Being charitable towards a poor disabled person would not only help a
lesser privileged individual, but also help the person offering the help accumulate
good deeds for oneself. Older literature therefore has always associated the disabled
with beggars, dwarfs, sick, widows as well as those of the low caste. Looking at
disability in the present time through the lens of caste, class, and gender would be
helpful as it will give rise to a holistic understanding of how disability intersects with
all these within the Indian context.
12 Disability, Social Inequalities, and Intersectionality in India 193

12.3.1 Caste

Within Indian society, caste occupies a very important place, where it becomes signif-
icant to discuss and understand disability from a caste lens as well. Numerous works
in the anthropological and sociological fields have explored how in Indian society,
disability is seen from a religious angle, namely from the concept of karma, where it
is believed that our actions in the past life shape the present one, and so disability is
a result of the actions (usually bad) of the past life. Caste is prevalent among almost
all communities such as Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians with local variations. Caste
hierarchy clearly differentiates between mental and manual work as evidenced in
sociological literature. Those who are associated with the former are higher castes
while the latter belong to the so-called lower castes or Dalits. Bodily differences
embodying caste values in different cultural contexts produce diverse notions of
abilities and disabilities. Caste values structure cognition around bodily and mental
abilities. The notions of competence and functionality are embodied in social and
economic contexts. A work in rural Haryana by Mehrotra (2004) shows how it is
believed that disability is a punishment from God and very rarely did people look at
it as a medical or social issue. Nevertheless, disability is associated with the ability
to do manual farm work. Those with limb deformities would be considered more
disabled than others. Furthermore, it is also observed that people from the lower
castes in rural India are more vulnerable to disability than the higher castes (Singh,
2014) due to occupational hazards.
The Census of 2011 and findings by Mehrotra (2013a, 2013b) corroborate the fact
that more Dalits are prone to be disabled than other castes. The census shows that
among the upper castes, there are more disabled men than women, but among Dalits,
this number is more or less balanced between the two genders. Additionally, Mehrotra
(2004) also points out how a high number of amputees belonged to the higher castes,
the cattle-owning ones. The reason for this was that due to their economic stability,
they were able to afford fodder-cutting machines, which also led to a higher number
of accidents and amputations. However, the fact still remains that Dalits still face
exclusion in cultural as well as financial spheres. And it is this lack of support in
the tangible economic sphere that leads to an unequal distribution of sustainable
services in the country. As a direct result, the reduced economic stability pushes
them into the circles of poverty, which again feeds into them being more prone to
suffering from health conditions that might lead to disabling conditions. In disaster
situations as well those on the margins, like Dalits and Adivasis are more vulnerable
to impairments. They also have poor access to health care provisions (Singh, 2014).
Due to poor social capital, health care and accessible assistive services also elude
them.
194 R. Gulyani and N. Mehrotra

12.3.2 Class

Not just in India, but in most of South Asia, disability is an amalgamation of cultural
as well as structural impediments, which include, but are not limited to, poverty,
illiteracy, caste, class, gender, and unemployment, among others (Mehrotra, 2011).
Caste and class are clearly overlapping categories in the Indian context. Within these,
poverty especially is a major deterrent to development and is interlinked with all other
social factors. Poverty can be described as a situation in which there is “pronounced
deprivation in well-being”, and being poor lacking food, clothing, and shelter, being
unwell and having no means to care for oneself, not having enough resources to
go to school, and so on. In this manner, poor people are particularly vulnerable
to events that are outside their control. Such vulnerability has a direct impact on
the level of inclusion that the person is able to experience. A similar predicament is
also experienced by persons with disabilities, where they face difficulties in complete
integration into society. And the lack of inclusion in both instances is due to capitalist
development in the society, as it is what created both disability and poverty. A poor
person with a disability then is caught in a vicious cycle, where each is a cause
as well as the consequence of the other (Rao, 2009) So, disability coupled with
poverty leads to a lack of educational and employment opportunities and above all
a disabling social setting, which further leads to a complete dependency on family
members, especially in the rural areas (Reddy, 2011).
The question of access to employment, within the Indian society is relegated not
only to the education and skills of a person, but is also highly dependent on the
cultural and social capital that a person holds. This can be seen in terms of mental
and manual work which are divided over caste lines, or in terms of gender-based
division of labour, where men and women are compulsorily supposed to a particular
line of work in order to maintain the household. In the same light, persons with
disabilities, especially those with physical and mental disabilities, are associated
with the negative stereotypes that they are largely not capable of any meaningful
employment and hence are largely dependent on others (Mehrotra, 2013a, 2013b).
Unequal access to development is also one of the major consequences of disability
in India. There is an emergence of a lot of research in the recent past to take account of
this inequality. Hiranandani and Sonpal (2010) argue that among those with disabil-
ities, economic opportunities are usually allotted to those who have better skills
and education. Access to education also in turn depends on a very large extent on
the class background and the region that the individual occupies. Within the Indian
landscape, the Disability Rights Movement played a very vital role in ensuring that
access to education and employment is equally available to persons with disabili-
ties. The coming up of the Persons with Disabilities Act 1995 was a direct result of
these efforts, which have managed to ensure that individuals with disabilities were
adequately represented. But even before the passing of this law, there have been
numerous policies that have been put into place that look into the educational needs
of the children who belong to a marginal and vulnerable community. This has often
included students with disabilities as well, though there were no policies exclusively
12 Disability, Social Inequalities, and Intersectionality in India 195

catering to their educational concerns till 1995 and then the subsequent 2016 Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act. Both these Acts have been striving towards ensuring
that students with disabilities are given equal opportunities for education (Gulyani,
2017). In addition, the 2016 Act also lays down plans by which the social structures
of the physical buildings are accessible as well as ensuring that pedagogical changes
are made to the classrooms (The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016).
The notion of education is also very closely linked to that of employment, as the
presence of unequal opportunities for persons with disabilities continues later in life
as well. Persons with disabilities are often seen to receive much lesser salaries than
their disabled counterparts, despite the same amount of work put in by both. The
reasoning behind this is that persons with disabilities are often considered as non-
efficient and non-productive (Mehrotra, 2013a, 2013b). Klasing (2007) has raised
the issue of accessible infrastructure which poses to be a big hurdle in terms of
development in rural India. It has been observed that there is a hierarchy in the
disabled community, whereby the visually challenged and the locomotor disabled
are much higher placed than those with mental disabilities. Further, this structure is
also to a very large extent decided by caste, class as well as gender within the Indian
setup, which further leads to more issues in access to employment for those with
disabilities (Singh, 2014).

12.3.3 Gender

One such structural and cultural factor that shapes the way one lives is gender and
the accompanying factors that put certain images of the gendered abled body as the
norm. Normative values of defining the bodies structure social relations. Looking at
the Bengal and the concept of bhalomeye, Nandini Ghosh looks at how this ideology
of an ideal woman seeps into the lives of women with locomotor disabilities. These
women negotiate with their impaired bodies and internalize a social construction of
the “normal” female body. She points out how from a very young age, young girls
idealize an image of the ideal body and the physical notions of beauty which are
passed on through how other women behave. In a similar way, disabled girls too
internalize these ideals. However, while they are expected to abide by these social
rules, they are also taught to accept that they are different from other girls their age
and so they should not strive to achieve the ideological construction of a ‘good girl’
or the notion of bhalomeye (Ghosh, 2010).
In terms of the intersection of disabled and gender identities, it is also important to
look at LGBTQ + too. Both sections, namely those with disabilities, as well as those
identifying as belonging to the LGBTQ + community experience marginalization at
both the institutional as well as personal level (Oliver & Barnes, 2012) (Shakespeare,
2013). The two groups often do not appear in any research, media as well as within the
popular imagination, and when they do, they are often stereotyped or oversimplified.
And while these two identities separately are under-represented, they are almost
never ever considered together. People with disabilities are often de-gendered and
196 R. Gulyani and N. Mehrotra

desexualized which leads to an invisibility of LGBTQ + disabled people, leading to

their further marginalization. This marginalization is, however, experienced not just
in the dominant societal discourse, but also within the communities and organizations
of persons with disabilities as well as LGBTQ + people (Dow, 2001).
Additionally, both communities have similar themes resurfacing within their
narratives, whereby, medicalization plays a very central role, in which both identities
are pathologized through it. Secondly, in terms of how Goffman (1963) explains it,
both have stigmatized identities, which are not tribal. This implies that the stigma-
tized identity is not inherited, unlike caste, class, ethnicity, race or nationality. Since
they are often not born to parents who share the same identity as themselves, this
often complicates the experiences of LGBTQ + people and people with disabilities
(Egner, 2016, 2018).
Within India, women with disabilities are more discriminated against in compar-
ison to their male counterparts. Mehrotra (2006) in her case study in rural Haryana
shows how disability becomes an additional burden to an already burdened gendered
position, where they have to deal with thedual identities. Similarly, Ghai (2001) in
her study has also observed how for families with limited family income, the birth
of a child who is disabled is a fate that is worse than death (p. 29).
The understanding of marital status and disability stereotypes also is very impor-
tant to observe. Klasing’s study (2007) shows how due to the cultural notion that a
girl’s life is ruined and/or incomplete if she doesn’t marry, there are high incidences
of disabled girls getting married. The parents resort to all types of methods to get
their daughters married, including getting her married to a person much older, to a
widower, as a second wife or even offering large amounts of dowry in return. Addi-
tionally, such a marriage is always on tenterhooks. However, the flip side of this is
that disabled men very rarely find a marriage partner as the cultural norms work
against them, where it is desirable that a husband be financially secure and be able
to provide for the wife and family.
Disability might be present in all communities across the globe, but the way each
community copes with it, is unique in its own sense. As mentioned earlier, disability
is not just a biological phenomenon, but is also the result of a complex result of ever-
interacting social factors, such as gender, class, caste, and the nature of family and
kinship structures. A study done by Mehrotra (2004) in Haryana shows how there
are inbuilt mechanisms within the structural framework of family, kinship, caste,
and community that help devise coping strategies for disability. While it is true that
disability does not discriminate on the basis of any social markers, the availability
of resources does make a huge difference in how it is managed. Of these resources,
community and family are very vital and important parts. It is the family, especially
the mother and other female relatives who look after the child and are the ones who
make the first initial diagnosis of the possible disability; often the siblings who help
cope with the disability and the men of the family who take the disabled individual
around for treatment.
The concept of caregiving for the disabled is not a very widely discussed issue
in the field and is often seen as being clubbed with those who also happen to be
in the vulnerable group, namely the elderly, the very young or those who are ill.
12 Disability, Social Inequalities, and Intersectionality in India 197

And while social policy plays an important role in determining who gets care and
how, with the state in many cases playing a very vital role, most of the care that is
provided in majority societies stems from families and communities and it has a lot of
hidden and invisible costs within it. Factors such as declining family size and bigger
medical advancements (which subsequently meant more children with disabilities
survived infancy) have led to a shift from caregiving from an institutional setup to
a more community-based one. However, this informal status of a caregiver can also
be very stressful as it lacks not just the rights and privileges that would ordinarily
be accorded to a formal caregiver, but it also does not have the support of society
as a worthwhile profession. Informal caregiving is more than often thrust upon the
shoulders of the family and one literally has little to no preparation before they take
it up. Additionally, it does not have a clear trajectory path nor is it a profession
where one may come and leave as one wishes but one has to adapt to the changing
environment and the progression of the disorder. And while all this may hold true
for any member of the family, there is a clear gendered angle to this as well, where
most of the caregivers are women (Chakravarti, 2008).
While recounting her experiences as a mother of an Autistic child, Vaidya talks
about how mothers of children with disabilities see themselves as indispensable to the
child and are convinced that they are the best haven for them (Vaidya, 2011, 2016).
So closely does the parent figure get involved in the role of a caretaker, that they
start seeing their children as an extension of themselves only. This poses a further
set of problems as it is very detrimental to the health of the caregiver as well as to
the adaptive skills as well as the autonomy of the care receiver (Vaidya, 2017).

12.4 Conclusion

It is very clear from the discussion above that disability needs to be seen as an
intersection between all the social factors within society and cannot be narrowed
down to a specific one. In India specifically, the factors of caste, class, and gender
operate at the same time with disability and all the inequalities need to be analyzed
at the same time. The experiences of a woman with a disability who identifies as
belonging to LGBTQ + as well as belongs to a lower income group as well as a lower
caste will be so very different as each of the inequalities compound the identities as
well as give rise to an entirely different lived reality. It is also vital to note that each of
these factors also helps to mould the other, as well as access to other avenues in life
which include education, employment, and health care, among others. Additionally,
due to the fact that Western concepts cannot be imported and used in the Indian
setting, it becomes even more crucial to realize how these inequalities interact with
each other in order to give rise to a richer picture of disability in the Global South
and in India particularly. It is required that while future policies are formulated, a
comprehensive understanding be adapted so that inequalities are tackled at all levels.
198 R. Gulyani and N. Mehrotra

References

Addlakha, R. (2013). Disability studies in India: Global discourses, local realities. Routledge.
Barnes, C., Mercer, G., & Shakespeare, T. (1999). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction.
Wiley.
Campbell, F. K. (2018). Refocusing and the paradigm shift: From disability to studies in Ableism.
In A. Ghai (ed.), Disability in South Asia: Knowledge and experience. Sage Publishing.
Chakravarti, U. (2008). Burden of caring: Families of the disabled in urban India. Indian Journal
of Gender Studies, 15(2), 341–363.
Chopra, T. (2013). Expanding the horizons of disability law in India: A study from a human rights
perspective. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 41(4), 807–820.
Davis, L. J. (1997). Constructing normalcy: The bell curve, the novel, and the invention of the
disabled body in the nineteenth century. In L. J. Davis (ed.), The disability studies reader
(pp. 9–28). Routledge.
Dow, B. (2001). Ellen, television, and the politics of gay and lesbian visibility. Critical Studies in
Media Communication, 18(2), 123–140.
Egner, J. (2016). Hegemonic or Queer?: A comparative analysis of five LGBTQIA/disability inter-
sectional social movement organisations. Presentation at American Sociological Association.
Egner, J. (2018). an intersectional examination of disability and LGBTQ+identities in virtual spaces.
[Retrieved from Graduate Theses and Dissertations]. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/7149
Ghai, A. (2002). Disabled women: An excluded Agenda of Indian Feminism. Hypatia, 17(3), 49–66.
Ghai, A. (2001). Marginalisation and disability: Experiences from the Third World. In: M. Priestly
(ed.), Disability and the life course: Global perspectives (pp. 26–37). Cambridge University
Press.
Ghosh, N. (2010). Embodied experiences: Being female and disabled. Economic and Political
Weekly, 45(17), 58–63.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on management of spoiled identity. Simon and Schuster.
Gulyani, R. (2017). Educational policies in India with special reference to children with disabilities.
Indian Anthropologist, 47(2), 35–51.
Hiranandani, V., & Sonpal, D. (2010). Disability, economic globalisation and privatization: A case
study of India. Disability Studies Quarterly.
Jones, R. A. (1986). Emile Durkheim: An introduction to four major works. Sage Publications Inc.
Karna, G. N. (2001). Disability studies in India: Retrospects and prospects. Gyan Books.
Klasing, I. (2007). Disability and social exclusion in Rural India. Rawat Publication.
Mehrotra, N. (2006). Negotiating gender and disability in rural Haryana. Sociological Bulletin,
55(3), 406–426.
Mehrotra, N. (2011). Disability rights movements in India: Politics and practice. Economic and
Political Weekly, 46(6), 65–72.
Mehrotra, N. (2013a). Disability, gender & state policy: Exploring margins. Rawat Publications.
Mehrotra, N. (2004). Women, disability and social support in rural Haryana. Economic and Political
Weekly, 25, 5640–5644.
Mehrotra, N. (2013b). Disability, gender and caste intersections in Indian economy. In S. N.
Barnartt, & B. Altman (Eds.), Disability and intersecting statuses (vol. 7, pp. 295–324). Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Miles, M. (2000). Disability in South Asia: From Millennium to Millennium. Asia Pacific Disability
Rehabilitation Journal, 11(1).
Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (1998). Disabled people and social policy: From exclusion to inclusion.
Addison Wesley Longman.
Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2012). The new politics of disablement. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rao, A. N. (2009). Poverty and disability in India. Social Change, 39(1), 29–45.
Reddy, C. R. (2011). From impairment to disability and beyond: Critical explorations in disability
studies. Sociological Bulletin, 60(2), 287–306.
Shakespeare, T. (2013). Disability rights and wrongs revisited. Routledge.
12 Disability, Social Inequalities, and Intersectionality in India 199

Singh, P. (2014). Persons with disabilities and economic inequalities in India. Indian Anthropologist,
44(2), 65–80.
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.disabilityaffairs.
gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/RPWD%20ACT%202016.pdf
Vaidya, S. (2016). Autism and the family in urban India: Looking back, looking forward. Springer.
Vaidya, S. (2011). Mothering as ideology and practice: The experiences of mothers of children with
autism spectrum disorder. In M. Walks, & N. McPherson (Eds.), An anthropology of mothering
(pp. 226–239). Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.
Vaidya, S. (2017). Reflections on care by an ‘Autism Mother’. Café Dissensus, 16.
Young, J. (2004). Illness ‘behaviour’: A selective review and synthesis. Sociology of Health and
Illness, 26(1), 1–31.
 Part III
Some Emerging Concerns
Chapter 13
Orientations and Futures of Indian
and South African Sociologies

Kiran Odhav and Jayanathan P. Govender

Abstract The hope for a universal sociology has not yet deserved purchase across
the global sociological community. Neither is any form of consensus on a universal
sociology evident in debates and the literature, but in some cases they are nascent as in
the case of India. Sociologists are of course aware of different socio-cultural variables
and different forms of scientific knowledge. However, they have not attempted to
test the bodies of work, including major theoretical foundations. Consequently, a
sociology of sociology remains only an emerging study area. Comparatively, Indian
and South African sociologies did come together in the first decade of the 2000s.
In recognition of common interests, debate and the fact that scientific knowledge
is dominated by northern countries, an agreement was reached between the Indian
Sociological Society and the South African Sociological Association in 2008. The
publication of a special edition of the South African Sociological Review and the 2008
South African Sociological Congress held at the University of Stellenbosch, Cape
Town realized a memorandum of understanding between the respective Presidents
of the Society and the Association. There is no material evidence that the more
significant clauses of the memorandum of understanding received much attention.
The aim of this paper is therefore to outline those important aspects of the orientations
of the Indian Sociological Society and the South African Sociological Association,
so as to inform any future pursuit of cooperation institutionally, educationally, and
sociologically.

Keywords Indian sociology · South African sociology · History · Class · Race ·

Caste · Gender

K. Odhav (B)
Faculty of Humanities, School of Social Sciences, Cnr. University Drive and Albert Luthuli Drive,
Mafikeng Campus, Mafikeng 2745, North West Province, South Africa
e-mail: Kiran.odhav@nwu.ac.za
J. P. Govender
School of Social Sciences, College of Humanities, Howard College Campus, University of
KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 203
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_13
204 K. Odhav and J. P. Govender

13.1 Background

The scene is scripted in the special edition of the South African Review of Sociology
2000, 40(1) (Alexander, 2009). The orientation and location of Indian and South
African sociologies are sketched with persuasive intents and innovative method-
ologies, leading to a unique international perspective, as well as a memorandum
of understanding1 signed between the Indian Sociological Society and the South
African Sociological Association in 2008 to seek ways to increase cooperation and
discussion between sociologists in India and South Africa.
The editors of the special edition intended that the difference between contribu-
tions of sociologists of the two countries, India and South Africa, and contributions of
sociologists from Northern countries, which were markedly based on material, media,
publishing, and student capacities, be highlighted and examined for their impact in
the construction of social theory. The immediate sense is that Northern sociological
contributions occupy hegemonic space within the discipline, in sociological fora and
publishing.
The claim that southern versus northern sociologies is unbalanced and indeed
the former depending on the latter’s hegemonic leadership is essentialization of the
south/north worlds. Much has changed in the sociological worldview since 2009. In
just about a single decade, the north was preoccupied with issues of insecurity, ageing
population demographic dividend, mass migration, experiencing the real outcomes
of climate change, and the tectonic shift towards the politics of nationalism. In the
south, while inequality and social injustices prevail endemically, the more powerful
nations were experiencing larger shares of economic growth, advancing technolog-
ically, producing and exporting intellectual capital and labour, expanding interna-
tional financial systems and investments, and occupying more and more leaderships
roles in international institutions that were transforming towards greater diversity
and inclusivity. Indeed, economic and political power still scars the southern and
northern geographies, however, young people in the south (who dominate demo-
graphically) are taking keener interest in the environment, building democracy, chal-
lenging political corruption, participating in innovative technologies, and producing
new cultures.
However, standing in the way of current progress, the COVID-19 pandemic has
brought great calamity and stress on the world population. While it exposed the
structural bases, including the deep effects of colonization and racism on poverty
and inequality, the pandemic also revealed that those suffering from poverty and
inequality have put greater stress on nature for their basis needs, thereby threatening
new pandemics in the future. The growing body of literature on the pandemic is
warning humanity and our social systems to bring urgent changes to how we interact
with nature, and indeed warning us about the future quality of human existence.
Notwithstanding COVID-19 and any of the other hindrances brought on by the
Anthropocene, countries of the south, among them China, India, Russia, and more
recently, the United Arab Emirates have successfully launched satellites, and some
have landed probes on Mars, better known as the Red Planet. The somewhat shared
13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African Sociologies 205

and even competing scientific ambitions of the countries of the south and north in
space research are indicative of a future frontier providing deeper meaning to human
existence, as well as global capital expansion.
Just behind the most recent events, the countries of BRICS (in which India and
South Africa are included) have been promoting mutual political, economic, and
cultural projects. Outside of the formal BRICS initiative, BRICS Sociology has
emerged where sociologists from India and South Africa feature in building a body
of work that is mutually useful for academic and practical purposes. The BRICS
sociologists have produced several publications, among them handbooks on social
stratification, youth, and social inequality (Odhav & Govender, 2023).
It is evident that sociologists from India and South Africa share interests that
are common and inward-focused. The countries shared a common colonizer; have
minority populations that compose race and caste structures; and have benefitted from
the philosophical and liberatory labours of Mahatma Gandhi, whose Congress move-
ment inspired the African National Congress, as the current movement in government
in South Africa for the past thirty years. India’s greatest contribution to South Africa
and the world has been indentured labour in the past, and highly skilled human capital
in the present. And the entire world as a matter of course remains captured by the
brand Incredible India.

