Indian Sociologists

Both Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy were true pioneers who began practicing the discipline which neither existed in India and nor had any institution to promote it.

L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer was one of the earliest and best known pioneers of social anthropology in India.

• Initially he was a clerk and later on he became a college teacher in Cochin State.

• In 1902, Dewan of Cochin asked him to assist an ethnographic survey of the state.

• The British government wanted similar surveys done in all the princely states as well as the presidency areas directly under its control, which was done by Ananthakrishna purely on voluntary basis.

• Later, he worked for British government as unpaid superintendent of ethnography.

• His work was very much appreciated and he was invited to help with a similar ethnographic survey in Mysore state.

• He was the first self-taught anthropologist to receive national and international recognition both as a scholar and an academician.

Practice of Social Anthropology by Sarat Chandra Roy is stated below -

• Sarat Chandra Roy had his education in the field of Law and English.

• He gave up his law practice and became a school teacher in Ranchi, Bihar (now Jharkhand).

• Due to his professional needs he had to interpret tribal customs and laws to the court, and soon he developed interest in the tribal societies.

• He has published more than hundred articles in leading Indian and British academic journals regarding the tribal societies and their culture, in addition to his famous monographs on the Oraon, the Mundas and the Kharias.

• He was the founder of the journal "Man in India" in 1922, and at that time it was one of its kind in India.

The main arguments, on either side of the debate about how to relate tribal communities, were started by the British administrator-anthropologists and the nationalists.

The British believed

• The people of Indian tribes were primitive and their culture was different than that of the Hindus.

• The simple tribal people would be exploited and there could be cultural degradation at the hands of Hindu people who wanted to assimilate the tribal people with them.

• They need to be protected by the state so as to safeguard their interests.

On the other hand, the nationalists argued

• The tribes of India were not backward, but had always been interacting with the rest of Hindu society over a long period of time.

• All other communities had experienced the process of assimilation except Indian tribes.

• The reason behind the backwardness of Tribes was the attempt to preserve tribal culture.

• The tribal societies needed as much reform as Hindu society.

Thus, the main difference in the viewpoints of British and Nationalists was the perception about the impact that the mainstream culture could have on the tribes.

The positions of Herbert Risley and G.S. Ghurye on the relationship between race and caste in India is being discussed below –

Herbert Risley believed that

• The human beings could be divided into separate races on the basis of their physical characteristics.

• The castes are originated in race because the different castes belong to different racial types.

• The higher castes were originated from Indo-Aryans while the lower castes were originated from non-Aryan races.

• The Indian conditions were suitable laboratory for studying racial evolution because caste system strictly prohibits inter-marriage among different groups in India and this custom is being followed from centuries.

Ghurye's viewpoint was

• Risley's argument was partially correct and the argument regarding the origination of upper castes from Aryans and lower castes from non-Aryan was true only for north India.

• The prohibition of intermixing of different castes was only limited to the northern India, and the people of other parts of India had been mixing for a long time.

• Preservation of racial purity was done only in North India while other parts of India were quite open towards the practice of endogamy only after variations had occurred in racial groups.

Social anthropological definition of caste emphasises on following six features –

Caste is based on segmental division: This means that the society is divided into various segments or compartments, which are closed and mutually exclusive. It is closed system because caste is decided by birth and can neither be avoided nor changed.

Caste is based on hierarchical division: Each caste is strictly unequal to all other castes, which means every caste is either higher or lower than the other caste in the hierarchical division of caste system.

Caste imposes restriction on social interaction: The institution of caste is governed by the rule of ideas of purity and pollution, which imposes restrictions on social interaction, specially the sharing of food.

Differential rights and duties for different castes: Due to the principles of hierarchy and restricted social interaction, caste involves differential rights and duties. These rights and duties pertain not only to religious practices but also extend to the secular world.

Restriction on the choice of occupation: The caste is decided by birth and is hereditary and the functions of each cast are rigid with specific occupations being allocated to specific castes.

It Imposes strict restrictions on marriage: Caste involves strict restrictions on marriage. Caste 'endogamy', is accompanied by rules about 'exogamy. This means that marriages can take place only within the caste and one may not marry a person who is not of his or her caste. This rule helps in reproducing the caste system.

By 'living tradition', D.P. Mukerji means that the traditions were formed in the past but they kept on changing with the present and were evolved over time. A living tradition is the one which has some old elements as well as some new ones. In spite of all the changes with the change in time and other things the tradition manages to retain basic elements from the past. He insisted that Indian sociologists must be rooted in this tradition to understand the social system because to understand the social system he/she must be a part of it. The very first duty of an Indian sociologist is to study and to know the social traditions of India. He/she must be aware of the past tradition and also its sensitivity to change.

The specificities of Indian culture and society are

a) It is not individualistic like the western society.

b) The behaviour of individuals is fixed by their socio-cultural group.

c) The Indian social system is oriented towards groups.

d) The actions of individuals in Indian society are mostly involuntary.

e) The traditions are strongly rooted in the past but are sensitive towards the change.

f) The pattern of desires of individuals is governed by the societal traditions and norms.

g) Indian traditions are based upon three principles - shruti, smriti and anubhava. Anubhava means personal experience and it is the revolutionary principle.

h) Changes occur in Indian society in adaptive form.

A welfare state has following three features -

(i) It is a positive state that uses its power to implement social policies for the betterment of society. It is of interventionist nature.

(ii) Welfare state emerges from democracy and democratic institutions.

(iii) A welfare state means the co-existence of both the private and state owned enterprises. The public sector emphasises on basic goods and social infrastructure, while the private industry produces consumer goods. So both the needs of development are fulfilled.

A.R. Desai is critical to accept Britain, USA and countries in Europe as welfare states due to following reasons -

• These states have exaggerated claims though they are not even able to provide basic social and economic security to their citizens.

• The economic inequality still prevails in these societies.

• The process of development in these states is dependent of market fluctuations.

• Existence of a high level of unemployment along with excess economic capacity indicates the failure of welfare state.

The arguments given for and against the village as a subject of sociological research by M.N. Srinivas and Louis Dumont are stated below –

1) M.N. Srinivas favoured Indian villages as a subject of sociological research because –

i) The village is an important social entity serving as a united identity.

ii) The villages were never self-sufficient and had been a part of several social, economic and political relationships at the regional level.

iii) The villages as a site of research have offered many advantages to Indian sociology.

2) Louis Dumont believed that social institutions like caste were more important subject than village because –

i) It was just a collection of people living in a particular place.

ii) Villages are not permanent and not even the people residing there but social institutions like caste have existed in past, exists in present will continue to exist in future.

iii) Villages cannot be treated as a category.

The significance of village studies in the history of Indian sociology is –

• It emphasised the importance of ethnographic research methods.

• More than 65 percent of the population resides in rural area of India.

• Villages are unifying identities having significant importance in rural life.

• The study of villages provides examples of rapid social change in the economical development of the country after independence.

M.N. Srinivas played a very important role in promoting village studies some of them are –

• He produced detailed ethnographic accounts of villages.

• He criticised the arguments presented by the British anthropologists and concluded that the village was as important subject of study as any other social institution.

• He also proved the links of the village community to the economy of the outside world.