13.2 Sociology of South Africa

Sociology was introduced as an ancillary subject to social work, which was concerned
exclusively with the so-called poor-white problem. The concern was how to uplift
poor Afrikaans speaking people who suffered the combined effects of war with the
British, vis-à-vis the Anglo-Boer Wars, and the development of early capitalism
after the discovery of gold and diamonds. The bargain included a solution to the
‘native problem’ by the Netherlands born South African, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd, a
sociologist by training, who came to be known as the ‘architect of apartheid’ (Kenney,
2016). Verwoerd later ‘refined’ the system of apartheid to ‘separate but equal’ policy,
which as in the case of the United States of America, was never separate but equal
in practice.
The introduction of sociology to South Africa bears the rough and tumbles of
early Afrikaner politics and early capitalism. Clearly, divorcing sociology from that
politics and history would make no sense at all. On the contrary, sociology has made
significant contributions towards understanding South Africa as a society. There
are two paths here, one academic, which attempts to understand South Africa as
pre-capitalist, sub-capitalist, or regressed capitalistic society, on the one hand, or as
the logical consequence of capitalism, on the other hand (Rex, 1975). The other,
ideological, analyses of South Africa fall under the banner of the ‘national question’
by Motala and Vally (Webster & Pampallis, 2019). The national question addresses
in apparent unison the concepts of race, nation, group, ethnicity, separatism, and so
206 K. Odhav and J. P. Govender

on that give to other layered outcomes such as oppression and exploitation in South
Africa.
Both paths lend themselves to criticism from the sociographic side–studies with
a sharp empirical focus, even from those purporting ethnographic and statistical
study approaches (Rex, 1975). No doubt these approaches engage methodological
rigour and sometimes take on longitudinal stretches, which produce new knowledge,
explain shifts and changes, as well as provide detailed demographic information that
are universalizing and thereby useful in the public space. However, these studies miss
the particular—thus the minorities struggling on the fringes of society; they skirt over
social issues by disfiguring, labelling and even excluding them from the mainstream.
These studies do not sympathize with, or even tolerate gender affiliations; norma-
tive discriminatory patterns; poverty of mother and child; and how climate change
multiplies the suffering of the vulnerable, in particular those who played no role in
climate change, but who have to bear the export costs of environmental damage. The
end result of these rigid approaches of study is the inability to frame meta-issues
such as social justice; inequality; and unrelenting poverty. South Africa is fortunate
then that its sociologists did not prefer the Ferris Wheel regime of scholarship, but
indeed diversified their sociological lenses and microscopes on issues that mattered
to people trapped in malodorous spirals of vulnerability and entrapment as a conse-
quence of political pursuits by a minority to over a majority, employing the sharp
instruments of capitalism’s logics.
South African sociology has also made a place for itself in international soci-
ology vis-à-vis the International Sociological Association, other international and
regional fora, and through bilateral interactions with sociological bodies and inter-
national sociologists. However, the voices at these international fora originated from
those institutions possessing various forms of advantage, including research outputs;
networks; institutional, government, and private support; and even government
sanction for international travel for some sociologists.
These conditions led to the politicization of sociology in South Africa. Soci-
ology came to be recognized as a so-called struggle discipline that adorned the robes
and capes of the international left, influenced by the rhetorical styles and liberatory
socialisms taking hold in other parts of the sociological world. On the one side,
sociology posed a dangerous threat to order, and on the other side, sociology was
the progressive hope for evidentiary teaching and liberatory strategic-making. A
sociology of the people was possible if sufficient critical mass could be mustered.
However, these grand ideas faded rather bashfully when democracy was installed in
South Africa, a form of democracy with African characteristics, which did not care
for the ideas of a sociology of the people.
Still, participating in international sociology was a one-sided process; the
networks of organized sociology in South Africa reached out to the liberal soci-
ological shades in the United States of America and Great Britain, not so much the
countries of the Atlantic, who were engrossed in forging the European sociology,
endowed to them by Comte and the positivism school. The greatest influencers were
the sociology of publics and the doing sociology. These sociologies resonated with
13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African Sociologies 207

the internal crushes of politics that dropped the ball after the Mandela cabinet. Sociol-
ogists could speak out freely; frame models; and even write public policy. However,
the thrust and cut of everyday politics did not stand for any sociological value,
evidence, or proposition to redistribute wealth to the people, reorient ragged people
into productive subjects, or fix inequalities which if not addressed now, will produce
multiple negative properties in the future.
South African sociology is nowadays leaning towards a sociology of caring—
more a redemption from the past. It is attempting to put on a distinguishable front to
colonialism, racism, gender discriminations, and cultures of exclusion. A sociology
of caring is hardly revolutionary, not even a viable instrument to fix the miscellanies
of deep colonialism and racism. Worse, a sociology caring, instead of eliminating
manifestations of colonialism and racism, appears to affirm them.
The recent experience in South Africa highlighted the overthrowing remaining
vestiges of colonialism and calling on the government to sponsor and lead a politics
of blackness and black capitalism. Note the voices of black youth who, trapped in
unemployment and squalor, prefer a radical politics of exclusivity, rights, and priv-
ileges. Those social programmes for youth that required experiential learning and
a great deal of individual commitment became intolerable too soon. If the Black
Diamonds2 of South Africa could access rapid and easy wealth, why should they
also not stand in the imaginary line of beneficiaries? Note also the number of student
research projects on cultural studies that ask seemingly searching and logical ques-
tions about blackness, bodies, femininity, and so on, framed along the theoretical
tracks of intersectionality.
The essentializing debate has given way to the affirmation of the concepts of
Africanism, blackness, black feminism, black voice, black lives, black masculinity,
black female students, black male students, and so on. Where previously, the litera-
ture was plugged by the notion that race was a social construct, race, and racialized
genderism are now empirical constructs. There is a turn here to constructive empiri-
cism, which contains normative, semantic, and epistemological theses (Rosen 1994).
Constructive empiricism takes what the world and phenomena in it to be a literally true
story and acceptance of a scientific theory involves the belief that it is true (Monton &
Chad, 2017). Constructive empiricist holds that science aims at truth about observ-
able aspects of the world, but that science does not aim at truth about unobservable
aspects. Acceptance of a theory, according to constructive empiricism, correspond-
ingly differs from acceptance of a theory on the scientific realist view: the constructive
empiricist holds that as far as belief is concerned, acceptance of a scientific theory
involves only the belief that the theory is empirically adequate. Accordingly, the
slip from essentialism to constructive empiricism is easily achieved. Structures or
manifestations of blackness are held to be true as they appear empirically.
Therefore, categories and sub-categories such as Afrocentric, black political
economy, Women of colour, black hair, black beauty are existentially permissible
within the overall the category of humanness. Epistemologically, these categories are
legitimized as units of analysis within sociology and other social science disciplines,
giving rise to new bodies of work on race in South Africa.
208 K. Odhav and J. P. Govender

13.2.1 Our Futures and Sociology

The genesis of South African sociology was the apartheid state, and its future is
univocally pinned to statism. Given that the state is nowhere on a path to safeguard
its citizens, sociologists and civil society will feel obligated to respond with humane
alternatives. The opportunities to govern over the last thirty years have unfortunately
detracted from constitutional obligations, but replicated by models that dominate in
other parts of the African continent.
The South African case has been embarrassing state capture, where most consti-
tutional establishments have been overridden by antagonistic rent seeking; intrepid
influence over state decision-making bodies; and the determined power collectives,
some based on ethnicity, others on lines of trust practiced by closed syndicates.
The public policy efforts to date, the most recent known as the South African
Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan, have all failed to extricate the economy
from the current rut. COVID-19 is a new burden preventing even this latest public
policy intervention. A summary of the meta challenges that face South African may
be ascribed as follows (Netshitenzhe, 2020):
• A workable character of the social system based on the Constitution which calls
for a development state has not been pursued, even within the constricts of the
capitalism;
• The core objective of the socio-economic policy is to raise the level of daily living
of the majority, which still remains empty handed regarding nutrition, housing,
water, sanitation and electricity, education, health care, employment, and so on;
and
• The leadership role of the state, which is responsible for a vision and dynamizing
the development of society, was never on any believable track.
If the recent developments in South Africa are true, then South Africans are
building backwards, hardly forwards.

13.3 Sociology in India

The sociology of India is imbued by fragrants of medievality, incomparable intellec-

tual advancements, scholarship, cultural expressions, and sociality. Nowhere in the
scholarly world can the sociology of India not be envied. Neither can it be limited in
any epistemic manner, whether vis-à-vis theory, method, or praxis. This is enough
motivation for there to be a coming together of the South African and Indian soci-
ologies to manufacture new intellectual regimes to help strengthen, consolidate, and
advance the south in global sociology.
13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African Sociologies 209

13.3.1 Background

Indian sociology, very broadly speaking, has traversed more than a 200-years of
practice and upheaval from its early ‘origins’ in Bengal within the British Raj to
collect statistics and control the ‘natives’, to its later institutional establishment in
Mumbai, Lucknow and that of the more recent Marxist and feminist brands of soci-
ological articulation and practice, as in the case of Desai and Patel (Patel, 2016). All
these are characterized by tension and upheaval of sociological thought and even
shifting paradigms, but is also characterized by its wider tendencies to grow out of
such crises’ and be a self-conscious discipline within a country that displays such
high levels of inequality that add to the divisions of that society as indicated by
Himanshu from Jawaharlal Nehru University: “Particularly worrying in India’s case
is that economic inequality is being added to a society that is already fractured along
the lines of caste, religion, region and gender” (Oxfam, 2021).
India is a country with such radically diverse tendencies and heritages, and soci-
ology reflects this diversity but also its disruptions, from its imitative model of western
thought, to its indigenizing orientations, and yet it has high levels of scholarship and
engagement in the area of sociological practice. What follows is to discern some of
these forms and what the future holds of India, by casting a glance at some of its
past and present conceptualizations of sociology and its place in India, if ever there
is only one place that sociology can occupy anywhere on the globe.

13.3.2 From the Sociology of India to Indian Sociology

and Sociology in India

To start with the notion of a discipline in upheaval, its history begins with an inter-
disciplinary focus at its origins with Mukerjee leading the charge to focus on the
under-privileged at Mumbai University, and Majumdar seeking to establish an inter-
ventionist sociology, in the early part of the century (Thapan, 1991). Anthropology
was developing at Calcutta and later in Mysore, through the colonial dualist heritage
of viewing the study of India as related to the western view: that sociology was the
study of one’s own society while anthropology was the study of foreign cultures.
Ironically then, if one was studying India from outside India, one was an anthro-
pologist but if studying it from inside one was a sociologist. The disciplines have
thus been alienated. Another tendency appears in the form of Indological studies and
indigenization of sociology, in various forms, one of which is its blatant colonial
mode that exoticized and eroticized India and its cultures (ibid).
Due to its ancient past, Indian sociology had to contend with its cultural heritage
and while indigenization attempted to do that, Srinivas (Singh, 2019) turned the idea
of Sanskrit culture upside, as model through the notion of ‘Sanskritization’ of the
lower caste groups imitating the customs and values of an upper caste, while theirs
was a mainly oral culture. Srinivas (ibid) also described another imitative act on the
210 K. Odhav and J. P. Govender

part of Indian sociology, viz., westernization. Still, despite the latter’s inventiveness,
and his focus on village studies, there was some neglect of urban studies in his work.
Furthermore, there is a general tendency in India to respect western theory, which
means that such notions as Sanskritization introduced into sociology have not been
further explored in the field.
Crisis and change in Indian sociology is reflected by Ishwar Modi’s assertion of a
revolution taking place in India in 2019, or the new generation of young sociologists
that attended the All-India Sociological Conference in Udaipur in 2014 expressing
their excitement at the developments in India. Modi’s (Modi and Vivek, in Dwyer
et al., 2018) writings are a useful entry into Indian Sociology, being the founder of
the sociology of leisure in India. He wrote on a range of topics, including sociology,
drugs, aging, globalization, and youth. The latter gives India an advantage over the
west, with its ageing population. This is significant considering his view of youth as
significant for economic growth with their energy and the demographic trend that
25% of global youth will be Indian by 2025, and as a million Indian youth join the
labour force every month. By 2030 the number of Indians living in cities will be
nearly double the US population. Still many complexities of youth existences exist,
in relation to gender, rural–urban life, and their interchanges.
There is relative immiserization and massive class polarities over two decades in
India, due mainly to the nature of capital, and contradictory capacities to produce
and consume. Citing D’Mello, he writes:
The process of accumulation is upon an increases in the rate of exploitation....(but also
that)…the realization of the additional surplus is dependent upon the additional purchasing
power of the mass of consumers – both are essential to spur investment and growth. But
relative immiserisation has reached a point where it is holding down growth of the relative
purchasing power of the masses, weakening consumption and adding to overcapacity, thus
lowering expected profit on new investment, and thereby dampening the propensity to invest.
(Modi in Dwyer et al., 2018: 974).

To return to the main theme, Dube (1977) alludes to the movement of sociology
as a discipline. After citing ancient empirical practices, he reflects on how after
three decades of independence the colonial captive mind remains in place, with
doctrinaire approaches to Marxist concepts (with similar arguments by Gupta, though
he cites the exception of Saran) (Gupta, 1974), with an unashamed imitation of
western science, and notions of tribe in India that is misused elsewhere, and that
caste as seen by western observers was not as uniform and as immobile. Further
that the notion of Sanskritization could be deepened if only it had been taken up.
Still, Dube argued that such traps do not mean western science has to be outright
rejected. He suggests that sociology in India should address current and future living
concerns, identify critical problems, pose the right questions, and devise appropriate
procedures for investigation. Dilemmas of development need to be approached with
research and reflection, with more investment in development indicators, life quality,
problems of toughening up a soft state, and to interface freedom, equality, and social
justice. He also sees a need for multi-disciplinaries, to build opinion and sharpen
problem-solving capacities, and for understanding of tolerance of failures. Notably,
he cites a need for sociology to increase its credibility with people and policymakers
13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African Sociologies 211

with sociological insights. As India going through tough times, populism discounts
intellectuals, but he asserts that this is when the latter are most needed, to relate
directly to people’s problems and for national reconstruction. Perhaps the level of
research orientation of the Indian Sociological Association in terms of the number
of its committees may be noted here: it once boasted of 22 research committees:

1. Theory, concepts & methodology 12. Population, health, and society

2. Family, kinship & marriage 13. Science, technology & society
3. Economy, polity and society 14. Culture & communication
4. Migration & diasporic studies 15. Social change & development
5. Education and society 16. Urban and industrial studies
6. Religion and religious communities 17. Social movements
7. Rural, peasant & tribal communities 18. Sociology of crime and deviance
8. Social stratification, professions & social 19. Age and social structure
mobility
9. Dalits & backwards classes 20. Leisure & tourism
10. Gender studies 21. Social problems & marginalized groups
11. Sociology and environment 22. Military sociology, armed forces &
conflict resolution
Source (Mucha, 2012)

Despite radical elements in Indian and South African societies, both do have
conservative aspects. In India this variant is juxtaposed with radical traditions: even
in the most conservative traditions such as in religious thought, atheist thought is
entertained so as to take it to its logical conclusion. Between the radical and the
conservative views there lies a whole band of broad sociological trends in India, and
the discipline of sociology also shows this variety of thought. Yet social research in
India is dominated by Eurocentric theories rather than those of Indian origin (Singh,
2019).
In this regard, Ghandi’s views remain marginal in sociological literature, except
for Bose who showed its relevance to the national movement (Oommen, 1983), while
that of Ambekhar (Singh, 2019) related to a subaltern perspective that is very much
sociological, despite him not being a sociologist. Also pertinent is Patel’s (2011)
description of the three historical phases of sociology in India:
• A colonial phase of boundaries: e.g., does it encompass anthropology?
• A nationalist phase: will it follow Europe and North American sociological
traditions?
• Its professional orientation is restricted to learning and teaching or commit to
public policy and/or social movement issues. Does it relate to global or national
issues/processes or the former together with regional and local ones?
In such a context, Indian sociology has remained plural and diverse, for Patel
(2011). Two important aspects were developing scholarship and institutions inter-
facing with such scholarship to align with the state’s project of constructing a new
212 K. Odhav and J. P. Govender

discipline of ‘Indian’ sociology in the context of the growth of higher education

and academia. While the state sought sociology to develop systematic knowledge
to respond to planned social change, sociologists saw their role as creating a soci-
ological language to contribute to India’s uniqueness in their own terms (viz., in
indigenous or national terms). This ‘particular problematique’ (Patel, 2011) assessed
changes in caste, kinship, family, and religion. It’s unusual for a highly self-conscious
orientation committed to discuss, debate, and represent social change occurring
within one nation. Distinctive here in the 1950s–1960s is the ‘field view’ consol-
idating theory, with participant observation used to study caste, religion, and family
in micro-settlements of villages: consolidation was through the University Grants
Commission, the Indian Council of Social Science biographic surveys, and Indian
Sociological Society that organized the profession. Only later (1980s), Saberwal,
Oommen, and Dhanagare (ibid) followed Desai’s view to assess India in terms of
macro-processes of conflict and consensus. Saberwal cited the lack of training of the
new universities in following participant observation. This made professional practice
collapse into common sense. Institutional developments include low funding of new
institutions, of growing demands for regional languages as mediums of instruction
and to incorporate regional themes into syllabi; and incorporation of Other Backward
Classes (OBC) through a reservation system that was introduced in state universities
earlier, and now are being introduced to the central universities (ibid).
The result is a hierarchical divide as Jayaram (in Patel, 2011) argues, between
elite central universities teaching in English, and state universities using regional
languages. This has deepened the binary divide between national versus region, being
a moot cause of a fragmented sociological language. But some (Vasavi in Patel, 2011)
view this as a challenge to reconstitute the discipline. The resultant demise of a centre
of the discipline may lead to more growth. For example, the move away from the
1950s and 1960s sociological language of ‘Samaj’ (community) as purely social and
as a civilizational process (defined in terms of the upper caste patriarchal assessments
of a reconstructed past) is conceptualized as being outside of the mechanics of power,
state, and the market. An inter-disciplinary language is now attempting to grasp how
the project of modernity of the post-independent state and its elite is being organized.
Sociologists are engaged with the growth of social movements in India, interfacing
the discipline with public sociology. Others attempt to comprehend various diversities
structuring India, as against the attempt to standardize and homogenize patriarchal,
class, and caste-based orientation to modernity. As social movements grow, one may
ask how ‘nation’ and ‘nation state’ fit together and do innovative studies on the links
and interface between ‘Indian’, ‘South Asian’, and global identities across the world
(Patel, 2011).
Patel (2011) also cites two broad processes arranging the discipline: first, a
‘morass’ that structures learning, syllabi, and pedagogy in higher education; second,
the recognition of a need to unravel the debate on local–regional-national, and global
processes. Sociologists thus ask of the object of sociology, on studying nations and
those excluded in the Indian nation-state (is a particularistic orientation retainable
without indigenous culturalist reductionism?), or to study Indian diasporic socia-
bility’s: to assess and create a language of voluntary and forced mobilities of outgoing
13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African Sociologies 213

migrants from the region and nation state, now placed in various class positions glob-
ally, and to relate to those within the territory? Or to consider both, and on what terms,
as binary or in the intersections of both. Patel thus asks, what relationship should
evolve with the new internationalism of sociology, and do these give new pathways
for sociological practices in India or to repeat colonial practices: does sociology
extend the cosmopolitanism of the global north, or retain its nationalist moorings,
re-framed and endogenously constituted in the sub-continent of the global south, or
some third way to relate to these questions (Patel, 2011).
Patel also argues that unsettling paradigmatic changes in Indian sociology in the
1970s–1990s, as feminist questioned systems of family, caste, religion, and other
tradition-modern dualities, to offer four new conceptualizations. First, they saw both
institutional and non-institutional power forms flow through all forms of economic,
social, and cultural relationships. Second, as colonialism initiated inequities it is
imperative that studying the social means using a historical and inter-disciplinary
approach. Third, its intersectional theory explored cultural and economic inequalities
and exclusions that were organically connected. Fourth, complex agency and expe-
riences occur, as actors and agents represent both dominant and subaltern positions
in their life cycles.
While the turn towards modern indigenization does relate to an invented tradition
(Patel, 2016), there are other problems relating to indigeneity that continue, such
as with the question of regional institutions teaching in regional languages. This is
further exacerbated by the lack of resources there, and a (western) textbook orienta-
tion, all resulting in the labour division of elite central or metropolitan universities
with high standards and the regional ones at a lower rung of the ladder. This division
is somewhat reminiscent of the higher education system in South Africa, with ex-
Bantustan universities (and technical universities too, in some cases), as being at a
lower end of the scale in comparison to the metropolitan ones. This is the apartheid
logic, a reminder of the colonial order, with India grapples with a more complex
system in its struggle to recognize regional languages as mediums of instruction. In
India it’s a matter of keeping the register of its variety of languages in the face of
infrastructure and resources problems in regional states, but which points to needs
and world-views that surely need recognition. In South Africa there is some shift to
other national languages (of the almost 35 spoken in the country, there are 10 offi-
cial languages) with some metropolitan universities making one African language
an official language at the university, as there is also legislation (Higher Education
Act, 1997) to this effect—but its development is patchy across the campuses and the
results of the language legislation remains to be seen.
To focus on the Indian caste issue, it remains significant in India as argued by
Surinder Jodhka (Odhav & Govender, 2023) in his analysis of its middle classes
despite casting aside colonial interpretations of caste as a cultural and immobile
concept suitable for the purposes of colonial rule. Caste is structured by “economic
processes, ecological possibilities, and the nature of political regimes of a given
regime”. India’s quota system has done much to allow social and economic mobility
and developing leadership among the underprivileged. The colonial order gave Indian
middle classes English tastes but to be Indian in colour (to spread a ‘superior western
214 K. Odhav and J. P. Govender

culture’), but ironically, tradition produced the movement towards independence with
its ideas of democracy. Industrial development, the successes of the green revolution,
and state investments in agricultural growth, meant that caste issues declined in
significance.
Modern India sees economic and social processes of change in the caste system.
But still, an upper stratum still finds use in caste categories, in marriages, commu-
nity cartels, or associations. Corporate boards are also dominated by upper caste
members and often screen out the scheduled castes. Tamil Brahmins, for instance,
have class and caste as congruent identities, and their associations seek to counter
democratic politics as articulated by the ‘backward classes’. But India’s middle class
is becoming much more diverse: there are others apart from the Brahmins claiming
middle class identity or occupying position in secular and professional economies of
India. Seven decades of affirmative action for Scheduled Castes opened new possibil-
ities for the most deprived and untouchable groups. But it began in British rule with
a few ‘untouchables’ being allowed to study and move to urban middle class spaces.
The anti-caste and anti-Brahmin movements (Phule, Ambedkar, and Ramasamy)
had inspired some of the middle class communities after independence.
The Dalit experience is instructive: upward mobility meant a shift from their
group of origin to a more compatible class located group. But Dalits are exposed
to prejudice from dominant groups, as their middle class jobs are viewed by the
dominant middle class as being illegitimate. This limits Dalit mobility, as their upper
class colleagues first identify Dalits with their caste and then with their economic or
authorial position. Dalits in this case are alienated from their group but are pulled
back to their group of origin by a moral obligation to support their brethren, with
their new found wealth. But they also tend to form caste enclaves through ‘Dalit’
categories, which make them feel more modern and dignified. India’s modernity
for them is tied to their view of the state as being above caste, civil society, or the
market economy. The contradiction for Jodhka (Odhav & Govender, 2023) lies in
them recognizing the deficits of social and cultural capital in their communities, and
they seek to partake in the neo-liberal economy, which makes them advocate the free
market and meritocratic regimes but they also simultaneously seek state support and
quota.
Another contemporary sociologist, Sharma (2013), defines stratification as the
structure and process of allocation and distribution of resources and opportunities,
and the rationale of decision-making about the structuring of high and low positions
in a society. While the British enacted zamindari (perpetual land ownership without
a fixed rent or occupancy right for the actual cultivators) and ryotwari (peasants
or cultivators were regarded as owners of the land) as new systems of land tenure,
they also quietly supported conversion to Christianity, pushed caste from its local
and social categories to give it a political colour, and transformed it into a hierarchy
of power that lasted six decades (1901–1960). Sharma (2013) cites two approaches
that were in vogue to study social stratification, that is historical and structural-
existential. The first one focused on ideas and thought processes in relation to social
reality, while the second stressed and understanding of the real world. Hierarchy
13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African Sociologies 215

and inequality are determined by both, viz., norms and values, and actual distribu-
tion of resources and opportunities in social life. Social stratification in this view
is a reproduction of a value system and structural forces (as with notions of pure
and impure, marriage rules, norms around inter and intracaste relations have been
(re)shaped historically and contextually in India. Similarly, the functioning of class
and policy and inter-group relations have never been static., for Sharma, there are
multiple classes in India, and the economic factor is not the sole cause of inequality,
as it includes religion, caste, power-politics, and the like. A differentiated burgeoning
middle class is largely independent of India’s industrial development. Urbanization,
modernization, and globalization have been cornered by a small section of the popula-
tion, and semi-feudal and semi-capitalist social and political relations co-exist, which
means neither development nor political freedom has reached the poorest of the poor.
Despite persisting traditional social formation with new or modern institutions, a new
dominant class emerged in post-independent India, that challenges persisting hier-
archies and socio-cultural arrangements. Principal intermediate agricultural castes
and middle peasants are replacing the entrenched upper and upper middle castes and
classes. Thus, a re-ordering is occurring of social groups. Families and individuals,
with a redistribution of resources and opportunities, such that social difference and
power are more valued than ritual hierarchy and segregation. Both urban and rural
areas saw a new middle class emerge, with a growing non-correspondence between
caste hierarchy and class stratification, a new stratification system is emerging based
on new parameters of status and power. Status and power are operational in both
rural and urban life.
This leads Sharma (2013) to view Indian social stratification as multi-faceted
and multi-causal, and that ‘caste’ cannot alone explain it, as income, education,
lifestyle, parentage, and the like continue to play some role in status determination,
as well as political power being an effective factor in status evaluation. Constitutional
provisions for reservations mean a distinct class emerging as different from those
who have not benefited from among those communities. Another distinct group is
the one that has benefitted from higher education, taking lucrative jobs in public
and private sectors. Below this are teachers, clerks, and other lower and middle
level white collar workers that benefit less. Another layer is those at the top, in
India and abroad, that are in the corporate sector. Independent petty entrepreneurs,
workers in organized and unorganized sectors, agriculturalists, landless labourers,
and such like all form the major chunk of India’s population. Social stratification after
independence is not closed anymore as it was during the colonial era. Privatization
has created more opportunities but its long terms effects are still to be determined.
Poverty has decreased but without a corresponding decrease in inequality. Creating
social opportunities and removing impediments and capacity building for the needy
can ensure freedom by way of development, as argued by Sen (Sharma, 2013).
Perhaps one needs to point out another similarity with the South African schools
scenario to that of the school system in India. It lies both at the base of an unequal
education system and has much to achieve both in terms of policy research. For Sen,
though some things may have changed since:
216 K. Odhav and J. P. Govender

The underdevelopment of…Indian schools…especially in…socially backward regions…

(and)…disadvantaged groups…is…deeply inefficient and…unjust. The smart boy or clever
girl…deprived…of schooling…(at)…schools with dismal facilities….(and a)…high inci-
dence of absent teachers…loses opportunities…(adding to a)…waste of talent…If we
have not yet been able to seize…economic opportunities…(to manufacture)…simple prod-
ucts…(as in)…Japan, Korea, China…East Asia…(the)…west, India’s remarkable neglect
of basic education has a decisive role in this handicap (Sen, 2012).

If we are to talk of a sociology of sociology as mentioned earlier, more attention

may be needed on what Sen (2012) points to in the areas of domestic public policy
and its implementation, in basic areas, such as education, health care, micro-credit,
and infrastructural planning. There is also, what Vasavi (2011) argues, a neglect of
studies on organizations, bureaucracy, and large science technology establishments.
If the notion of India as a global economy is anything to stand by, it seems that the
sociologists and research in India are to some extent already on the threshold (if not,
at its upward curve) of being a global sociology, as they research about and of India
but also work with researchers from across the globe. Apart from this volume as one
example of this, there are others of which I can simply cite a few instances. Another
volume on ‘Issues and themes in Contemporary Society’ (Nagla & Srivastava,
2019) spans a vast of research from the Sociologies of India and Brazil, anti-nuclear
movements in Japan, Sociology and the International Sociological Association
(ISA), Marxism and the state, Liberalism and libertarianism, spontaneous settlers
in urban metros, rural caste and development, reconstructing post-colonial villages,
the Ambedhkar-Arundhati Roy debate, identity and cultural heritage, male leisure,
ethnicity and identity, development and gender, social media in politics and rural
change seen from cinematic lens, challenges to Indian families, marriage and sex,
migrancy in China, local and global justice, youth and religion, and youth transitions
in late modernity, floods and social vulnerability, higher education privatization in
India, Naxalism or Maosim and health services and voluntarism in sports. The range
of both the countries and the themes is very wide and bodes well for Indian sociology
as a global player. Other notables are Spivak’s articulations who straddles Columbia
and India, or Chibber (2014) at New York University, on Post-Colonial theory and
capital. Then there are the local Indians that are rewriting on The Making of Modern
India, which is a historical study that reflects some shift from some neglect of histor-
ical sociology. Notable also, is B.K. Nagla’s (Nagla, 2008) contribution to Indian
sociology with a gamut of sociologies is given space in his book Indian Sociological
Thought, in contrast to other social scientists opting only for a cacoon-like interests
(mainly on one or other, to remain in their special interests and mainly on Indian
sociology). There is also the spectre of Indian sociology that is rising on the cusp of
a public sociology as it begins to work with social movements and this may take it
into the future, to be taken seriously by the authorities and the captains of industry,
as well for further future cooperation of academics between countries, due to their
historical relations but also for the future of Sociology as a discipline.
13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African Sociologies 217

13.4 Conclusion

The orientations and futures of sociology in India and South Africa can then be
summed up as follows. While they both originated in their respective colonial eras,
they have respectively traversed trajectories of analysing caste and race stratification
systems though the class has also been ever-present in both formations in various
forms, from ideological through to material relations. Interestingly, South African
studies on race, not as a biological construct, are only beginning to be constructed
in the post-apartheid era. Indian sociology has been diversifying its studies, and
feminism emerged there to reconceptualize theories and methods of Indian sociology,
and such studies in South Africa are also emerging as it questions various forms of
power, violence, and patriarchy in South Africa. Sociology in both societies has
focused on inequalities in their various forms and depths.
The future of sociology in both cases may be further articulated if understandings
such as that between the two national sociological associations (ISA and SASA)
continue to build on the memorandum of understanding (see Appendix 1 below) to
continue the work of creating a platform for a more intensive and international rela-
tionship to thrive in the midst of such high forms of inequalities that both countries
witness, and in the midst of the continuation of colonial legacies in their different
forms in both India and South Africa, in order to find a common sociological language
that transcends borders but remains conscious of the local contexts in each country.
One avenue for such collaboration lies in aiming towards sociological associations in
their respective regions and continents, to deepen their international collaborations
that go beyond their current relations with their respective partners in sociolog-
ical associations, so as to fathom a greater attempt at a more universal sociological
thinking and practice in both countries.

Endnotes

1. A Memorandum of Understanding Between the Indian Sociological Society and

South African Sociological Association
The above associations, being the representative bodies for Sociology in their
respective countries, agree to seek ways and means to increase cooperation and
discussion between their organizations and between sociologists in South Africa
and India. In this we are motivated by the following:
1. The recognition that, as part of humanity, we have a common interest in
sustaining and improving life on our planet. To this end, we welcome oppor-
tunities to develop associational and personal relationships across national
borders.
2. Agreement that, to better understand the world in which we live, we should
encourage research and debate between scientists in different countries. To
this end we assert our support for the International Sociological Association.
218 K. Odhav and J. P. Govender

3. An appreciation that scientific knowledge has, hitherto, been dominated by

scholars from a small number of wealthier countries, thus limiting our under-
standing of the world. As representatives of sociology in two of the less-
wealthy countries, we have a particular responsibility to nourish new ideas
that might advance a fuller understanding of society.
To advance the aforementioned co-operation and discussion, we agree that:
1. The secretaries of the two associations will inform each other of the contact
details, including website addresses, for their respective societies.
2. On the websites of the two societies, there will be a link to the website of
the other organization.
3. The members of one association are welcome to attend and will have
papers considered for presentation at, the conferences of the other. The
rate for attendance at conferences will be no greater than the rates for local
participants.
4. The secretaries of the two societies will inform each other about the loca-
tion, dates, and themes of their own organization’s conferences in good
time. They will also assist in providing each other with information about
conferences, seminars, and workshops that might be relevant to the interests
of sociologists in the other country.
5. Members of both associations are encouraged to become members of the
other organization without the right to be elected to offices in the constituent
organization.
6. Members of both societies are encouraged to subscribe to and read, the
journal of the other organization.
7. Leaders of both associations will endeavour to facilitate the linking of
sociologists, including sociology students, in the furtherance of research
collaboration and other xii South African Review of Sociology 2009, 40(1)
scholarly exchanges.
8. Leaders of both societies will endeavour to inform each other about changes
in conditions for pursuing sociological enquiry in their respective country.
This will include information about support for, or opposition to, sociology
by the respective governments or other agencies.
9. The Presidents of both associations, and their representatives, will
endeavour to attend the main conferences of each other’s organization.
10. Both societies will, from time to time, give further consideration to means
of strengthening ties between their organizations and between sociologists
in the two countries.
11. Any change in this MoU will be made only through bilateral between the
two organizations.
- Signed on 8 July 2008 at Stellenbosch (South Africa) by
Prof. U. B. Bhoite, President, Indian Sociological Association
Dr. Simon Mapadimeng, President, South African Sociological
Association.
13 Orientations and Futures of Indian and South African Sociologies 219

2. A pejorative term referring to the new elite of young black people joining the
collective black middle class.

References

Alexander, P. (2009). Location and orientation: Introducing Indian sociology. South African Review
of Socioogy, 40(1), i–xvi.
Chibber, V. (2014). Postcolonial theory and the specter of capital. Verso Books.
Dwyer, T., Gorshkov, M. K., Modi, I., Chungli, L., & Mmapadimeng, S. (2018). Handbook of
sociology of youth in BRICS countries. World Scientific.
Dube, S. (1977). Indian sociology at the turning point. Sociological Bulletin, 26(1), 1–13.
Gupta, K. P. (1974). Sociology of Indian tradition and tradition of Indian sociology. Sociological
Bulletin, 23(1), 14–43.
Kenney, H. (2016). Verwoerd: Architect of apartheid. Jonathan Ball Publishers.
Monton, B., & Mohler, C. (2017). Constructive empiricism. In The stanford encyclopedia of
philosophy. Zalta.
Mucha, J. (2012). From the editors: Sociology of India, sociology in India, Indian sociology. Polish
Sociological Review, 178(2), 145–150.
Nagla, B., & Srivastava, V. K. (2019). Issues and themes in contemporary society. Rawat
Publications.
Nagla, B. K. (2008). Indian sociological thought. Rawat Publications.
Netshitenzhe, J. (2020). “Can South Africa’s civilisation of national democracy sustain itself?”,
Mapungubwe Annual Lecture 2020. Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA)
and University of Johannesburg (UJ).
Odhav, K., & Govender, J. (2023). Hadbook of Sociology in BRICS countries. Frontpage.
Oommen, T. K. (1983). A plea for contextualisation. Sociological bulletin, 32(2).
Oxfam (2021). India: Extreme Inequality in numbers. Retrieved January 26, 2020, from https://
www.oxfam.org/en/india-extreme-inequality-numbers.
Patel, S. (2016). Feminist challenges to sociology in India: An essay in disciplinary history.
Contributions to Indian Sociology, 50(3), 320–342.
Patel, S. (2011). Sociology in India: Trajectories and challenges. Contributions of Indian Sociology,
45, 427–435.
Peilin, L., Gorshkov, M., Scalon, C., & Sharma, K. L. (2013). Handbook of social stratification in
the BRICS countries: Change and perspective. World Scientific Press.
Rex, J. (1975). The sociology of South Africa: A review article. Journal of Southern African Studies,
1(2), 247–252.
Sharma, K. L. (2013). Social-class connection and class identity in urban and rural areas. In: L.
Peilin, M. Gorshkov, C. Scalon, & K. L. Sharma (Eds.), Handbook on social stratification in
the BRIC countries: Change and perspective, World Scientific Publishing.
Sen, A. (2012). The argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian history, culture and identity. Penguin
Books.
Singh, R. (2019). Origin and development of sociology in India: A critical inquiry. International
Journal of All Research Writings, 1(11), 1–6.
Thapan, M. (1991). Sociology in India: A view from within. Economic and Political Weekly, 26(19),
1229–1234.
Vasavi, A. (2011). Pluralising the sociology of India. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 45(3),
399–426.
Webster, E., & Pampallis, K. (Eds.). (2019). The unresolved national question in South Africa: Left
thought under apartheid. Oxford University Press.
Chapter 14
Globalization of Sociology
to the Sociology of Globalization

Habibul Haque Khondker

Abstract Sociology, in the words of its putative founder, August Comte (1798–
1857), is both a science of society and humanity. The other, much older founder of
sociology, Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) too envisioned a universal history (and soci-
ology too), as did Polybius in the second century BCE. Following these leads, this
chapter examines the potential of sociology as an academic discipline as a global
enterprise with claims of universality and the challenges it faces around the world.
One of the sources of the challenge is that the world is unequal not only in politico-
economic terms but also in intellectual traditions. The hegemony of the West in the
creation and dissemination of knowledge superimposed on material inequality poses
a huge challenge for creating social science for common humanity. The chapter aims
to examine the spread of sociology as an academic discipline both as a pedagogical
subject in higher educational institutions as well as a research programme in various
countries in the global South. This chapter also examines the challenges and possi-
bility of bridging the two competing demands of universalizing and indigenizing
sociology. The chapter argues that “glocal” rather than “global” sociology which
supersedes and synthesizes “national sociologies” provides a framework for incor-
porating both universal tenets of global sociology and the programmatic concerns of
indigenized, local sociology.

Keywords Globalization · Global sociology · Japan · China · Korea · India ·

Egypt

14.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses three key issues: (i) it revisits the relationship between the
rise of sociology as a field of inquiry and social transformation or what might be
described as “the great social transformation” on a global scale; (ii) it examines
how sociology became transnational or globalized as an academic discipline and

H. H. Khondker (B)
Zayed University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
e-mail: habib.khondker@gmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 221
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_14
222 H. H. Khondker

thus can be seen as part of a global process; (iii) it explores how sociology, a
global discipline with universalistic claims in dealing with local/national issues has
become a glocalized field which combines strands of global and local knowledge
and circumstances simultaneously. In conclusion, I make some general remarks on
the challenges sociology is currently faced with in dealing with global social trans-
formation. In addressing those issues, I venture some observations on the debate
between indigenous, context-dependent social scientific knowledge and a globalized,
context-independent knowledge system with some claims to universality.
A good deal of discussion has taken place on the subject of globalization of
sociology starting from Wilbert Moore’s seminal essay (Moore, 1966). “By global
sociology”, Wilbert Moore meant, “sociology of the globe, of mankind.” (Moore,
1966: 475). The discipline of sociology has become remarkably international. Moore
reminds us that for Polybius or Ibn Khaldun unity of mankind was a founding presup-
position on which they built the foundations of universal history (and sociology). We
lost the grand tradition because of our quantitative data-driven sociology. Sociology
reached America chiefly from the European continent (Moore, 1966: 476). “Ameri-
canization of sociology” was partly responsible for nation-state-centered sociology,
or what is now commonly called “methodological nationalism”. In the inter-war
period, sociology became the “all-American science” (Moore, 1966: 477). This
was also the period when sociology began to spread worldwide in which American
empirical sociology played a dominant role.
First, I summarize—and, to some extent, simplify—the complex stories of the rise
of sociology as an academic field. Parenthetically, I maintain that the task of a social
scientist is to simplify complexity without making it simplistic. I consider not a single
dominant narrative but multiple narratives of the development of sociology. Second,
in tracking the spread of sociology as an academic field globally, I limit myself
to selected countries drawn from three regions: East Asia, South Asia, and Latin
America and I also touch on Egypt, which may add a comparative perspective to the
discussion. I do not dwell on the globalization of sociology in the European continent
primarily for two reasons: one, sociology emerged in Europe in the works of August
Comte (1798–1857), Karl Marx (1818–1883), Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), Emile
Durkheim (1858–1917), Max Weber (1864–1920), L.T. Hobhouse (1864–1929),
Karl Mannheim (1893–1947) and others, and competent studies are available on the
subject (Korgen, 2017); second, limitation of space. The inclusion of the spread of
sociology in the Eastern part of Europe deserves serious attention, a subject left out in
this paper again both due to limitation of space and the author’s limited knowledge.
On the contemporary challenges of sociology, I break it down into two sub-
categories: one, the challenges of globalization, and two, how sociology as a field
is changing as it tries to grapple with global and glocal transformations. By way
of conclusion, I offer some plausible directions or roadmaps using the concept of
glocalization to help revamp and refocus sociological inquiries to be in tune with the
complex processes of global social transformation that may be of relevance beyond
specific regions of the world.
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 223

14.2 Sociology as the Study of Great Social Transformation

Commonly, the origin of sociology is traced to the Hobbesian problem of order.

The starting point that takes the problem of order betrays a bias, a conservative
bias of the discipline. However, we can turn the table if we choose Rousseau as the
starting point. Rousseau’s question rather than the Hobbesian problem of order was
the source of sociology. The question that Rousseau (1712–1778) posed was simple
but more penetrating: why is there social inequality? One stream of the question of
social inequality is expounded by Marx the other stream comes via Saint Simon to
Durkheim. For Alvin Gouldner, Durkheim was the true heir of Saint Simon rather
than Auguste Comte. Durkheim was an “uneasy Comtean” (Gouldner 1973: 372).
Giddens too concurs with this reading. The argument of Rousseau can be summarized
as an inherent incompatibility between human progress and social inequality.
This section explores the rise of sociological discourse and its spread across
societies, first in Western Europe as an academic discipline in the late nineteenth
century and its spread to the United States where it was nurtured since the early
twentieth century. Sociology evolved as a discipline in the non-Western world as
higher education expanded in the early twentieth century and was promoted by
UNESCO to several countries in the South in the middle of the twentieth century. In
exploring the possibilities of global sociology as a bridge between societies across
cultures the present chapter also outlines the promises sociology holds in a world of
growing malaise and despair emanating from a variety of interlinking crises.

14.2.1 Multiple Origins of Sociology

It may be argued that there are, at least, three histories of sociology. The variations
of the multiple historical narratives are due to the definition and scope of sociology.
If sociology is defined in the broadest sense as a reflection on human society as such,
one can trace its origin easily to the philosophical musings of social relations, say
relationships between parents and the children or the rulers and the ruled, and to the
related normative ideas in the writings of Confucius (551–479 BCE), or to the more
systematic reflections on society as a whole in the philosophical reflections of Plato
(427–347 BCE) and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) or in the writings of Kautilya (375–
283 BCE) in what is now India. The second history of sociology takes us back to the
outline of the philosophy of history propounded by Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406 CE)
in the fourteenth century. The third or the history of modern sociology—our main
concern here—takes us back to August Comte (1798–1857) with roots in the ideas
of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) and Nicolas de Condorcet (1743–1794).
In this third narrative, that I pursue here, I question the notion that sociology is a
“peculiarly modern cognition”, as Peter Berger (1963) put it. Such a view may lead to
relativism and makes the rise of sociology dependent on the rise of modernity. I would
argue that sociology, conceived broadly, is an intellectual tool that helps us understand
224 H. H. Khondker

the complexities of global modernity as much as its absence. Following this narrative
that tracks the birth of sociology in France in the middle of the Nineteenth century
and its exponential growth in the United States of America, we follow its trail first to
Japan at a time when Japan was pursuing globalized modernity to join the comity of
the modern nations. Unlike the colonial societies where social sciences as integral
parts of higher education were transferred by the colonial rulers, or, embraced by the
local elites with a zeal for modernity, the Japanese modernist elites sought out sources
of new knowledge in both sciences, technological fields, as well as in social sciences.
One of the first European sociologists to translate in Japan was Herbert Spencer. This
can partly be understood by the fact that the Meiji rulers in the late nineteenth century
were also interested in Social Darwinism and ideas of social progress on the premise
of the survival of the fittest. China and Korea were not far behind. Spencer was also
translated in China quite early on. Auguste Comte too was translated quite early on in
Japan. Comte was also well received in India, especially his philosophy of positivism
in the late nineteenth century influenced Indian thinking.
Sociological knowledge is premised on the ambition of universalist claims to
scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is universal. This is what we can distill
from Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, or much earlier sociologist Ibn Khaldun. Ibn
Khaldun wanted to provide a universal framework to understand history. In the glob-
alized world, knowledge production whether in physical or social sciences has been
a global endeavor. Globalization as a process of social and cultural interpenetrations
must be seen as a basis for a transcultural explanation of commonality and variations
at the societal level. Social knowledge, even though, it is produced in a national
context becomes de-territorialized becoming part of a global fund of knowledge.
What is sociology? Out of scores of definitions, I would pick a couple repre-
senting different periods. In the words of Morris Ginsberg (Ginsberg, 1963[1934]:
7). “In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human interactions and interre-
lations, their conditions and consequences.” According to Anthony Giddens, “Soci-
ology is the study of human social life, groups, and societies. It is a dazzling and
compelling enterprise, having as its subject matter our behavior as social beings.
…The scope of sociology is extremely wide, ranging from the analysis of passing
encounters between individuals in the street up to the investigation of worldwide
social processes” (Giddens, 1989). The micro and the macro perspectives in soci-
ology were foreseen by Raymond Aron who stated: “Sociology, the science of the
social, may just as well be the science of the microscopic relationships between two
people on the street or three dozen people in a military or academic group, as the
science of society as a whole” (Aron, 1965: 15).
Modern sociology having originated in Europe, France in particular and its
disseminations in England and Germany and later in the United States where it flow-
ered spread to the rest of the world. In the late nineteenth century under the colonial
project, and especially in the early twentieth-century social sciences in general and
sociology, in particular, were being embraced by national governments in Japan,
China, and Egypt. In the mid-twentieth century under the auspices of the United
Nations Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), sociology was promoted
in many so-called developing countries.
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 225

14.2.2 Beginning of Sociology in Europe

In the mainstream discussion of the origin of sociology, the 1830s is viewed as the
birth decade of sociology more as a title and a program than a full-fledged academic
field. It was in volume ll of August Comte’s Positive Philosophy that sociology—in
French, sociologie—appears for the first time in 1838. Comte having mapped all the
fields of knowledge and proposing holistic knowledge wanted a science of society that
would follow the logic, epistemology, and ambitions of natural science. He wanted
a science of society which he initially called “social physics” that would discover
the laws of society, as physics discovers the laws of nature or the universe. And
Comte put sociology as the queen of sciences placing it on a hierarchy of branches
of knowledge that begins with biology.
Launching it as a scientific field, he ended up with a sociological program that
would be more like a universal religion, a secular religion for modern society. Comte
was a humanist and he sought to establish a religion of humanity. Universalism or
universal claims to knowledge is the ambition of all the fields of scientific knowledge.
Sociology did not want to be an exception. Comte’s program did not take off. His
ambiguity towards the end of his life was not helpful. Though his initial program in
sociology was sound, Comte sought to see two branches of sociology: social statics
which would examine the structure of society, the main problematique would be
social stability; and social dynamics, a branch that would explore social transforma-
tion. Despite the soundness of the program, the field to emerge as an autonomous field
of inquiry and a subject to be taught at the university had to wait for Emile Durkheim
(1858–1917) who launched sociology on a firmer scientific program. Durkheim’s
success owes to his intellectual position. As a specialist in pedagogy and philoso-
pher, Durkheim laid out not only the program of sociology on the solid scientific
ground but also undertook several important sociological studies to show how this
distinct field works. Durkheim’s Division of Labor showed social transformation not
just as a materialist, economic process but also as a moral process. Terminologies
such as moral density were sociological. His sociology was aimed at contrasting
two social sciences. One of which was economics, a field that sought to subsume
sociology in its fold by denying the autonomy of society, a theme incorporated in
the arguments of political economy as well as neo-liberal economic position. Paren-
thetically, it may be recalled that the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
famously (or, infamously) said, “there is no society” ignoring Durkheim’s claim that
the market or economy was socially embedded. I believe at Oxford Mrs. Thatcher
skipped Durkheim or else she would not have made that statement.
The other discipline that in some sense overlaps with sociology or, an important
part of sociology was psychology. If sociology is the study of society and if society,
in the final analysis, is composed of people, in some sense psychology can double as
sociology. Durkheim showed in his research on suicide that society cannot be reduced
to psychology. In order to make his point, Durkheim was interested in examining the
suicide rate, not suicide per se, which is a collective phenomenon, not a psychological
one. His thesis was that psychological explanations can be supplemented by a social
226 H. H. Khondker

explanation of suicide. He related the suicide rate to the degree of social solidarity. In
one case, when solidarity is fractured one type of suicide can rise as egoistic suicide.
In another type, altruistic suicide occurs when too much solidarity exists, and people
fail to see themselves as separate from their community. The third type is anomic
suicide caused by major social disruption. His research put the program of sociology
and its contents on a sound empirical and logical basis.
Sociology emerged first in France and then migrated to the rest of the world
unevenly. India was a late starter where political economy dominated, thanks to
James Mill and his illustrious son John Stuart Mill. British universities were also slow
to embrace sociology. The major universities in England, Oxford, and Cambridge,
did not have a sociology program until quite late. One historian of British sociology
commented: “Before 1950 sociology scarcely existed” in Britain (Halsey, 2004). In
the Oxbridge setting anthropology was a dominant field. Anthropology was a hand-
maiden of colonialism and thus was more acceptable and useful. As far as anthro-
pology is concerned its colonial lineage can be easily established. “Anthropological
knowledge, as Talal Asad stated, “was part of the expansion of Europe’s power”
(Asad, 1991). The complicity of sociological knowledge with power cannot be ruled
out but the colonial links are not as evident. Sociology, perhaps in the conservative
British academe was seen as an upstart. An upstart discipline was embraced in an
upstart society, the USA. Again, Harvard was slow to accommodate this field even
until the end of the world war. In post-war Harvard, Pitirim Sorokin a Russian émigré
in the University of Minnesota where he taught sociology, moved to Harvard.
There are, at least, three narratives of the origin of modern sociology. First, soci-
ology has been viewed as a child of Enlightenment. The discipline after a prolonged
period of gestation in the debates and writings of the Enlightenment philosophers
arose in French academia. Hence the contributions of Voltaire, Montesquieu, and
Rousseau are considered precursors to sociology. Sociology in this view emerged
as a response to the Enlightenment philosophe. This line of argument continued in
the presentation of sociology as an attempt to understand modernity. Second, soci-
ology was viewed as an offspring of the revolutions of the late eighteenth century:
the industrial revolution, the American revolution (1776), and the French revolution
(1789). The disruptions of society and the changes that began were unsettling and
needed an understanding. The idea of social order came to dominate the thoughts
of early sociologists such as Auguste Comte. Progress must be premised on social
order became the dominant discourse promoted in the writings of Comte which often
explains a conservative bias in sociology. If we turn to Condorcet as the source of
progress, the conservative bias can be overcome. The third narrative viewed sociology
as a “conservative response to the nineteenth-century radicalism” and in particular a
response to Marxism, in the words of Irving Zeitlin (1969). Zeitlin counter-posed the
two prominent early sociologists: Max Weber and Emile Durkheim as attempting to
respond to Marx’s critique of capitalist society. In the words of one author, Weber
became a sociologist after “a prolonged and intense debate with the ghost of Karl
Marx” (Albert Salomon quoted in Zeitlin, 1969).
Sociology has been a discourse riven by competing schools and paradigms.
Raymond Aron presented at least three distinct traditions of sociology from the origin
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 227

of his discipline. A liberal tradition that treated the political sphere as autonomous
and developed political sociology. Here Aron enlists Montesquieu and Tocqueville.
The second school follows Auguste Comte to Emile Durkheim who underplayed
political as well as the economic in relation to society. In other words, they look at
society as autonomous with an emphasis on consensus. Ginsburg stated in the 1930s
that “Sociology may be said to have arisen as an extension of the field of political
inquiry to cover other institutions than the state, for example, the family, or the forms
of property and other elements of culture and civilization such as morals, religion art,
regarded as social products and seen in their relations to each other” (Ginsburg, 1963
[1934]: 25). The third school, according to Aron, was the Marxist school of sociology
(Aron, 1965: 257–258). Of the three schools, Aron remarked, the “Comtist school
is optimistic”, with a tendency to complacency; the political school is cautious, with
a tinge of skepticism; and the Marxist school is utopian…” (Aron, 1965: 260). All
these narratives are present today with several offsprings of their own. George Ritzer
calls sociology a “multi-paradigm” science. Some sociologists try to synthesize all
these narratives into a grand narrative.

14.2.3 Globalization of Academic Sociology

Globalization is the study of global social transformation. I do not share the populist
definition of globalization as neoliberal capitalism writ large on the global scale (that
view is contained in the communist Manifesto from the 1840s and even before). Such
a unilinear and somewhat teleological view is not helpful. For me, the key metaphor
of globalization is entanglement (Khondker, 2016)–entanglements—social, cultural,
ideational, technical, and so on.
An example of entangled and non-linearity can be found in the spread of sociology
around the world. There are three possible sources of the spread of sociology. First,
during the colonial period, as modern universities were introduced in the colonies
various subjects of social sciences were introduced as well. Social sciences in general
and sociology, in particular, reached India following the establishment of modern
universities and the introduction of social sciences in the early part of the twentieth
century. Second, as students from various parts of the world that had no academic
subjects such as sociology went to study overseas where sociology was present
were attracted to the field and later took the discipline to their own countries. In the
initial phase, several social scientists from the US received their sociological training
in Europe where they either established sociology in their respective institutions
or helped nurture the growth of the field. In this regard, Talcott Parsons training
at the London School of Economics and Heidelberg is a case in point. Academic
sociologists of Europe or the US also promoted this discipline to other countries
where they held visiting appointments. Third, in the 1950s, UNESCO played an
important role in promoting sociology in many developing countries around the
world.
228 H. H. Khondker

The acceptance and flourishing of sociology as an academic discipline repre-

sents some as “academic colonialism”, but it can also be viewed as globalization
of an academic field. I lean to the latter perspective by following the historical
development of sociology and broadly social sciences in various parts of the world,
including the Indian subcontinent. Conceptually, I draw on John Meyer’s idea of
institutional isomorphism and Roland Robertson’s concept of glocalization where
both are aspects of globalization understood in a sociological sense. I add to these
conceptual repertoires of my understanding of globalization as an entangled and
contingent process.

14.2.4 Sociology in the USA

The United States of America provided the social context for the incubation of soci-
ology as a field. Some of the early American sociologists were trained in Germany
under Georg Simmel. Sociology was launched at Chicago University in 1892 under
the leadership of Albion Small and at Columbia University in 1893. These two univer-
sities played a central role in popularizing sociology in other universities in America
(Calhoun, 2007: 1). The first sociological journal was launched at the University of
Chicago with Albion Small as its editor. The oldest journal of sociology in the world
was the American Journal of Sociology, which was established in 1895 by Albion
Small at the Chicago University three years before Durkheim launched L’Annee Soci-
ologique in 1898. Durkheim was not only on the editorial board of this journal in the
very second issue of journal he along with Georg Simmel contributed to the Amer-
ican Journal of Sociology. Small was also the main force behind establishing the
American Sociological Society (later renamed as Association) in 1905. One of the
earliest sociology departments was at the University of Minnesota where a Russian
Émigré, Pitrim Sorokin launched sociology in 1920. Emigre social scientists from
Europe played a big part in the development of American sociology. Sorokin was one
of the leading sociologists in pre-revolutionary Russia. Talcott Parsons, the gadfly of
American sociology studied with L.T. Hobhouse, Radcliffe Brown, and Murdoch,
anthropologists who taught him Durkheim, and then at Heidelberg where Parsons
was introduced to Weber’s oeuvre. Parsons brought Weber to America and trans-
lated his works. Parsons was also part of the Pareto circle launched by Henderson at
Harvard. Talcott Parsons a doyen of US sociology was educated at LSE (1924–25)
after his undergraduate training at Amherst College in 1924. Then he went to study
at Heidelberg, Germany, and received his doctorate in 1927. He became acquainted
with the works of Max Weber in Germany where Weber taught and died just five
years before the arrival of Parsons. Parsons translated Weber’s famous The Protes-
tant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. At LSE, Parsons was exposed to the ideas
of Durkheim and other social anthropologists such as Bronislaw Malinowski and
scholars such as L.T. Hobhouse.
Sociology flowered in America with growing Industrialization, urbanization, and
immigration (modernization) in the early twentieth century. As European migrants
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 229

flooded the mid-west sociological research flourished. The Polish Peasant in Europe
and America written by W.I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki, which was published
in five volumes between 1918 and 1920 depicts the conditions of Polish peasants
was one of the examples. America, a recipient of Sociology from Europe in the late
Nineteenth century became a major purveyor, exporter/influencer of sociology to the
rest of the world in the twentieth century. For Wilbert Moore, sociology emerged as
global sociology but as it was nurtured in America it became parochial and national.
The focus on mankind or humanity was replaced by a nation-state. And this nation-
state-centered model was adopted by the rest of the world.
In its formative years, sociology as a discipline had to contend with the challenges
of defining its field as well as establishing it on a scientific footing. To the critics who
attacked sociology for not clearly defining its field, Durkheim responded that “such
uncertainty is inevitable in the first phases of research and that our discipline was
born only yesterday” (Durkheim & Wilson, 1981: 1054). Durkheim thought “it is too
much to require that a science bound its subject matter with meticulous precision:
for that sector of reality which it aims to study is never set apart from other sectors
clearly and precisely” (Durkheim & Wilson, 1981: 1054). One of his American
contemporaries, William Graham Sumner in 1908 wrote: “Sociology seems now to be
largely speculative and controversial. I should like to see a group of scholars at work
to get it down to normal growth on a scientific method, dealing with concrete things’”
(Sumner quoted in Bernard, 1909: 209). And Giddings of the department of Sociology
and the History of Civilizations at Columbia University said: “Sociology can be made
an exact, quantitative science if we can get industrious men interested in it” (quoted in
Bernard, 1909: 196). The turn to empiricism in American sociology was evident in the
first decades of the twentieth century soon after the field was launched. The tendency
of the spread of social science knowledge as much as scientific knowledge and
technology is fueled by the growing international economic competition (Smelser,
1991: 65).
In both, Japan and China Sociology began its career in the late nineteenth century.
Japan developed a theoretical tradition reflecting first the European and later the
US sociological traditions. The word “society” Shakai appeared in Japan in 1876
and Shakaigaka (sociology) in 1878 (Odaka, 1950). The works of British social
philosopher Herbert Spencer were translated in Japan in the early 1880s. Japan’s
sociology bore the influence of European, especially German and French influence.
As such there was a greater emphasis on social theory rather than social research
(Steiner, 1936). Today there are serious Parsonians in Japan, disciples of Blumer in
China, and Foucauldians almost everywhere. Sociology reached China at the end
of the nineteenth century. The first book with sociology in its title was published
in 1903 with the translation of Spencer’s Principles of Sociology by Yen Fuh (Sun,
1949).
230 H. H. Khondker

14.2.5 Sociology in Japan

The internationalization of sociology (Yazawa, 2014) went hand in hand with the
spread of global modernity. In Japan, for example, “sociology was founded because
it was part of the western university curriculum, a model which the decision-makers
in the Japanese education system sought to imitate” (Hogestsu, 2000: 5). Initially
marginalized and sometimes confused with socialism, it received recognition as a
coherent field of knowledge only after the World War ll. This also coincided with rapid
post-war re-industrialization as well as the increasing influence of American empir-
ical sociology in Japan. Japan was the first Asian country to modernize following
the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Nishi Amane (1829–1897) studied in the Netherlands
before the Meiji Restoration. (Baba, 1962: 7). Nishi studied Dutch and English in
Edo, Japan, and on a government scholarship went to Leiden University from 1862
to 1865 where he encountered Comte and Mill. He introduced the ideas of Comte and
Mill to the Japanese audience (Havens, 1968: 219). Nishi’s writing modified Comte’s
scheme of social development and showed a preference for Mill’s utilitarianism.
As Japan embarked on a road to modernity, it began to set up modern universi-
ties and higher education centers. The University of Tsukuba was set up in 1872.
Tokyo University of Science in 1881 and Waseda University in 1882. Sociology was
established in the late nineteenth century. The word “society” Shakai appeared in
Japan in 1876 and “Shakaigaka” (sociology) in 1878 (Odaka, 1950). The works of
Spencer were translated in 1881 by Matsushima Go who translated Spencer’s Social
Statics (Baba, 1962: 7). Japan’s sociology bore the influence of European, especially
German and French influence. As early as 1930 a Japanese sociologist, Yasu Iwasaki
published an article titled “Divorce in Japan” in the American Journal of Sociology.
He wrote, “Japan is known as a land of quick marriage and quick divorce” He used
1922 statistics to indicate that Japan’s divorce rate followed those of the US and
was ahead of Germany, Denmark, and France (Iwasaki 1930: 435). Ernesto (sic)
Fenollosa (1853–1908) came as a visiting professor at Tokyo Imperial University
(University of Tokyo) in 1878 where he set up an institute of Fine Arts. He studied
Philosophy and sociology at Harvard College and graduated in 1874 and the first
chair of sociology was held by Toyoma Shoichi. They contributed and introduced
Herbert Spencer whose ideas became popular (Baba, 1962: 7).
The influence of European sociology, particularly German sociology was
pronounced in Japan before Word War ll and American sociology in the post-war
period. T. Takebe established sociology koza (academic division) in 1903 at the
University of Tokyo. Japanese Sociological Academy was established by Takebe in
1913. Sociology programs were launched at Waseda University and Kyoto University
in the 1920s. They were showing interest in both European and American sociology.
US-trained T. Toda popularized empirical sociology. In 1923 Japanese Sociolog-
ical Association was set up which replaced the Japanese Sociological Academy
(Yamagishi & Brinton, 1980: 193).
Japanese sociology remained quite faithful to the mainstream European sociolog-
ical traditions in the nineteenth century and the American sociological paradigms
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 231

and personalities in the twentieth century. Even though American sociology whereas
a discipline was developed most comprehensively since the establishment of the first
sociology department in 1892 at the University of Chicago, the impact of European
sociology was pronounced, albeit selective and serendipitous. American sociolo-
gists at the early stage were not influenced so much by Marx, Durkheim, Pareto,
or Weber as by Spencer and Simmel. Spencerian legacy was most visible in the
Social Darwinist movement in American sociology. Several American sociologists
and other social scientists studied in Berlin where they came under the spell of
Simmel’s influence. One of them was Robert Park. Albion Small who founded soci-
ology in Chicago sent three students to Berlin to study under Simmel and he translated
several of Simmel’s articles in the American Journal of Sociology which he edited
(Levine et al., 1976: 816).

14.2.6 Sociology in China

Chinese scholars began to translate western writers in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries. Yan Fu (1853–1921) translated Herbert Spencer’s The Study
of Sociology (1873) in 1903. Yan also translated the works of Adam Smith, John
Stuart Mill, and Thomas Huxley, which one author thought had the idea of progress
drawn from Social Darwinism and laid the basis for reform and modernization of
the Chinese society.
Many Chinese scholars in the first decade of the twentieth century were turning
to western theories to understand the modernization of China (Ma, 1996). The first
course in sociology was offered at St. John University in Shanghai in 1905 or 1908.
Since 1911 students from China began to go overseas—the United States and Europe
to study various subjects, including sociology. Dr. Y. Y. Tsu was the first Chinese
to receive a Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia University in 1912. His dissertation
was titled, “The Development of Chinese Philanthropy”. He became a professor
of sociology at St. John’s University, Shanghai in 1912 (Hsu, 1931:284). It may
be useful to mention that Columbia University at that point was oriented towards
empirical sociology a tradition that was consolidated under Paul Lazarsfeld et al. in
the subsequent decades.
Sociology in China became effervescent in the 1930s and 40 s. In the wake of the
Communist Revolution as sociology was banned in 1952, Chinese sociologists of the
day had three options. Some fled the country; those who remained either reinvented
themselves as historians or demographers or something less controversial. The third
option was to be in the good book of the regime highlighting the role of sociology in
the post-revolutionary society. The reputation of Fei Hsiao Tong became somewhat
tarnished for his lending support to the revolution. One of the émigré sociologists
from China, C.K. Yang, a famed family sociologist took refuge in the University
of Pittsburgh. Following the opening of china, especially with Deng Xiao Peng’s
initiative of reforms, sociology was revived in China in which the University of
232 H. H. Khondker

Pittsburgh played a role. However, China wanted to develop sociology with Chinese
characteristics (Khondker, 2006).

14.2.7 Sociology in Korea

In an entangled global world, modern sociology entered Korea via Japan and China.
Upon returning to Korea from Japan, a pioneer modern novelist In Jik Lee published
a series of five articles in 1906 where he not only defined society and sociology, he
also introduced the main ideas of Herbert Spencer’s theory of evolution. From 1908
to 1909 Chinese writings on Comte and Spencer were translated into Korean (Kim,
1987: 63).
Teaching Sociology in Korea began in the 1930s. Hyun Joon Kim, a German-
educated sociologist published the textbook Modern Sociology in 1930. Chi Jin Hua,
a US-trained sociologist wrote Introduction to Sociology, and Taek Kang, a French-
trained sociologist published Sociology. These authors were teaching sociology in
various colleges where they used their own textbooks. The first sociology department
was established after the establishment of Seoul National University with Sang Paek
Lee as its chair. Because of the prestige of the University, many bright students
chose to study sociology (Kim, 1987: 65). Translation of a large number of English
language textbooks in sociology as well as the original works of Max Weber and
Emile Durkheim took place in the 1950s (Lewis, 1964: 167), which contributed to
the teaching of mainstream sociology in South Korea.
Many commonalities may be observed in the spread of sociology in East Asia.
First, is the Influence of Herbert Spencer, and Comte from the late nineteenth century.
An embrace of the idea of progress which, inter alia, accepted modern Europe
(or West) as a paradigm of development. The local context—culture, politics, and
academic culture played a role—in which competition with other social sciences
too played a role. Sociology as an academic discipline was accepted and nurtured
sometimes with the active sponsorship of the government in East Asia.

14.2.8 Sociology in India

It has been observed by Indian sociologists that there were three sources of Indian
sociology. (i) Colonial reports: 1769 Customs and behaviors, 1809 ethnographic
surveys of Bengal; (ii) Indian Literature: Bankim Chattapdahay (1838–1894), Sarat
Chattapdahay (1876–1935); and (iii) Academic Sociology, which began in 1919 at
the University of Bombay by Patrick Geddes, an admirer of Herbert Spencer and
Auguste Comte. But before the introduction of a sociology journal in India, a journal
titled, The Indian Sociologist was launched in England by Shyamaji Krishnavarma,
an Oxford-educated Indian nationalist and an admirer of Herbert Spencer, in 1905.
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 233

Should one look at the practice of sociology within the disciplinary matrix or
consider sociology as a mode of examining society, as social cognition? In fact,
for C. Wright Mills one need not be a sociologist to be equipped with sociological
imagination as the reverse is equally possible. It is, thus, useful to recognize the
multiplicity of approaches and divinations in the ability for societal self-reflection.
In India, for example, writers such as Sarat Chandra Chattapodhay (1876–1938),
had an incisive sociological mind. His novels, mostly “thick descriptions” about the
complexities of rural society, the tension between traditionalist and the modernist
ideas and views that his characters represented—were sociological in the broad sense
of the term. In one of his speeches, he even mentioned sociology. Calcutta University
offered sociology as a subject in such departments as philosophy and later economics
in the early twentieth century. One of Sarat Chattapodhay’s novels is titled “Palli
Samaj” (1916) or literally, Village Society. Such writers and men and women of
letters with a sensitive understanding of the affairs of society, I believe, could be
found in other societies as well. The sociological imagination was neither restricted
to sociologists, as Mills indicated nor to any geo-cultural region. As an outgrowth of
modernity, sociological imagination spread globally.
However, in discussing sociology as a profession we need to limit our attention
to institutional sociology as it was developed in the European and North American
academia before spreading to the other parts of the world. Sociology as a subject
was taught in Calcutta (now Kolkata) at the turn of the twentieth century but as
a self-conscious intellectual field, it flourished only after India’s independence in
1947. Academic sociology came to India late. Teaching sociology started in 1914 at
the university of Bombay where a separate department of sociology and civics was
established in 1919 (Patel, 2002: 273). Patrick Geddes, an urban planner became
the first professor. G.S. Ghurye, who earned his Ph.D. from Cambridge University
(Shah, 2000) became the first Indian head in 1924 (Kaul, 1992: 93). Sociology was
taught as a subject in the University of Calcutta where it was introduced as a subject
in the Department of Economics in Calcutta University in 1917. Sociology spread
elsewhere in India in the next decades. Radhakamal Mukerjee became the head of a
department called the Department of Economics and Sociology at Lucknow Univer-
sity in 1921. His contemporaries included G.S. Ghurey (1893–1983) at Bombay
University, D.P. Mukerjee (1894–1961) at Lucknow University, and Benoy Kumar
Sarkar (1887–1949) at Calcutta University (Madan 2011: 30). The first Indian sociol-
ogist to get published in the Western sociological journals was perhaps, Radhakamal
Mukerjee of University of Lucknow who published three articles in the American
Journal of Sociology in the 1930s. Indian sociology since the 1970s has been the
site of debates over indigenizing sociology. Indian sociologists did not reject the key
concepts such as class and social stratification but sought to ground them in local
contexts (Khondker, 2006).
Indian Sociological Society was founded in 1951 and in 1967 it merged with the
All India Sociology Congress (Patel, 2002: 272). The first professional Journal in
India The Sociological Bulletin was launched in 1952 (Patel, 2002: 274). But the
first sociology department was launched in Calcutta only in the 1950s: it was around
the same time when it was launched in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Dhaka University
234 H. H. Khondker

launched the sociology department in 1957. The credit goes to UNESCO which
took the initiative and sent Professor Levi-Strauss in 1954 to assess the situation
of social science studies and to make certain recommendations for its development.
Pierre Bessaignet came to Dhaka on a UNESCO assignment to promote sociology,
social psychology, and social anthropology (Bessaignet, 1960) and spent some time
teaching research methods in sociology.
Sociology in India generated from its early days whether there should be distinct
Indian sociology, that is, sociology with Indian characteristics. For Yognedra Singh:
“Sociology is a system of conceptual operations and also a form of consciousness
which accentuates societal self-awareness. It offers a total perspective on the social
problem in a radical form. Self-awareness results from, and also leads to, a break-
down in the closed social system, established order, and entrenched system of status
and power. Sociology flourishes in and also generates demand for an open society”
(Singh, 1970: 142).
Sociology in India was far from a colonial project. According to M.N. Srinivas
who studied anthropology at Oxford with A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and E.E. Evans-
Pritchard, the Oxbridge-educated colonial officials had disdain for sociology and
the discipline only flourished after India’s independence (Shah, 2000: 629). M.N.
Srinivas introduced in his teaching a “judicious mix of Durkheimian sociology with
British social anthropology” and at an advanced level the works of Durkheim and Max
Weber (Shah, 2000: 629–630). M.N. Srinivas began his teaching career at Oxford
University. He also developed the concept of Sanskritization (Srinivas, 1997: 16).

14.2.9 Sociology in Egypt

Sociology in Egypt was introduced in 1925 at the National University in Cairo, later
renamed Egyptian State University and as Foud 1 University. In 1942, sociology was
introduced at Alexandria-based Farouk 1 University and in Ibrahim Pasha the Great
University in Cairo in 1950 (Huzayyin & el-Saaty, 1952). The first sociological
dissertation was written by Mansur Fahmi at Sorbonne under the supervision of
sociologically inclined philosopher, Lucien Levy Bruhl. Fahmi a brilliant law lecturer
was sent to study philosophy in Paris. His dissertation titled, “The Condition of
Women in the Tradition and Evolution of Islam”, which he defended on December
1, 1913, created some controversy in his native land. Fahmi upon return from France
lost his University job and was banned from government services (Reid, 2002).
Another prominent literary intellectual of Egypt, Taha Husayn wrote his doctoral
thesis on the social philosophy of Ibn Khaldun under the renowned sociologist Emile
Durkheim in 1917 (Sharky, 2007). Apart from Durkheim, the well-known orientalist
Paul Casanova was the co-supervisor of Taha’s thesis (Reid, 2002). According to
Sharky (2007), Sorbonne in those days was dominated by the intellectual ideas of
Georg Simmel, Auguste Comte, and Emile Durkheim.
Mona Abaza laments that despite such an early start of sociology in Egypt, it did
not develop as it did in other contexts. Abaza quotes Saad Ibrahim, “As a formal
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 235

academic discipline, sociology was first offered in the newly established (1908)
secular Egyptian University in 1913 only 20 years after the University of Chicago
(1892), 7 years after the University of Paris (1906), and 6 years after the London
School of Economics and Political Science. Indeed, Cairo’s Egyptian University
introduced sociology ahead of most Western European Universities, which did so
only after World War 1. Scandinavian universities had no professorships of sociology
until after World War ll” (Ibrahim, 1997: 547 in Abaza, 2009).

14.2.10 Sociology in South America

In South America institutionalization sociology developed in Brazil in the 1920s.

Early Brazilian sociology showed a strong influence of August Comte’s positivism
and Herbert Spencer’s social evolutionism. Since its birth Brazilian sociology was
grounded in strong European theoretical traditions, France in particular, and the
American tradition of the Chicago School (Cordeiro & Neri, 2019: 10). Unlike other
postcolonial societies Brazilian sociology had no contact with its colonial master
Portugal. They followed distinct trajectories (Cordeiro & Neri, 2019: 2). One of the
leading early Brazilian sociologists Gilberto Freyre (1900–1987) received graduate
training at Columbia University where he studied with Franz Boas and was influenced
by Georg Simmel (Cordeiro & Neri, 2019: 14). In the 1930s the teaching of sociology
in graduate courses and the first sociological journal was launched at the Free School
of Sociology and Political Science of Sao Paulo [ESP]). Empirical sociology came
from the University of Chicago. Brazil attracted several European and American
sociologists ranging from Claude Levi-Strauss, Radcliffe Brown, and Robert Park
from the University of Chicago. (Cordeiro & Neri, 2019: 24). and Argentina and
Chile. But the US also helped transmit sociology to other Latin American countries.
In Chile, the Sociology Research Institute was created at the University of Chile
in 1946, which remained somewhat ineffective until 1956 when it was reactivated.
Sociology degrees began to be awarded in 1959 at the Catholic University of Chile
(Garreton, 2005: 370). The Latin American Sociology Association (ALAS) was
created during the 1st World Congress of Sociology of the International Sociological
Association (ISA), held in Zurich, in 1950. The First Congress of ALAS was held
in Buenos Aires, in 1951 (Tavares-dos-Santos & Baumgarten, 2006: 3).
Sociologists in the periphery who were trained in the sociological centers in
Europe or North America brought home respective traditions. India’s development in
social anthropological traditions marked a distinctive English anthropological influ-
ence as contemporary Chinese sociology bears an American sociological influence.
In some countries, European heritage gave way to American influences which by the
last quarter of the twentieth century reached various corners of the world. US political
hegemony had an ally in her academic preeminence. However, such an equation of
military power with intellectual power is neither automatic nor everlasting. Contrary
to Wilbert Moore’s (1966) claim that sociology became remarkably international,
Oromaner (1970) demonstrated by analyzing citations that the internationalization
236 H. H. Khondker

of sociology was tantamount to the Americanization of sociology. Before accepting

the American hegemony thesis and issuing calls for “provincializing” American soci-
ology, we need to deconstruct, that is, dismantle “American sociology”. There is no
American sociology; there are multiple tendencies—divergent sociologies–within
American sociology. It would be a mistake to equate Immanuel Wallerstein with
Charles Murray (co-author of The Bell Curve) just because in a spatial sense and
by citizenship, both of them are American sociologists. It would be an ecological
fallacy. Besides, American mainstream sociology as practiced in the United States
today remains largely provincial anyway. The critique of American sociology being
not global enough may be seen as a sign of assertiveness in the periphery. This
assertiveness is more nuanced and different from the earlier call for indigenization.
The indigenization movement of the 1970s and 80 s was an early expression of that
intellectual nationalism which is now giving way to a call for (genuinely) globalizing
sociology.
The ebbing of the national sociology movement and methodological nationalism
has ushered in a new possibility of comprehensive and meaningful globalization of
sociology. Yet, the new dividing lines are not so much geo-cultural but are based
on disciplinary specialisms. For example, a Singaporean medical sociologist will
have more in common with an Australian medical sociologist than with a colleague
working in a separate field of specialization next door. Internet and modern telecom-
munication and the frequency of international meetings and conferences have made
such interconnected global clusters a reality. Specialism and professionalism have
gone hand in hand which has the potential of undermining the role of sociologists
as public intellectuals. The paradox is: that in order to claim intellectual legitimacy,
one cannot downplay the importance of professionalism and the global connectivity
it entails, yet in the short term, it might lead to the depoliticization of sociology. In
the long-term, however, a call for global or transnational public sociology may usher
in a new and comprehensive revaluation of the role of sociology and the sociologists.
In order for sociology to be relevant to the needs of society, it is important to
acknowledge the social role of sociology. At the abstract level sociology can be
social commentary and sociologists as social commentators or social critics, or at
a more mundane level, a sociologist is someone who can be gainfully employed
because of the value placed on the discipline. For example, in Bangladesh with the
remarkable proliferation of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)—many with
western links, sociology graduates became suddenly employable which added to the
prestige of sociology as a discipline. The employers in NGOs preferred sociology
graduates who with methodological skills were competent in carrying out social
research. In Singapore, sociology graduates found employment in various govern-
ment departments ranging from housing to community development. Many sociology
graduates had better research skills which could be tapped by employers in carrying
out special research. Thus, sociology continues to be a popular subject for students
in Singapore. Sociology is thriving in many developing countries but it seems to be
in decline in many advanced countries. (Khondker, 2001).
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 237

14.3 Sociology and Globalization

Globalization as a phenomenon of societal and cultural interactivity and connectivity,

now generally agreed, is an age-old process but as a concept in social science has
a short history. The word global kept cropping up in various social science litera-
ture as well as popular books since the 1960s. The clearest exposition was in the
writings of Marshall McLuhan (1964) who popularized the phrase “global village”.
The commonality “ideology of economic development” “…. to an increasing degree,
the life of the individual anywhere is affected by events and processes everywhere”
(Moore, 1966: 481).
Globalization as a concept in social science has a short history. It was first used
as a book title only in 1990 (as far as the US Library of Congress catalog reveals).
[Please refer to the list appended]. A book titled Globalization, Knowledge, and
Society (edited by Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King) was published drawing on the
essays published in various issues of International Sociology the journal of Interna-
tional Sociological Association (1986–1990) Some of the journal articles contained
globalization as a phrase in the titles in the 1980s and even earlier (see Moore,
1966; Meyer, 1980; Robertson, 1983a, 1983b). One could even claim that the first
social science text that dealt with the subject of globalization was The Communist
Manifesto (1848). One could even argue that Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406), the author
of Prolegomenon to the Universal History was the real claimant of the credit. Glob-
alization as a social process is old and has a much longer history. Many writers have
traced the early globalizing processes in the dissemination of religion and culture,
interactions of people, groups, and communities through trade and commerce from
ancient times.
Sociology has been traditionally defined as the study of society. And as the bound-
aries of society have expanded from the local community, through states to global
society, sociology has become the study of the global society. This is a good illus-
tration of how ideas, knowledge, and (social) sciences expand with the changes
and expansion of realities. Sociology, it is often said, deals with social life. All
social sciences deal with social life or its various aspects. It is difficult to concep-
tualize social as a category. In sociology, there are two meanings of social. Social
used in the sense of Wallerstein or for that matter Marx encompasses technology,
economy, politics, and culture. Sociology is interested in the understanding of these
broad processes, especially in their interrelatedness. There is, however, a narrow
meaning of social which is often equated with the social system or what some people
call societal. Here society is an abstract system of social relations, a web or network of
social relations. Following Talcott Parsons, (and before him, Durkheim) some social
scientists sought to view sociology as the scientific study of society. I put the stress
on scientific because one of the goals of science is to define one’s field narrowly so
that specialized and predictable knowledge can be produced and accumulated. Soci-
ologists with a positivistic bent of mind were quite happy with the narrow definition
of sociology, hence the delimited conceptualization of society in the sense of a social
system. In this formulation, the field of study of economics is the economic system;
238 H. H. Khondker

the field of political science is the political system, and so on. All social sciences
could live happily in a world of segregated systems of knowledge!
However, a large number of sociologists dissatisfied with this narrow concep-
tualization of society sought to view society and the scope of sociology broadly.
They also found the earlier compartmentalization unnecessary, unproductive, and
overly abstract. All these so-called subsystems interact. Albert Hirschman called for
the need of trespassing into each other’s domains. The rise of macro-sociology is a
clear response to the attempt to overcome a delimited view of sociology. Barrington
Moore, Wallerstein, Tilly, Skocpol, and others have looked at society in the broadest
sense of the term, in that the inspiration came from Marx, Weber, and later Braudel
and other social historians.
Globalization, though it means many things to many people, is one of the master
processes of our time. Globalization as a field in sociology is a legatee of the macro-
sociological interests and development. Globalization study addresses itself to the
connectivity of broad processes of technological, economic, political, and cultural
interrelationships (Turner and Khondker, 2010). Whether one looks at the economic,
cultural, or media connectivity worldwide, one has to take a much broader under-
standing of society and social institutions. Sociology focuses its analytical lenses on
the flows and processes in society whether at the local, national or global levels. In
other words, sociology has a genuine claim over the field of globalization.
Sociology, an archetypical social science, remains a prisoner of the nation-state.
Anthony Giddens and Immanuel Wallerstein have both lamented that sociology has
been the study of modern nation-states. The definitions as well as the boundaries of
society, which sociology seeks to study, often overlap with those of the nation-state.
Since the interest taken by sociologists such as Roland Robertson and others since
the late 1970s, sociology has redefined its scope and field as the social scientific study
of global processes. Ulrich Beck has explicitly called for the development of new
concepts to capture the new realities of interconnectedness, plurality, multi-locality,
and multiplicity leading to “methodological cosmopolitanism”.
If sociology has to forego its claim over globalization as a field of study, it would
mean a major capitulation, a truly regressive step towards objectivist, scientistic
sociology, and a return to what C Wright Mills called “abstracted empiricism”. Or
worse, sociology becomes a residual discipline to pick up areas left unattended by
other social sciences. Sociology can then be asked to relinquish its claim to study
society because other branches of social sciences do study aspects of society. For
example, institutional economists deal with social structure and cultural values to
explain economic processes and market behaviors. Political scientists such as Robert
Putnam have done important sociological studies of political processes. Such fields
as political sociology illustrate the crossover of political science and sociology all
the time. Social sciences are tasked to analyze society in all its various aspects and
constellations.
Sociology, it is often said, deals with social life. In fact, all social sciences deal with
social life or its various aspects. It is difficult to conceptualize social as a category. In
sociology, there are two meanings of social. Social used in the sense of Wallerstein or
for that matter Marx encompasses technology, economy, politics, and culture. Such
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 239

terms as political economy, social formation, or mode of production have been used
as substitutes for social. Sociology is interested in the understanding of these broad
processes, especially in their interrelatedness.
There is, however, a narrow meaning of social which is often equated with the
social system or what some people call societal. Here society is an abstract system of
social relations, a web or network of social relations. Following Talcott Parsons, (and
before him, Durkheim) some social scientists sought to view sociology as the scien-
tific study of society. I put the stress on scientific because one of the goals of science
is to define one’s field narrowly so that specialized and predictable knowledge can be
produced and accumulated. Sociologists with a positivistic bent of mind were quite
happy with the narrow definition of sociology, hence the delimited conceptualization
of society in the sense of a social system. In this formulation, the field of study of
economics is the economic system; the field of political science is the political system,
and so on. All social sciences could live happily in a world of segregated systems of
knowledge! However, a large number of sociologists having been dissatisfied with
this narrow conceptualization of society sought to view society and the scope of
sociology broadly. They also found the earlier compartmentalization unnecessary,
unproductive, and overly abstract. All these so-called subsystems interact. Albert
Hirschman called for the need of trespassing into each other’s domains. The rise of
macro-sociology is a clear response to the attempt to overcome a delimited view of
sociology. Barrington Moore, Wallerstein, Tilly, Skocpol, and others have looked at
society in the broadest sense of the term, in that the inspiration came from Marx,
Weber, and later Braudel and other social historians. Turner (2006) has argued that
sociology has been about social which did not quite equate to the national society.
Social could easily refer to global society or society not limited to the national society.
The practice of sociology and the public role of sociology needs to be situated
in the broader conceptualization of social. Sociologists have not quite disappeared
from the limelight of public office. Fernando Henrique Cardoso is not only one of
the leading sociologists but was elected as the President of Brazil for two terms.
However, the first sociologist as president of a country credit goes to Thomas G.
Masaryk who was a professor of sociology at the University of Prague at the turn
of the twentieth century (Eubank, 1936). Saad Ibrahim, the Egyptian sociologist
was sent to jail for criticizing Egypt’s sham democracy. He was released after the
Egyptian authority yielded to the moral pressure of the international community.
Globalization impacts sociology and the practice of sociology by presenting new
challenges. Globalization created sociology or made sociology globalized. Sociol-
ogists as professionals, creatures of globalization, a multifaceted process, stand in
opposition to the downside of globalizations. Many sociologists stand up against
the adverse effects of neoliberal globalization: the miseries, poverty, and violence,
but in their struggle affirm globalization by invoking rationality and common
humanity. Sociologists since the 1940s have had opposing images of technicians
versus scholars. Eight decades ago, Robert Lynd suggested, “Contemporary social
science contains within itself two types of orientation that divide it into two blocs
of workers: the scholars and the technicians” (Lynd, 1939). In the developing part
of the world, sociologists are assigned the role of technicians and not scholars. In
240 H. H. Khondker

the democratic countries, of Asia such as Japan, Korea, India, and the Philippines
sociologists are fighting back against that tendency and trying to secure a place as
scholars as well. They are globalizing in the true sense of the term as an increasing
number of Indian sociologists (and social scientists) are in the diaspora where their
work and intellectual focus remain on India.

14.4 Concluding Remarks

According to Sari Hanafi (2020), there are three requirements for global sociology:
Positionality of the author; Overcoming methodological nationalism; supplementing
postcolonial studies with a critique of anti-authoritarianism, and focusing on more
local (Hanafi, 2020: 4–6). Hanafi also stressed the need for a common, universal
concept: “There can be no science and no global understanding of our world without
admitting the universality of certain concepts (social class, democracy, citizen-
ship….) and values (human rights, gender quality) (Hanafi, 2020: 14). He stressed
the need for dialogue between national societies accepting universal concepts (social
class, democracy, citizenship); and values such as human rights, and gender equality.
In other words, global Sociology should be more normative and more public (Hanafi,
2020: 14–15). While it is important to adhere to a set of common universal human
values such as justice and freedom, the way these values are practiced in the context
of local culture deserve a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between
the local and the global, between the universal and the particular.
One way to deal with the problem of global versus national/local, and universal
versus specific is to anchor the analysis using the glocal rather than the global frame-
work. Glocal is not just a fancy word for syncretic or synthetic or fusion, it has now
become an accepted concept since its introduction by Robertson (1992) in several
academic fields (Roudometof, 2016, Khondker, 2005, 2019) yielding clarity in the
understanding of the problems set off by the global processes. The idea of generating
indigenous sociological knowledge is not without merits, however, it opens the possi-
bility of intellectual relativism. On the positive side, it also presents a view of engaged
sociology or what is now known as “public sociology”. The relativistic view denies
the possibility of creating social knowledge that is transcultural, if not transcendental,
and lends support to an untenable and highly parochial view that each society (nation-
state) will produce its sociology. The view is untenable because it goes against the
grain of the scientific status of the truth which demands trans-valuation to attain its
scientific status. Secondly, the definition of society or the equation of society with the
nation-state is highly problematic. In a multi-national state, what would society be?
In India can sociological knowledge based on the experiences and social conditions
of Bihar (one of the poorest states) apply to Punjab (one of the richest states)? While
accepting the view of engaged sociology, one has to avoid falling into the trap of rela-
tivism. Moreover, universalism need not be seen only in terms of ideas and concepts
imposed from above. Smelser noted that there is a universal tendency of societies to
generate accounts of themselves as “all societies invent their own folk economics,
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 241

political science, sociology, and psychology about themselves” (Smelser, 1991: 75).
This view is drawn from the knowledge of the anthropologists presents an interesting
twist to the debate between specific and universal by introducing the argument that
the very fact that each society has a narrative—albeit specific—in itself is a universal
phenomenon. The only problem with this argument is that it tends to reify soci-
eties. Where and how do we draw boundaries between societies other than accepting
national boundaries? And how do we separate primordial self-understanding from
studied self-presentations?
Following Pierre Bourdieu’s call for “international of intellectuals”, Michael
Burawoy expounded on the idea of global sociology from below “with its context-
specific effects and globalization of sociology rooted in context-specific practices”
(Burawoy, 2008: 436). Globalization impacts sociology and the practice of sociology
by presenting new challenges. Globalization created sociology or made sociology
globalized. Sociologists as professionals, creatures of globalization, a multifaceted
process, stand in opposition to the downside of globalizations. Many sociologists
stand up against the adverse effects of neoliberal globalization: the miseries, poverty,
and violence, but in their struggle affirm globalization by invoking rationality and
common humanity. Sociology as the most abstract of social sciences needs to be
public philosophy (Bellah et al., 1986). The moral concerns have to be brought
back to the center stage of sociologists’ concerns. A social science concerned with
the entire society has to be historical and philosophical. The focus on history will
ground social science locally (but not at the expense of the global); while the philo-
sophical orientation will strengthen universality, which is under attack from both
religious and neoliberal fundamentalists. The task ahead for sociologists is to focus
more on the production of socially useful knowledge for the benefit of common
humanity. Sociology was the child of enlightenment as such it has a critical role in
society as such sociology cannot free itself from the larger public role. It is only when
sociology became institutionalized as an academic discipline and was nurtured in the
American academia rather than in Europe that mainstream sociology lost that critical
mandate and became involved in dealing with parochial, localized social problems.
It is time the problem-solving role of sociology is broadened and integrated with
a critical stance towards reconstructing global society based on “equality, liberty,
and solidarity”. Moreover, the challenge is to bridge the two competing demands
of universalizing and indigenizing sociology. It is affirmed here that “glocal” rather
than “global” sociology which supersedes and synthesizes “national sociologies”
provides a framework for incorporating both universal tenets of global sociology
and the programmatic concerns of indigenized, local sociology.

References

Abaza, M. (2009). Social sciences in Egypt: The swinging pendulum between commodification
and criminalization. In Conference on the Council of National Association of International
Sociology. Taipei.
242 H. H. Khondker

Aron, R. (1965). Main currents in sociological thought. vol. 1. Pelican.

Asad, T. (1991). Afterword: From the history of colonial anthropology to the anthropology of
western hegemony. In G. Stocking (ed.), Colonial situation: Essays on the contextualization of
ethnographic knowledge.
Baba, A. (1962). The history of sociology in Japan. The Sociological Review, 10(1), 7–13.
Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. (1986). Habits of the heart.
Perennial Library edition.
Berger, P. (1963). An invitation to sociology. Doubleday.
Bernard, L. L. (1909). The teaching of sociology in the United States. American Journal of Sociology,
15(164), 213.
Bessaignet, P. (1960). Social research in East Pakistan. Asiatic Society of Pakistan.
Burawoy, M. (2008). Rejoinder: For a subaltern global sociology. Current Sociology, 56(3), 435–
444.
Calhoun, C. (Ed.). (2007). Sociology in America: A history. University of Chicago Press.
Cordeiro, V. D., & Neri, H. (2019). Sociology in Brazil. Palgrave Macmillan.
Durkheim, E., & Wilson, E. (1981). The realm of sociology as a science. Social Forces, 59(4),
1054–1072.
El Shakry, O. (2007). The great social laboratory: Subjects of knowledge in colonial and post-
colonial Egypt. Stanford University Press.
Eubank, E. E. (1936). European and American sociology: Some comparisons. Social Forces, 15(2).
Garreton, M. A. (2005). Social science and society in Chile: Institutionalization, breakdown, and
rebirth. Social Sciences Information, 44(2&3), 359–409.
Gouldner, A. (1973). Emile Durkheim and the Critique of Socialism in For Sociology. Basic Books,
Inc.
Giddens, A. (1989). Sociology. Polity Press.
Ginsberg, M. (1963[1934]). Sociology. Oxford University Press.
Halsey, A. H. (2004). A history of sociology in Britain: Science. Literature and Society.
Hanafi, S. (2020). Global sociology revisited: Towards new directives. Current Sociology, 68(1),
3–21.
Havens, T. R. H. (1968). Comte, mill, and the thought of Nishi Amane in Meiji Japan. The Journal
of Asian Studies, 27(2), 217–228.
Hogetsu, M. (2000). A social world of sociology in Japan. The American Sociologist Fall, 5–14.
Ibrahim, S. E. (1997). Cross-eyed sociology in Egypt and the Arab world. Contemporary Sociology,
26 (5), 547–551.
Iwasaki, Y. (1930). Divorce in Japan. The American Journal of Sociology, 36 (3), 435–446.
Hsu, L. S-L. (1931). The sociological movement in China. Pacific Affairs, 4(4), 283–307, April.
Huzayyin, S. A., & El-Saaty, H. (1952). On the teaching of sociology, social philosophy and
anthropology in Egypt. UNESCO Report.
Kaul, A. (1992). Sociology in India: Missing links, adaptations and disillusionments. In J. Langer
(ed.), Emerging Sociology.. Ashgate.
Khondker, H. H. (2006). Globalization and sociological practice. ISA e-Symposium, International
Sociological Association, 3, 55–61.
Khondker, H. H. (2016). Roots of Asia’s entangled globality. Sociologies in Dialogue (journal of
the Brazilian Sociological Society), 2(2), 105–122.
Khondker, H. H. (2019). Glocalization. In M. Juergensmeyer, M. Stegar, S. Sassen, & V. Faessel
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of global studies (pp. 93–111). Oxford University Press.
Khondker, H. H. (2001). “Globalization and sociological practice” Sociology in Singapore: Global
discourse in local context. Soziologie Journal of German Sociological Association, 4/2001.
Khondker, H. H. (2005). Glocalization in South-East Asia. In Intellectual discourse (vol. 7). Islamic
International University. December.
Kim, K. C. (1987). Sociology in Korea. International Review of Modern Sociology, 17(1), 63–77.
Korgen, K. (Ed.). (2017). The Cambridge handbook of sociology: Core areas in sociology and the
development of the discipline. Cambridge University Press.
14 Globalization of Sociology to the Sociology of Globalization 243

Levine, D. N., Carter, E. B., & Gorman, E. M. (1976). Simmel’s Influence on American sociology.
American Journal of Sociology, 81(4).
Lynd, R. L. (1939). Knowledge for what: The place of social science in American culture. Princeton
University Press.
Ma, R. (1996). Institutionalization of sociology in China a paper presented at the East Asian regional
conference: The Future of Sociology in East Asia, Seoul, November 22–23.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Meyer, J. W. (1980). The world polity and the authority of the nation-state. In A. Bergesen (ed.),
Studies of the modern world system. Academic Press.
Moore, W. E. (1966). Global sociology: The world as a singular system. American Journal of
Sociology, 71(5), 475–482.
Odaka, K. (1950). Japanese sociology: Past and present. Social Forces, 28(4).
Oromaner, M. J. (1970).Comparison of influentials in contemporary American and British soci-
ology: A study in the internationalization of sociology. The British Journal of Sociology,
21(3).
Patel, S. (2002). The profession and its associations: Five decades of the Indian sociological society.
International Sociology, 17(2), 269–284.
Reid, D. M. (2002). Cairo University and the making of modern Egypt. Cambridge University Press.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. Sage.
Robertson, R. (1983a). Religion, global complexity and the human condition. In Absolute values
and the creation of the new world (vol. 1). International Cultural Foundation
Robertson, R. (1983b). Interpreting globality. In World realities and international studies today.
Pennsylvania Council on International Education.
Roudometof, V. (2016). Glocalization: A critical introduction. Routledge.
Shah, A. M. (2000). An interview with M.N. Srinivas. Current Anthropology, 41(4), 629–636.
Singh, Y. (1970). For a sociology in India. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 4(1), 140–144.
Smelser, N. J. (1991). Internationalization of social science knowledge. American Behavioral
Scientist, 35(1), 65–91.
Srinivas, M. N. (1997). Practicing social anthropology in India. Annual Review of Anthropology,
26, 1–24.
Steiner, J. F. (1936). The development and present status of sociology in Japanese Universities.
American Journal of Sociology, XLI(6).
Sun, P-W. (1949). Sociology in China. Social Forces, 27(3).
Tavares-dos-Santos, V. J., & Baumgarten, M. (2006). Latin American sociology’s contribution to
sociological imagination, analysis, criticisms, and social commitment. Sociologias, 1, 1–36.
Turner, B., & Khondker, H. H. (2010). Globalization: East and West. Sage.
Turner, B. (2006). Classical sociology and cosmopolitanism: A critical defence of the social. The
British Journal of Sociology, 57(1).
Yamagishi, T., & Brinton, M. C. (1980). Sociology in Japan and Shaki-Ishikiron. The American
Sociologist, 15, 192–207.
Yazawa, S. (2014). Internationalization of Japanese sociology. International Sociology, 29(4), 271–
282.
Zietlin, I. (1969). Ideology and the development of sociological theories. Prentice Hall.
Chapter 15
Rethinking and Transforming Area
Studies and Indian Studies: A New
Cosmopolitanism and the Challenges
of Planetary Realizations

Ananta Kumar Giri

Abstract Area studies was an important way of studying different areas of the world
after the Second World War by US-European academic establishment. It emerged
after the end of the Second World War, and it then reflected geopolitical construction
of the world into different areas of the world. It was also part of the then cold war
to apply American social science tools to different parts of the world. This essay
tries to rethink and transform such a geopolitical construction of area studies. It
also critically engages with the epistemologies of the Euro-American world behind
such area studies projects and strives to reconstitute areas with epistemologies and
ontologies of the areas studied. It strives to decolonize area studies. It then engages
with Indian studies and critically discusses the prevalent conceptions of book views
and field views of India. It offers a plural realization of book views of India as part
of global dialogues of civilizations. It tries to transform fieldwork into footwork and
calls for a trigonometry of footwork, philosophy, and history for understanding India.
It pleads for making area studies and Indian studies part of a new cosmopolitanism
where it tries to put our area studies in dialogue with studies of other parts of the
world. It also strives to make both area studies and Indian studies part of planetary
conversations and planetary realizations which involve dialogues and footwork across
borders.

Keywords Area studies · Indian studies · Global studies · Book view · Field
view · Hermeneutics · Planetary conversations

A. K. Giri (B)
Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai, India
e-mail: aumkrishna@gmail.com

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 245
B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_15
246 A. K. Giri

15.1 Introduction

Yogendra Singh was a creative sociologist of India and the world who explored
many important themes of theory and practice. He was interested, among others, in
epistemological questions of social theory and conditions of knowledge (see, Singh,
1986). I did not have the experience of studying with him directly but had met with
him on a few occasions. I was always struck by his generosity and encouragement.
I was present in Jawaharlal Nehru University during the inauguration of his edited
book project ICSSR Review of Sociology and Social Anthropology (Singh, 2014).
I asked a few questions sitting at the very last bench of the big seminar hall in JNU
convention centre. In his chair Professor Singh could recognize me and said: “Oh the
angry young man from the South who is interested in epistemological questions!”
I present some of these ideas in this essay as a tribute to Professor Singh’s deep
engagement with sociological theory.1
Area studies was once an influential way of studying different areas of the world
mainly the ex-colonial societies and countries of the world. After the Second World
War, mainly led by the U.S.-based social scientists and strategic thinkers, area studies
became a dominant way of studying different parts of the world. This essay strives
to rethink and transform areas studies from its initial geopolitical constitution and
production. It then strives to link to new ways of studies areas as parts of our world.
It cultivates pathways of a new cosmopolitanism—a cosmopolitanism of thinking
and being, going beyond what Ulrich Beck calls methodological nationalism and
cosmopolitanism as a citizen of the world. We need to understand our areas as not
only citizens of the world but children of our Mother Earth. The latter constitutes
planetary realizations. Area studies now need to engage with learning and studying
across borders of areas, locations, and cultures both horizontally and vertically. The
latter constitutes planetary conversations. The essay also engages with Indian studies
and familiar approaches such as the book views and field views of Indian studies.
The essay calls for rethinking both field view and book views and calls for multiple
books and multi-sited fieldwork for creative Indian studies. It also pleads for making
Indian studies part of planetary conversations and planetary realizations.

15.2 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies

After the Second World War, area studies became an influential way of studying
different parts of the world. This approach continued the geopolitical division of
the world. As Chua et al. tell us: “The origins of the area studies impulse were,
simplistically, geo-colonial in Europe and geo-strategic in the United States” (2019:
34). Prasenjit Duara also tells us about the geopolitical origins of area studies of
Asia: “Area studies of Asia can be said to be a product of the post-Second World War
new world order under the hegemony of the United States (U.S) [..] Post-war area
studies represented a massive expansion and systemization of the older categories of
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 247

Western knowledge of Asia, particularly along the areal boundaries of older colonial
formations, but [..] these areas became increasingly reshaped by the new realities of
nation-states that emerged during this era of the United Nations” (Duara, 2018: 38).
In his book, Autobiography of an Archive: A Scholar’s Passage to India, Nicholas
B. Dirks also tells us about the geopolitical origin of area studies programme in the
USA. In his words:
Before the war, Americans with real connections to India or other parts of Asia (or Africa)
mostly had these connections through missionary activities. The war thrust the United States
onto a world stage, strategic and military in the first instance but political, economic, and
cultural in important ways soon thereafter. FDR [Franklin D Roosevelt] was prescient in his
recognition of the globe not just for the survival of the United States but for any hope that the
war, however reluctant the entry into it, and however destructive it would be, would also be
the basis for new found global prosperity and power after a decade of depression, economic
decline, and isolationist politics. When FDR commissioned William C. Donovan to put
together a proposal for a U.S. intelligence service, he understood, too, that global ambition
required new forms of knowledge, knowledge that existed neither in Washington nor in
American universities of the time. As Donovan assembled the academics and policy wonks
who populated his Research and Analysis Branch, first attached to his role as “Coordinator
of Information,” and then to his newly minted Office of Strategic Services, he made it clear
the United States needed to develop far more knowledge about and much greater interaction
with the world well beyond Europe and that Asia was critical both in the war and to the
U.S. geopolitical interests and concerns beyond and after the war. The OSS was shut down
by Truman just months after the cessation of hostilities, and though soon it morphed into
CIA, it developed a very different relationship to the academy almost from the start, both
because wartime conditions had sustained a much closer relationship between intelligence
and academics because the CIA had much stricter, and more politically motivated, ideas
about what constituted usable knowledge. For these and other reasons, the OSS was fare
more influential than the CIA in shaping academic interests and predispositions. Perhaps
most importantly, the OSS played a critical role in the initial formation and development of
what soon came to be known as “area studies,” the interdisciplinary study of discrete regions
of the world outside the United States (with a special emphasis on regions outside North
America and western Europe).

W. Norman Brown, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, had headed the India
division at the OSS’s Research and Analysis Branch in Washington during the war years,
and he recruited most of the people who worked with him there to Penn after the war to build
the first regional department of South Asian Studies in the United States. While the U.S.
government established the Fulbright Program and the National Resources Center funded by
Title VI of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, private foundations, especially Ford,
Rockfeller, and Carnegie, began to invest major resources in to area studies and projects as
well (Dirks, 2015: 3–5).2

The above passages help us understand the geopolitical production of area studies.
Area studies gave primacy to social science construction of areas studied by applying
the social science methods and theories from the Euro-American world to other parts
of the world (Rao, 1999).3 Area studies became subservient to geopolitical production
of the world and became an uncritical and often times a slavish bearer of Northern
Epistemologies and North Atlantic theoretical imperialism and universalism while
considering areas in area studies as tabula rasa (Trouillot, 2003).
248 A. K. Giri

But now we need to transform area studies where areas are not empty plates for
application of geopolitical interest and testing of so-called epistemologies and theo-
ries coming from the North but are zones of thinking, being, and becoming. Each
of our areas, whether in the North or South, are loci of thinking and theorizing as
well as regions of connections and disjunctions with the world.4 These are pregnant
cosmopolitan zones of thinking as they embody communication across boundaries
in life worlds and worlds of thoughts (Bose and Mujappa, 2010). Areas as locations
of life and thinking are zones of inheritance, communication, emergence, and diver-
gence; they bear brunt of colonization, geopolitical construction, and domination as
well as processes of resistance and transformation. They are not bounded locales
(Appadurai, 2000, 2013) nor are they trapped in what John Agnew calls ‘the territo-
rial trap’ (quoted in Chua et al., 2019: 36). We need to rethink geopolitical production
and constitution of area studies and rethink and realize these in epistemic as well as
ontological terms (see Chih-Yu, 2021).
We think of and realize areas in epistemic terms. But while doing this, we need to
go beyond dominant epistemologies of modernity. These are based upon epistemolo-
gies of certainty, positivist science, and dualism between subject and object (Giri,
2006). Epistemology in modernity is also based upon the exclusion of the ontolog-
ical. But we need to realize our areas studies as simultaneously epistemological and
ontological. While carrying out studies in our areas and locations, we build upon
epistemological pathways in our areas themselves—with emic and native ways of
understanding embodying what S.R. Bodhi and S.S. Darokar call ‘epistemological
integration’.5 But epistemological integration needs to be careful about the limits of
the existing epistemic frames where one needs to be integrated and the ‘unfulfilled
epistemology’ in the areas we study. In a recent insightful reflection on China and
East Asia as areas of study, Chih-Yu (2021) argues that we need to learn with the epis-
temologies in these areas which are not understandable in the frames of the existing
regnant Euro-American epistemologies. In this context, what they write deserves our
careful consideration:
How is Asia epistemologically meaningful to the Anglosphere? We take the rise of China
and Chinese IR [International Relations] as an example of the field of IR being transformed
by Asia. This raises the question: Do US hegemony and Chinese Tianxia (‘all under heaven’)
represent two distinct modes of hierarchy that are embedded in the mutually irreconcilable
perspectives of respective liberalism and Confucianism [..]? According to this view, making
sense of and explaining Chinese IR requires at least an understanding of a separate episte-
mology. If so, then any further attempt at intellectual exchange and translation within the
current epistemology would prove futile. An alternative view shows that allegedly differing
Chinese IRs are similarly hegemonic [..] This view argues that Chinese IR subscribes to the
same patterns, or lack of them practiced elsewhere in IR.

Nevertheless, Chinese IR qua Asianness is potentially valuable only if it can generate new
horizons to inspire alternative readings of the ostensibly universal principle accepted in the
West. This last qualification provides the underrated epistemological legitimacy to engage
in the theorizing of Asianness for an Anglophone audience (Chih-Yu2021: 281).

The above reiterates the need to engage with epistemologies in our areas of studies.
At the same time, we walk and meditate with epistemologies in our communities
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 249

of discourse which may come from any other part of the world including from
dominant Euro-American epistemic traditions. But while working and meditating
with dominant epistemologies, we can still make dialogue with these in a spirit of co-
learning rather than just uncritically aping or imitating these (see Mohanty, 1989). Our
engagement with locales becomes occasions of dialogues across epistemic traditions
rather than treating our areas either as absolutes or tabula rasa. Our areas are also
thought areas, areas of thinking. There are indigenous concepts, categories, and ways
of thinking in our areas of studies (see Mariott, 1990). We need to learn and study
these and bring these in dialogue with other epistemologies. But while engaging with
these we also need to understand the limits of the epistemic itself. We can go beyond
the epistemologies of certainty and cultivate epistemologies of virtue and humility.
We also need to rethink and re-realize areas as ontological. The ontological dimen-
sion of area studies calls for us to understand ontologies of the areas that we study
(see Clammer et al., 2004).6 At the same time, studying areas call for bringing to the
field the ontological dimension of researchers and students of area studies. Students
are invited to embody not an ontology of mastery but a weak ontology which tries
to understand self, other, and the world in open and creative ways (Vattimo, 1999).
Areas that we study have both epistemic and ontological dimensions, in fact they
embody dynamic visions and practices of ontological epistemology of participation
(see, Giri, 2017). As students of area studies, we also need to embody ontological
epistemology of participation as a way of being and understanding.
Areas are areas of thinking. They are not just tabula rasa. They are zones of
pregnant thinking and aspirational becoming. If we do not subject areas to apriori
determined thinking and epistemologies, then new thoughts emerge from our areas
of studies. Our areas become zones of pregnant thinking which geminate new ideas
which are relevant both to the areas of our study well as transversally across areas
around the world. For this, we need to work and meditate with our zones of thinking
as a jeweller putting to fire many unnecessary so that the jewel of emergent thinking
arises from the areas we study (Mohanty, 2002). Areas become thus areas of emer-
gence and not only areas of determination, fixation and classification (de Sousa
Santos, 2014).7 Thus areas become areas of Swaraj in ideas (see, Uberoi, 1968).
They also become areas of saharaj (co-autonomy) and co-creation of ideas. Swaraj
in ideas in one area resonates with swaraj in ideas in other areas thus leading to
saharaj, symphony, and sarvodaya of ideas across areas around the world.
Area studies become part of a new ontology and epistemology. Here some of the
turns in our ways of thinking and being are also relevant for rethinking and trans-
forming area studies. In his Crises of European Sciences: Towards New Beginnings,
Sundara Rajan (1998) tells us about three turns that influence our ways of knowing:
linguist, feminist and ecological. So, we need to rethink our area studies with linguist,
feminist and ecological turns. Linguistic dimension of area studies relates to our prac-
tices of learning the languages of areas that we study. But here we must go beyond
just a pragmatic use of language and delve deeper into philosophical, symbolic, spir-
itual, transcendental, and world view dimensions of languages (see, Giri, 2021d).
The linguistic dimension of area studies must inspire us to understand the form of
life as well as movements of life that are entailed in the languages of the area that we
250 A. K. Giri

study. Building upon Wittgenstein, we can understand and realize languages in area
studies as forms of life. But these forms of life embody or have the potential of way-
making movement within and across them as Martin Heidegger urges us to realize
(see, Giri, 2019; Heidegger, 2004). Without way-making movements language may
exist in an area as a form at the expense of life (Das, 2007) which points to the loss
of languages in the areas that we study or our inability to listen to existing languages
that do not register in our apriori cognitive and empirical register.8 Languages as
way-making movements carry new movements of ideas and imaginations as well
as struggles for new relationships in self, culture, and societies in the areas that we
study. We also need to explore the cosmopolitan dimension of these languages which
exist with and beyond the areas. Many of the languages in the areas we study are
part of a linguistic cosmopolitanism through language diaspora and other ways and
in our study of languages in the areas we need to be attentive to this. For example,
while studying languages like Tamil or Odia in our areas of studies, we need to
understand these not only in the areas we study but in their inter-linked diasporic
and cosmopolitan context and these being also cosmopolitan languages in their own
ways as English or other so-called cosmopolitan languages are. We also need to bring
the feminist turn to area studies and understand the unique configuration of gender
relations in the areas we study and the structuration of male and female domination.
The vision and methodology of area studies need to embody a creative feminist turn
which questions existing epistemologies and ontologies of science, social sciences,
self, society, and the world. It also needs to embody an ecological turn. We need to
understand areas in their ecological setting with and beyond nation-state and other
territorial boundaries.9 In the context of climate crisis, this ecological dimension of
area studies has an urgent salience. The ecological turn in area studies also urges
us to document and understand the ecology of knowledge that arises in area studies
(de Sousa Santos, 2014). It also calls for understanding and documenting indigenous
knowledge in the areas of our study.
Along with these three turns, we are also confronted with the challenge of what
Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) calls ‘onto-decolonial turn’, which creatively challenges us
to bring both the ontological and decolonial turn together. We need to transform
still lingering colonialism in our areas of study with onto-decolonial movements.
Like moving ahead with ontological epistemology of participation in our methods
and objects of area studies, we also need to move with onto-decolonial turn in our
theories, methods, and practices of area studies. At the same time, we need to under-
stand the onto-decolonial transformation that our areas are going through as well
as contributing further to their onto-decolonial transformation.10 Our areas are also
going through a relational turn which denies that “the West, or non-West, should
adhere to a substantial ontology” (Chih-yu 2021: 283). Chih-yu here tells us:
Critical IR [International Relations] is most sensitive to difference, but the relational turn
questions this ‘difference’ approach by tracing the practices that, historically, open up the
space where interactive actors necessarily constitute one another. Asia most significantly
contributes to the relational turn in terms of belief in and capacity for complex relationships.
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 251

15.3 With and Beyond Epistemologies from the South:

Transcending Dualism

Area studies have been shaped by dominant Euro-American epistemologies not only
geopolitical interest. In this context, while being engaged with area studies, we need
to realize its limitations and work with epistemologies from the South (de Sousa
Santos, 2014; Giri, 2021a). As de Sousa Santos calls for epistemologies from the
South, he also invites us to realize that neither North and South are mere geographical
locations nor are they fixed, impermeable boundaries. They are multi-dimensional
complex interpenetrating realities in our world historically and contemporaneously
and they raise important issues of facts and norms of life. de Sousa Santos tells us
how these, as language and realities, also raise fundamental and profound normative
questions. For de Sousa Santos, while the Global North becomes associated with
production of suffering and reductive and killing epistemologies such as positivistic
science in modernity, Global South is a multi-dimensional spring of alternative ways
of living, thinking and being. But there are thinkers and movements in the so-called
Global North who also embody such alternative modes of living and thinking.
For example, de Sousa Santos talks about Lucian of Samosata, Nicholas of Cusa,
and Blaise Pascal as cultivating alternative pathways of thinking and being from
Western tradition. But realizing this calls for creative memory work and recovery
of forgotten traditions. For example, de Sousa Santos tells us how Cusa’s mode and
method of learned ignorance is of crucial significance in going beyond the pathology
of epistemology and method in modern West where both the epistemic and the
methodological are imbued with so much certainty. For him, “In Nicholas of Cusa
there are two kinds of ignorance: ignorant ignorance, which is not aware that it
does not know, and learned ignorance, which knows it does not know what it does
not know” (2014: 110). Cusa’s method of learned ignorance may seem just like an
elaboration of the Socratic method of knowing that one does not know with one
crucial distinction that Socrates “is not aware of the idea of the infinitude [..] but
in Nicholas of Cusa infinitude is accepted as such, as consciousness of a radical
ignorance” (ibid: 110). Thus Cusa cultivates knowing and being with a conscious-
ness of integral infinitude which is different from the way hegemonic rationality
of modernity and its accompanying epistemology treats the infinite with a spirit of
conquest and triumphalism. Similarly, for de Sousa Santos, Pascal helps us wage
battles against predominant forms of rationality. Thus de Sousa Santos writes: “The
traditions created by Nicholas of Cusa and Pascal are South of the North as it were,
and are thus better prepared than any other to learn from the global South and collabo-
rate with it towards building epistemologies capable of offering credible alternatives
to orthopedic thinking” (ibid: 109).
252 A. K. Giri

15.4 Rethinking Indian Studies

We can look at India as an area and Indian studies as part of area studies. But we need
to look at India as an area studies as a zone of rooted thinking and theorizing and not
just a site of application of theories from elsewhere. In Indian sociology, we are used
to field view and book views of India. But here book view calls for having views from
multiple books of India. As Andre Beteille (1991) argues, to understand India we need
not only the book views of the Dharmasastras but also the Constitution of India. We
also need to have multiple book views from many different religions, communities
and traditions. In Indian studies there is a temptation to a singular book view, whether
it is Veda, Gita or the Dharmasastras which may be irresistible in climates of political
and cultural majoritarianism as it seems to be the case with contemporary India. We
need to overcome this temptation of exclusion and have plural book views. We
need to understand the inter-textuality and dialogue among different books and book
views. Judaism and Christianity have been part of Indian civilization for millennia.
Similarly Islam has come to India from her early days in the Arabia and it has had
an impact on society, culture, and civilizations of India. As Gandhi writes: “Islam’s
contribution to India’s national culture is its unadulterated belief in the oneness of
God and a practical application of the truth of the brotherhood of man for those who
are nominally within its fold. I call these two distinct contributions. For in Hinduism
the spirit of brotherhood has become too much philosophized. Similarly, though
philosophical Hinduism has no other god but God, it cannot be denied that practical
Hinduism is not so emphatically uncompromising as Islam” (Gandhi, 1947: 264).
Islam has also contributed to struggle for equality in Hinduism and Indian society
such as in Bhakti movements. Sufism in Islam has influenced Bhakti movements
as Bhakti movements have influenced both Islam and Christianity (Uberoi, 1968).11
Bhakti movement in mediaeval India has been an important movement of critique,
creativity, and transformation of Indian society. Furthermore, books and thoughts in
India have interacted with books, thoughts and world views of other civilizations
such as the Greek and the Chinese. So, our book view of India must embody these
multiple cross-currents of interactions and influences across books, traditions and
civilizations (see Dallmayr, 2002; also see, Mariott, 1989 & Maloni, 2013).
Books are not static, they are dynamic. But in the book view of India there is
a textualism for example in Orientalism which offers a static and monolithic view
of India. Here Yogendra Singh invites us to bring a critical historical perspective to
this (Singh, 1986).12 Our book view of Indian society, or for that matter any society,
must have a critical and creative hermeneutics of texts and traditions. Participants
and interpreters of traditions have engaged with texts as dynamic processes of self
and social formations and they have not treated them as dead fossils but as living
symbols. In India, we have a rich tradition of bakhya or interpretations. For example,
Shankara while interpreting Vedic rituals tells us that what is important is not the
formal repetition of rituals but self-realization and sadhana.13 The same also holds
true of engagement with rituals in Confucius and Confucianism.14 Similarly, Gandhi
tells us that it is reason and dignity of the soul that is the yardstick for understanding
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 253

texts and traditions (Parekh, 1989). For example, even if the Sastras support untouch-
ability and caste distinction, he does not accept it. Similarly, Gandhi argues that even
if Tulsidas has written that the Sudras, women, and low-caste should be beaten,
he does not accept this because it violates the principles of dignity. Therefore, to
understand books, we need to understand with such traditions of critical and creative
hermeneutics. We also need to understand how the books have been at work in the
dynamics of self, society, culture, and the world. We need to understand inner as well
as relational conflicts of traditions and interpretations (see Heesterman, 1983).
In our journey with books, text, and traditions, we need to move and meditate
across different books and traditions. We need to envision and practice what can
be called multi-topial hermeneutics (Giri, 2021a). This builds upon the vision and
practice of diatopial hermeneutics patiently cultivated by Raimundo Panikkar and
Boaventuara de Sousa Santos (2014) where we put one foot in one book, text, tradi-
tion, and culture and another foot in another book, text, tradition, and culture. In multi-
topial hermeneutics we put our two feet and many symbolic, intellectual, and aspira-
tional feet in many texts, cultures, books, and traditions. Multi-topial hermeneutics
presents us new understanding and revelation of books, texts, and traditions which
can help us in our understanding of texts, contexts, books, societies, and cultures.
Our books have moved across time, for example, through tradition, modern, and
postmodern phases of development. Multi-topial hermeneutics is accompanied by
multi-temporal hermeneutics Giri, 2021b). We move and meditate across different
temporal zones and formations so that we do not become prisoners of any partic-
ular time frame—past or present—and move across temporal blocs and horizons
and understand our books and texts in ever new and emergent ways. This is also
true for texts like Constitution of India. Constitution is a document of hope which
leads to social and spiritual mobilization for realizing promises of beauty, dignity,
and dialogues in it (see Habermas, 1996). For example, the Constitutional imperative
of social equality and fraternity needs to be understood in the dynamic histories of
social, political, and spiritual mobilization against social and political inequality and
domination such as caste, class, and gender.
We need to understand books in social and historical contexts. This calls for
fieldwork with books or what Bourdieu (see, Catt, 2018; Bourdieu and Wacquant
1992) calls fieldwork in philosophy and Clifford Geertz (1983), an ethnography of
ideas. Along with fieldwork with books, we also need to do field work with self,
society, culture, and the world. We need to do field work in different locales of India
and the world. Along with multi-topial and multi-temporal hermeneutics, we also
need to do multi-sited fieldwork. But in Indian studies, we are primarily used to single-
locale fieldwork, that too mostly in one’s language and culture area. For example,
M. N. Srinivas, the doyen of Indian sociology and anthropology, did his fieldwork
among the Coorgs not very far away from his native Mysore town. He did not feel the
call to do fieldwork in any other part of India though he encouraged and inspired his
students to do fieldwork in other parts of India as well as outside (see, Giri, 2003). For
example, he encouraged his student Andre Beteille to come to another part of India
from his native Bengal and do field work in Tanjore, Tamil Nadu. Beteille worked
on caste, class and power in Tamil Nadu and then did some field work in Bengal.
254 A. K. Giri

But for the same theme, Beteille did not do fieldwork in Tamil Nadu and Bengal.
Beteille (1983) makes a critique of Louise Dumont’s construction of India as Homo
Hierarchicus and West as Homo Equalis. For Beteille, in constructing India as Homo
Hierarchicus, Dumont does not take into account the historical transformation of
hierarchy in Indian traditions. Dumont freezes India in time. But in his understanding
of the West, Dumont keeps in the background the way modern society of West has
emerged from hierarchical and collectivist societies of the mediaeval world. Beteille
(1986) also argues how individualism and equality do not always go together as we
find individualism of equality and as well as individualism of inequality. But while
offering this critique, Beteille bases his arguments upon his own critical comparative
reasoning and textual studies of India and the West. Beteille has spent some time
in the West as a Visiting Professor and scholar but he has not used his time in the
West to do fieldwork with modern Western society. His comparative sociology is not
enriched by his own multi-sited fieldwork in India and the West. Beteille does help
us in opening up Indian studies to comparative theoretical engagement with issues
in Western social theory and practice (see Beteille, 1991). But it would have been
far more enriching if he had also practiced multi-sited fieldwork. Not only has he
not done multi-sited fieldwork in India, he has also not done multi-sited fieldwork
with India, Europe, and the World. But to be fair to Beteille, Beteille himself tells us
that he does not enjoy doing fieldwork which he considers it as ‘a limitation but not
a disability’ (Beteille, 2013: 10).15
This points to the problem of parochialism in understanding Indian society and
Indian studies. Beteille (2007) himself tells us that because Indian sociologists do
not study any other society except India, this turns Indian sociology to a study of
India only, without being accompanied by the vision and practice of doing soci-
ological research in many parts of the world. Indian sociology and anthropology
suffer from the problem of entrenched parochialism. In study of India, most of the
social scientists—sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists—study issues and
themes only in the regions, locales, and language areas where they are born. It seems
field-working social scientists do fieldwork within the fifty-kilometre radius of where
they are born. Many of our celebrated social scientists also reflect upon their own
regional traditions and societies and do not feel the call to study these issues in
another part of India what to speak of the world. So, in Indian studies, we need
to overcome this tradition and practice of entrenched parochialism. We need to do
fieldwork in different regions, cultures, and societies of the World. New Education
Policy 2020 point us in this direction (Giri, 2021c). It tells us how students should
visit important tourist places across the land. We need to transform this into a travel
of cultural and social learning as students of humanities and social sciences. India is a
land of plurality but if we do not realize these pluralities with our own knowledge and
experience then it just levels at a slogan or a sign. We need to practice pluralization
through our action and meditation (Connolly, 1995; Giri, 2003). Creative fieldwork
across different language and regions of India would help us understand India better.
Beteille (2007) tells us that in our understanding of India, the separation between
book view and field view has not helped us. We need to bring both book views
and field views together (Madan, 2011).16 At the same time, both the views need to
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 255

embody plurality of views and experiences. Beteille (2011) argues that sociological
understanding needs to express the plurality of standpoints of the observer. But
sociologists are not only observers of society they are also participants of society.
In both book view and field view, we need to bring the plurality of perspectives
of sociologists as well as inhabitants of society as simultaneously observers and
participants (Giri, 2012).
Fieldwork now has become formulaic. In the changing context, fieldwork has
become most of the time a ritual. During the colonial days, anthropologists used to
do fieldwork sitting on the horse back as an adjunct of colonial power. Now, some
are doing fieldwork driving in their cars. So, we need to rethink and transform field-
work into foot works (Giri, 2012). Field work calls for us to walk and meditate with
people in the area whose life we strive to understand. This is foot work which is
also accompanied by foot meditation. We can thus cultivate a new trigonometry of
understanding self, culture, and society consisting of footwork, history, and philos-
ophy (Giri, 2012). In the modern social sciences all these categories suffer from the
closure of entrenched Eurocentrism. We need to understand each of these categories
and practices from different philosophical and cultural traditions of the world. For
example, foot work in India reminds us of traditions of yogis and rishis who have
walked on foot and have learnt with people and have brought the mirror of renuncia-
tion to the householders so that they realize the limits of being bound to sensual life
in the households (Madan, 2003). In doing contemporary social science foot work
in India and the world, we can build on the meditative and walking traditions of the
Rishis and the poets.17 Similarly, the idea of history in modern West is connected to
categories of reason and state (Guha, 2002; Nandy, 1995). We need to understand the
multiplex relationship between history and myth and open up our ideas of histories
to plural understanding of history from multiple philosophical, civilizational, and
life-world perspectives (Nandy, 1995; Pande, 1994).
We need to rethink and transform Indian Studies as an engagement in under-
standing both our locales as well as our inter-linked planetary reality and existence.

15.5 Rethinking Global Studies and the Calling

of Planetary Realizations

In global studies, we are supposed to study our global societies and histories. But
the predominance of the geopolitical in area studies continues in global studies. Our
understanding of the globe in the modern world is characterized by colonial violence.
As Gayatri Chakravarty Spivak tells us: “I propose the planet to underwrite the globe.
Globalization is the imposition of the same system of exchange everywhere [..] The
planet is the species of alterity” (2004: 72).18 Global studies need to realize this
imposition and violence and strive to overcome this. We need to integrate onto-
decolonial critique and transform global studies.
256 A. K. Giri

Here connecting to our earlier discussion about Global South and the need to over-
come the dualism between the North and the South, we can transform area studies
into new global studies which overcome entrenched colonialism and becomes part
of planetary conversations and planetary realizations. The discourse of Global South
is already part of an effort to go beyond a facile dualism between South and North.
This calls for us to transform area studies into creative global studies bordering on
study of our world as multi-dimensional visions and processes of planetary real-
izations. Our engagement with the world, South or North, is part of a dynamics of
planetary realizations where our locations are invitations for us to realize that we are
children of Mother Earth as well as local cultures and societies which goes beyond
the dominant logic of ethnocentrism, Eurocentrism, nation-state centred rationality
and anthropocentrism. As children of Mother Earth, we have an inborn responsi-
bility to other children of Mother Earth, non-human forms of life such as animals,
plants, and Nature. Planetary realizations also challenge us to realize that our loci
of living are also zones of thinking and our different zones of living and thinking
are interconnected in a complex dynamics of communication and disjunction. In this
context, to realize ourselves—both our reality as well as potential–taking part in
rooted planetary conversations across borders in a spectrum of human finitude and
infinitude is an imperative of life.
Planetary realization involves conversations, field works, and foot works across
borders. Planetary conversation has a horizontal dimension of equal dignity of each
of our perspectives from areas we come from and has a vertical dimension where
certain unique aspects of our locations are emphasized as an invitation. As Joanthan
O. Chimakonam who invites and challenges us to cultivate conversations across
borders along both horizontal and vertical lines tells us:
In philosophy, one way to address the epistemic injustice which the over-commitment to
the Eurocentric vision creates is to liberalise the discourse arena in which the attitude of
philosophical nationalism is substituted for philosophical conversationalism. [..] concepts
of justice and specifically epistemic justice in any form and in philosophy particularly will
not be able to go global if there is no horizontalization of ‘philosophical conversations’
and verticalisation of ‘philosophical questions’ by means of conversational thinking. By
horizontalisation of philosophical conversations I mean equal intercultural engagement of
actors from different cultures in the global justice debate in which there is no discrimination
or marginalization of any philosophical tradition by another. In contrast, verticalization of
the questions of philosophy sues for the liberalisation in which uniformity in philosophical
question is discouraged. Thus different philosophical traditions are allowed to ask different
questions in recognition of the varying conditions of life which give rise to those questions
from one locale to the other. Hence while horizontalisation debars discrimination as to who
should be a part of the conversation convened on equal platform, verticalisation promotes
a form of discrimination as to the type of questions are allowed to ask. In other words,
verticalisation is opposed to the uniformity of philosophical questions from different places.
This verticalisation strategy breaks any form of knowledge hegemony and leaves room for
the emergence of diverse epistemic perspectives. So the ideas involved in these two concepts
are geometrical, horizontal suggesting equality of those in the conversation and vertical
suggesting difference in their epistemic perspectives. What is required in the global justice
debate in general and in epistemic justice in particular, is an ideology that is not ethnically
and which encourages bridge-building like conversationalism (Chimakonam 2017: 132).
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 257

The above presents horizontal and vertical dimensions of our conversations which
is not only confined to philosophical conversations but is also relevant for social
science conversations and foot works. We also need to integrate horizontal and
vertical dimensions of conversations as ways of mutual learning. The project of plan-
etary conversation tries to go beyond construction of autonomous sociologies based
upon local, regional, and national traditions and calls for learning and co-creating
knowledge across borders. Here, Yasmeen Arif also challenges us to understand that
subject positions “that appear in this planetary field claim the potential of enuncia-
tory privilege by moving beyond the identity constraints that classificatory systems
in linear theory bestow” (Arif, 2015) The project of planetary conversations is a
project of cultivating simultaneously manifold paths of autonomies and dances of
interconnections and interpenetrations across borders. In this context, Gurminder K.
Bhambra’s critique of Hussein and Farid Alatas’ projects of autonomous sociolo-
gies is helpful (Bhambra, 2014). Bhambra finds that there is little scope for deep
learning across borders in this project of autonomous sociologies. In this context,
what Bhambra writes deserves our careful consideration:
The autonomous traditions approach reifies thinking and thought as endogenous aspects of
defined and separate civilizations where nothing is necessarily to be learned from others.
The implication is rather that the autonomous traditions would simply co-exist, with each
tradition generating knowledge within and for its own domain. While S.H. Alatas believes
that other regions could not be “isolated from interests in the West” [..], there is no recognition
of, or concern, for dialogue among regions. The model of global sociology being posited
here is of creative, autonomous regional satellites orbiting the West where all satellites need
to refer to the West but it is no requirement to refer to them, or they to each other. The only
injunction for the creation of a global sociology is an additive one, where the knowledge
produced by the autonomous traditions would cumulatively contribute to the “growth of a
genuine autonomous tradition throughout the world” (Alatas, S.H. 21). Global sociology, in
this understanding, would be the consequence of the interaction between regional traditions
and the West, defined in civilizational terms, without due recognition of the extensive, long-
standing, entanglements between them (Bhambra, 2014: 94).

But relating our engagement with the world with this imperative of planetary
realizations as rooted planetary conversations across borders also needs to understand
the limits of the existing language such as Global South. The Global South has
become a fashionable word in the last decades and interestingly it is used much more
in the Global North by scholars and activists in a missionary and self-valorizing way
rather than in other parts of the world. To some extent it may unconsciously produce
earlier geopolitical production of area studies, Global South standing earlier regions
covered by area studies. There is an epochal need to go beyond this word and create
a new language of our identity and aspiration as part of the transformation of our
world. This is a challenge for all of us concerned to realize the foundational limits of
a word such as Global South and to create a new language and reality of our zones
of living and thinking, resistance, and struggles in our world.
The global has many limitations. We need to open up the global into the planetary.
This helps us overcome nation-state centred rationality and anthropocentrism. The
transition from the global to the planetary calls for the cultivation of what Karl Jespers
258 A. K. Giri

calls ‘epochal consciousness’. This epochal consciousness is an ethical conscious-

ness. As Dipesh Chakraborty argues: “Epochal consciousness is ultimately ethical.
It is about how we comport ourselves with regard to the world under contemplation
in a moment of global—and now planetary—crisis. It is what sustains our horizons
of action” (Chakraborty, 2021: 197). So, area studies as part of planetary belonging
need to develop appropriate ethical and aesthetic consciousness.
While engaging with area studies—book view and field view—we need to realize
these as part of our planet, our Mother Earth. Each of the areas that we come from
and go to study is part of our Mother Earth. We need to dialogue across different
areas, locations, societies, and cultures. Planetary conversations involve conversa-
tions across different boundaries and borders. It also challenges area studies to relate
to the geographical, cultural, and topographical elements of our areas studies.

15.6 A New Cosmopolitanism

We need to rethink and transform area studies as part of a cosmopolitan engagement.

We can also relate Indian studies and global studies as part of a cosmopolitan engage-
ment. Cosmopolitanism refers to being citizens of the world. But it refers to mainly
the Western tradition of thinking about the world and cosmopolitanism where citi-
zenship of the world is given primacy. But we can also realize our belonging with the
world and being cosmopolitan in related different ways such as ourselves thinking
of us as children of the Mother Earth as in the Indian tradition or Tian Xia or All
Under Heaven (Giri, 2018). So while doing area studies, Indian studies, and global
studies, we embody multiple pathways of cosmopolitanism, for example, simulta-
neously being citizens of the world and children of the Mother Earth. As children
of Mother Earth, where ever we are born and do our studies, our locations become
invitation for cross-locational learning and dialogues. It is also an invitation for us
to cross-fertilize roots of our locations as well as routes across locations and regions
(see Giri, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c).
In this context, we can also rethink Ulrich Beck’s (2007) critique of method-
ological nationalism in our studies. Our prevalent methods and practices of area
studies, Indian studies, and global studies suffer from the primacy of the nation-state
in our theories, practices, and methods. We need to overcome not only entrenched
parochialism in our areas studies, Indian studies, and global studies but also realize
how we are determined by methodological and theoretical nationalism in these
studies. But as a way out of methodological nationalism is not methodological
cosmopolitanism. Methodological cosmopolitanism continues the epistemic primacy
of modernity as does methodological nationalism. It does not cultivate the ontological
dimension of cosmopolitanism. In order to overcome the limits of methodological
nationalism, we need to cultivate cosmopolitanism in our studies which is simultane-
ously epistemic and ontological. We need to cultivate cosmopolitanism as an onto-
logical epistemology of participation (see Giri, 2017, 2018). It calls for new ways
of cosmopolitan thinking and being. We can rethink and transform area studies and
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 259

Indian studies into such a new cosmopolitanism of being, becoming, mutual under-
standing, and conversational and foot-nurtured learning which is part of planetary
realizations and planetary conversations.

15.7 On the Ways Towards Conclusion

In this essay, we have striven to rethink area studies from their earlier geopolitical
construction and production to areas of thinking, being, and mutual understanding.
We have explored the ways of going beyond Eurocentric epistemologies and under-
standing areas in their own epistemologies and ontologies. We have also engaged
with Indian studies and the need for going beyond the dualism of book views and
field views. We have seen the need for multiple book views with critical hermeneutics
of books, lives, societies, and histories. We have explored the need for multi-sited
field works across different areas and locations in India and across the world for a
better understanding of India and Indian studies. We have then seen the need for
linking areas studies and Indian studies to planetary conversations and planetary
realizations. We have then cultivated the pathways of a new cosmopolitanism which
builds upon Beck’s critique of methodological nationalism but strives to overcome
it both epistemologically and ontologically. In this essay, we have striven to make
area studies and Indian studies as part of a new cosmopolitanism of thinking, being,
becoming, and planetary conversations and planetary realizations.

Notes

1. Paper prepared in honour of Professor Yogendra Singh edited by Professors Kameshwar

Choudhary and B.K. Nagla. I am grateful to Professors Choudhary and Nagla for their kind
invitation to contribute a paper to the volume. I am grateful to Dr. Abhijeet Paul of University
of California, Berkeley, for his insightful comment during our telephonic conversation and
to Savitha Ganesh for her kind and attentive reading of this and many helpful suggestions.
This was presented at the Swadhayaya Sahachakra Learning Circle on October 24, 2021 and
I am grateful to discussants Professor Anand Kumar, Professor Savyasaachi and Dr. Payel C.
Mukherjee and other participants for their helpful comments and thoughts. I am grateful to
Mr. Randhir Kumar Gautam for nurturing this dialogue and to Dr. Abhijeet Paul of University
of California, Berkeley for his thoughts and suggestions. I thank Vishnu Varatharajan and Dr.
A. Osman Farah for their helps with some references. A shorter version of this has come out
in Contributions to Indian Sociology, 2022.
2. Sociologist and historian Satish Saberwal also urges us to understand the American dominance
of social sciences in the post-war era.
3. In this context, D. Venkat Rao writes: ‘It is not by chance that the project of area studies is
rooted in the social sciences. ‘Culture’ and ‘society’ seem to have become indicators epochal
identities’ (Rao 1999: 6).
4. Here as Audrey Yue writes (2017), ‘to do cultural studies in Asia is … to depart from Asia as
a region and rethink Asia as a site of theory’ (quoted in Chua et al., 2019:43).
260 A. K. Giri

5. In the context of their studies of tribal communities and tribal movements carrying episte-
mologies of the communities studied which call for dialogue, respect and integration, Bodhi
and Darokar write:
Epistemological integration] is to be understood as a search for recognition and respect
for the totality of a community’s being, which includes a theoretical acceptance of its history,
a legal recognition of its habitat, a social respect of its culture and a political willingness to
see and treat community as equal and self-determining (Bodhi and Darokar 2021: 231).
6. Here what Chih-yu writes about the ontological dimension of China and East Asia is helpful:
As such, China is a holographic projection of East Asia, as well as Asia. A sentence that
evokes China in this article can thus change to East thus change to East Asia. The analyt-
ical frame of this agenda must enable an array of de / national perspectives to co-exist and
communicate intellectually, as well as practically. Further, it must acknowledge the unstable
characteristics of these perspectives themselves, too. Such pluriversality is tantamount to a
quantum theory in the social sciences and humanities, not only because China is ontologi-
cally unfixed and expanding but also because its partners and researchers are internal to its
ontological condition while also being unfixed and expanding (Chih-yu 2021: 272).
7. In his book Epistemologies of the South, de Sousa Santos (2014) speaks about emergence.
8. During our conversation on 4 October 2021, Dr. Abhijeet Paul who teaches at University
of California at Berkeley brought him this point. To be able to learn the languages that are
not within our cognitive register requires a transcendental engagement with and beyond the
empirical.
9. In this context, what Duara writes is helpful: ‘The second area of inquiry that has emerged
is the study of the environment and research projects focused on the crisis of sustainability
in the planet. Indeed, the study of Asian Connections has also been moving to address the
fundamental issue’ (Duara 2018: 42). Duara also writes: ‘In this scenario of increasing interde-
pendence, as well as rising tensions over regional public goods and territories, the nation-states
in the region have to adapt—if not compromise—their conceptions of territorial sovereignty’
(ibid: 43).
10. In his comments on this essay, Savyasaachi argues that even the very language and idea of
area is very much part of a geopolitical construction and is a product of a power constellation.
We can meditate with such words and realities such as sites and cultural landscapes which
have greater possibility of being less power structured.
11. In his recent book, Home in the World: A Memoir, Amartya Sen tells us about his grandfather
Khitimohan Sen’s work on Hindu Muslim co-constitutive interactions. Khitimohan Sen invites
us to understand ‘the constructive mutual influences between Hindu and Muslim traditions’
(Sen 2021: 78).
12. Building on Bernard S. Cohn (1968), Singh writes: ‘The orientalists took a textual view of
India offering a picture of its society as being static, timeless and spaceless. In this view of
Indian society, there was no regional variation and no questioning of the relationship between
prescriptive, normative statements derived from the texts and the actual rules which every
Hindu followed’ (see Singh 1986:3).
13. Swami Vivekananda writes about this:
If you will kindly look into the introduction to the Shariraka-Bhasya of Shri
Shankaracharya, you will find there the Nirapekhata (transcendence) of Jnana is thoroughly
discussed, and the conclusion is that realization of Brahman or the attainment of Moksha do
not depend upon ceremonial, creed, caste, color, or doctrine. It will come to any being who has
the four sadhanas, which are the most perfect moral culture (Swami Vivekananda 2009:341).
14. According to Youngmin Kim, the subject in Confucius is an agent of meta-knowing and is not
a mere reproduction of existing modes of knowing and conventions. As Kim writes:
Meta-knowing provides an important change in the agency involved in the process of
knowing [..] Confucius’ concern with meta-knowing shows that performance of rituals is
understood as actions undertaken by agents who are fully self-conscious of what they are
doing. Seen in this way, Confucius’ notion of zhi [translated usually as knowledge and wisdom]
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 261

is neither merely a matter of external world, nor of mere cognitive access to it. Instead, the
notion turns out to be part of the self-cultivation project.
(Kim 2018:35).
15. Here what Beteille (2013:10) writes deserves our careful consideration:
Although my fieldwork in Thillaisthanam was of great value to me, I did not enjoy my
actual experience of it. I know that not all anthropologists enjoy the experience of fieldwork,
but they all make it a point of honor to say that they did. I tried my hand at a fresh round
of fieldwork in a couple of villages in West Bengal for which I did not have to learn a new
language. It was during my work on agrarian relations that I realized that I had no real aptitude
for fieldwork. I have come to accept this as a limitation but not a disability. I think there
is much to be learned from the words of Meyer Fortes, who was himself an outstanding
fieldworker. After pointing to the great value of ethnographic data collected in the field by
trained anthropologists, he added, “It means, curiously enough, that there is going to be more
scope than ever for the ‘armchair’ scholar in framing and testing hypotheses with the help of
reliable and detailed information” (Fortes 1970:67).
No student of society and culture, no matter how strongly he advocates the field view as against
the book view, can base himself only on data he has himself collected in the field. … But the
mystique of fieldwork has led many persons who are indifferent fieldworkers to pretend that
their fieldwork was both happy and fruitful.
16. For Madan, ‘[..] while the field, or contemporary, ethnographic view of Hinduism brings into
sharp focus the lived social reality, the book, or traditional, bibliographic view provides the
background that illumines at least some aspects of the background. Combining the two views
is not a retreat from fieldwork and the personally observed microcosm from the concreteness
of rituals to the abstraction of beliefs. The effort rather is to establish a balance between the two
perspectives, even a fusion of perspectives’ (Madan 2011: 42). But Madan does not explore
the need for transformation of conventional theories and practices of book view and field view.
Madan does not discuss practices and histories of critical hermeneutics of books, texts and
traditions.
17. Here what Swam Vivekananda writes about the North-West and Punjab is also helpful: ‘The
ever-travelling Tyagis of the various orders, Dashanamis or Vairagis or Panthis bring religion
to Everybody’s door, and the cost is only a bit of bread’ (Swami Vivekanada 2009: 338).
18. In a recent essay, what Carolyn Bitoft (2021) writes about Spivak is helpful:
As one tentative answer, the renowned postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak has suggested
we replace the term global with that of planetarity. Notice, she does not say planetary but rather
planet-ar-ity, which mobilises the suffix ity to imply an ongoing condition. Most importantly,
the framework of planetarity accounts for what we might call the “facts” of the global condition,
without folding them into a hegemonic fantasy of perfect unity. In Death of a Discipline, she
states: ‘I propose the planet to overwrite the globe…. The globe is on our computers. No
one lives there. It allows us to think that we can aim to control it’. Here then to decolonise
the global in the frame of planetarity is not to arrive at a clear and simple guiding principle
for steering the human community to a specific end point. It is an orientation rather than an
objective.
262 A. K. Giri

References

Appadurai, A. (2000). Grassroots globalization and the research imagination. Public Culture, 12(1),
1–19.
Appadurai, A. (2013). The production of locality. In K. E. I. Smith (ed.), Sociology of globalization:
Cultures, economies, and polities. Routledge.
Arif, Y. (2015). The audacity of method. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(1).
Beck, U. (2007). The cosmopolitan condition: Why methodological nationalism fails. Theory,
Culture and Society, 24(7–8), 286–290.
Beteille, A. (2007). Caste, class and power (2nd ed.). Oxford Unoversity Press.
Beteille, A. (1983). The idea of natural inequality and other essays. Oxford University Press.
Beteille, A. (1986). Individualism and equality. Current Anthropology, 27(2), 121–134.
Beteille, A. (1991). Society and politics in India: Essays in a comparative perspective. Athlone
Press.
Beteille, A. (2011). The comparative method and the standpoint of the investigator. Sociological
Bulletin, 47(2), 137–154.
Beteille, A. (2013). Ourselves and others. Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 1–16.
Bhambra, G. (2014). Connected sociologies. Bloomsbury.
Bitoft, C. (2021). Decolonising the global. Global Challenges, 10.
Bodhi, S. R., & Darokar, S. S. (2021). Historicizing tribal struggles for integration in India. Social
Action, 71(3), 221–223.
Bose, S., Mujappa, C. (Eds.). (2010). Introduction. In Cosmopolitan thought zones: South Asia and
the global circulation of ideas. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. University of Chicago
Press.
Catt, I. E. (2018). Pierre Bourdieu: Fieldwork in philosophy. In R. C. Arnett, A. M. Holba, & S.
Mancino (Eds.), An encyclopedia of communication ethics: goods in contention (pp. 70–74).
Peter Lang.
Chakraborty, D. (2021). The climate of history in a planetary age. Primus.
Clammer, J., Poirier, S., & Schwimmer, E. (2004). Figured words: Ontological obstacles in
intercultural relations. University of Toronto Press.
Shih, C.-y. (2021). Post-Chinese, post-western and post-asian relations: Engaging a pluriversal East
Asia. China Report, 57(3), 270–288.
Connolly, W. E. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. University of Minnesota Press.
Chua, B. H., Dean, K., Engseng, H., Chong, H. K., Rigg, J., & Yeoh, B. (2019). Area studies and
the crises of legitimacy: A view from South East Asia. South East Asia Research, 27(1), 31–48.
Dallmayr, F. (2002). Dialogues among civilizations: Some exemplary voices. Palgrave Macmillan.
Das, V. (2007). Life and words: Violence and the descent into the ordinary. University of California
Press.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2014) Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide. Paradigm
Publishers.
Dirks, N. (2015). Autobiography of an archive: A scholar’s passage to India. Columbia U. Press.
Duara, P. (2018). Area studies scholarship of Asia. In M. Meddel (ed.), The Routledge handbook
of transregional studies. Routledge.
Gandhi, M. K. (1947). India of my dreams. Navajivan Trust.
Giri, A. K. (2003). Social science research in India: The call of home and the world. Economic and
Political Weekly, 38(34).
Giri, A. K. (2006). Creative social research: Rethinking theories and methods. Dialectical
Anthropology, 30(3/4), 227–271.
Giri, A. K. (2012). Sociology and beyond: Windows and horizons. Rawat Publications.
Giri, A. K. (ed.). (2017). Pathways of creative research: Towards a festival of dialogues. Primus.
Giri, A. K. (Ed.). (2018). Beyond cosmopolitanism: Towards planetary transformations. Palgrave
Macmillan.
15 Rethinking and Transforming Area Studies and Indian Studies: A New … 263

Giri, A. K. (2019). Life worlds and living words. Social Change, 49(2), 241–256.
Giri, A. K. (2021c). With and beyond epistemologies from the South: Ontological episte-
mology of participation, multi-topial hermeneutics and the challenges of planetary realizations.
Sociological Bulletin, 70(3), 366–383.
Giri, A. K. (2021b). New education policy: Language, travel and translation and a new Viswa
Bharat Hind Yatra’, Paper.
Giri, A. K. (2021a). Evolutionity and the calling of evolutionary suffering and evolutionary flour-
ishing: Dialogue among epochs and the calling of planetary realizations. International Journal
of Philosophy, 9(3), 154–161.
Giri, A. K. (Ed.). (2021d). Pragmatism, spirituality and society: Border crossings, transformations
and planetary realizations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. Basic Books.
Guha, R. (2002). History at the limits of world history. Columbia Uniiversity Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Towards a discourse theory of law and discourse.
Polity Press.
Heesterman, J. C. (1983). Inner conflicts of traditions. University of Chicago Press.
Heidegger, M. (2004). Basic writings of Martin Heidegger. Basic Books.
Kim, Y. (2018). A history of Chinese political thought. Polity Press.
Madan, T. N. (2003). The householder tradition in Hindu society. In G. Flood (ed.), The Blackwell
companion to Hinduism (pp. 288–305).
Madan, T. N. (2011). Hinduism: The book view and the field view. Idem, sociological traditions:
Methods and perspectives (pp. 23–44). Sage Publications.
Maloni, R. (2013). Pan Asianism and Rabindranath Tagore’s idea of a common Asian civilization.
Penang Story Lecture, Penang Heritage Trust.
Mariott, M. (1989). Constructing an Indian ethnosociology. Contributions to Indian Sociology.
Mariott, M. (Ed.). (1990). India through Hindu categories. Sage Publications.
Mohanty, M. (1989). Changing terms of discourse: A poser. Economic and Political Weekly, 24(37)
Mohanty, J. N. (2002). Between East and West: An autobiography. Oxford University Press.
Nandy, A. (1995). History’s forgotten doubles. History and Theory, 34(2).
Nandy, A. (1998). History and its forgotten doubles. History & Theory, 34(2).
Ndlovu-Gatesheni, S. J. (2018). Epistemic freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and decoloniza-
tion. Routledge.
Pande, G. C. (1994). The life and thought of Shankaracharya. Motilal Barasidass.
Parekh, B. (1989). Colonialism, tradition and reform: An analysis of Gandhi’s political discourse.
Sage Publications.
Rao, D. V. (1999). In citations: Readings in area studies of culture. Allied Publisher.
Singh, Y. (1986). Indian sociology: Social conditioning and emerging concerns. Sage Publications.
Singh, Y. (Ed.). (2014). ICSSR research surveys and explorations: Indian sociology. Oxford
University Press.
Sen, A. (2021). Home in the world: A Memoir. Allen Lane.
Spivak, G. C. (2004). Death of a discipline. Columbia University Press.
Sundara Rajan, R. (1998). Beyond the crises of European Sciences: New Beginnings. Indian Institute
of Advanced Study.
Trouillot, M.-R. (2003). Global transformations: Anthropology and the modern world. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Uberoi, J.P.S. (1968). Science and Swaraj. In Contributions to Indian Sociology.
Vattimo, G. (1999). Belief . Polity Press.
Vivekananda, S. (2009). The collected works of Swami Vivekananda, vol. 1V. Advaita Ashram.