Indian Sociologists (Part B) Chapter-3
Development of Sociology in India
Indian Sociologists – The development of sociology in India commenced in 1919 at the University of Bombay. Subsequently, in 1920, two other universities, Calcutta and Lucknow, also initiated programs of teaching and research in sociology and anthropology. Initially, there was no clear vision of how Indian sociology would evolve. Over time, sociology emerged as a formidable discipline within the Indian context.
Western sociology gradually began to emerge and attempted to comprehend modernity in the Indian context. India first encountered modernity during the colonial era when it was governed by the British Government.
In the early stages, Indians inadvertently became sociologists and anthropologists. Some sociologists who played a pivotal role in shaping Indian sociology include LK Ananthakrishna Lyer, Sarat Chandra Roy, Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, DP Mukerji, AR Desai, and MN Srinivas.
Do follow us on Instagram
LK Ananthakrishna Lyer (1861-1937) was one of the pioneers of social anthropology in India. He initially began his career as a clerk, later transitioning into a school teacher and eventually a college teacher in Cochin state, present-day Kerala. In 1902, the Dewan of Cochin requested his assistance with an ethnographic survey of the state. The British government sought similar surveys conducted in all the princely states and the presidency areas directly under its control.
Ananthakrishna Lyer undertook this work on a voluntary basis. During this survey, he simultaneously held the position of a college teacher at the Maharajah’s College in Ernakulam and also served as the unpaid Superintendent of Ethnography on weekends. His contributions were highly esteemed by British anthropologists and administrators of that era, leading to his invitation to assist with a similar ethnographic survey in Mysore state.
Although he lacked a sociological background, he made significant efforts to popularize sociology as a discipline in India. He is likely the first self-taught anthropologist to receive national and international recognition as a scholar and academician.
At the University of Calcutta, he was appointed as a Reader and worked from 1917 to 1932. During his tenure, he played a crucial role in establishing the first postgraduate anthropology department in India. Despite not having formal anthropology qualifications, he was elected as the President of the Ethnology section of the Indian Science Congress.
During his lecture tour of European universities, he was awarded an honorary doctorate by the German University. Additionally, he was conferred the titles of ‘Rao Bahadur’ and ‘Dewan Bahadur’ by the Cochin state.
Sarat Chandra Roy (1871-1942) was a lawyer and anthropologist who pioneered the field of sociology in India. Before pursuing his law degree from Calcutta’s Ripon College, Roy had completed graduate and postgraduate studies in English.
In 1898, he relocated to Ranchi and took up a position as an English teacher at a Christian missionary school. During his time in Ranchi, he became the leading authority on the culture and society of the tribal peoples residing in the Chhotanagpur region (present-day Jharkhand).
Roy’s interest in anthropological matters was ignited when he abandoned his teaching job to pursue a career in law at the Ranchi courts. Later, he was appointed as an official interpreter in the court.
He developed a deep interest in tribal societies as a consequence of his professional requirement to interpret tribal customs and laws for the court. He extensively traveled among tribal communities, conducted in-depth fieldwork, and authored numerous valuable monographs and research articles.
In addition to his renowned monographs on the Oraon, Mundas, and Kharias, he published over a hundred articles in prominent Indian and British academic journals. He founded the journal Man in India in 1922, which continues to be published.
Govind Sadashiv Ghurye is widely regarded as the founder of institutionalized sociology in India. He held the position of head of India’s first post-graduate teaching department of Sociology at Bombay University for an impressive 35 years. He also founded the Indian Sociological Society and its journal Sociological Bulletin, which covered a wide range of subjects. Ghurye played a pivotal role in nurturing sociology as a distinctively Indian discipline.
Ghurye’s Bombay University department pioneered two crucial elements that laid the foundation for sociology as a discipline:
- The active integration of teaching and research within the same institution.
- The merger of social anthropology and sociology into a comprehensive discipline.
Ghurye’s writings encompassed a broad spectrum of topics, including tribes, kinship, family, caste, marriage, culture, civilization, the historic significance of cities, religion, the sociology of conflict and integration, and race.
Ghurye and Tribals of India
Among the intellectual and contextual concepts that profoundly influenced Ghurye were diffusionism, Orientalist scholarship on Hindu religion and thought, and nationalism and its cultural aspects of Hindu identity. One of the central themes that Ghurye engaged with was the concept of ‘tribal’ or ‘aboriginal’ cultures.
Ghurye’s writings on tribes and his notable debate with Verrier Elwin brought him recognition within the academic world. During the 1930s and 1940s, there was significant debate on the place of tribal societies within India and the appropriate response of the state to them.
Many British administrator-anthropologists were particularly interested in the tribes of India and regarded them as primitive people with a unique culture distinct from mainstream Hinduism. They also believed that the innocent and simple tribals would be exploited and culturally degraded by contact with Hindu culture and society.
Based on Ghurye’s observations and meticulous research, the British believed that the state had a responsibility to protect the tribes and preserve their way of life and culture, which were under constant pressure to assimilate into mainstream Hindu culture. However, nationalist Indians were equally passionate about their belief in the unity of India and the need for modernizing Indian society and culture. They argued that attempts to preserve tribal culture were misguided and resulted in perpetuating the tribes in a backward state as ‘museums’ of primitive culture.
Given that many aspects of Hinduism itself were perceived as backward and in need of reform, the British also believed that the tribes needed to develop.
Ghurye, a prominent nationalist, championed the view that Indian tribes should be seen as backward Hindus rather than culturally distinct groups. He engaged with various tribal cultures to demonstrate their long-standing interactions with Hinduism, suggesting that they were merely further behind in the assimilation process shared by all Indian communities. This argument, challenging the notion that Indian tribals were isolated primitive communities, was not widely contested. However, the differing perspectives on the impact of mainstream culture emerged.
Protectors of tribals, concerned about their exploitation and cultural extinction, believed that assimilation would lead to negative consequences. In contrast, Ghurye and nationalists argued that these ill-effects were not unique to tribal cultures but prevalent among all backward and downtrodden sections of Indian society.
Ghurye’s work gained significant attention due to its relevance to Indian anthropology during that era. His doctoral dissertation, published as “Caste and Race in India” in 1932, provided a scathing critique of prevailing theories on the relationship between race and caste. Herbert Risley, a British colonial official, later became the primary advocate for the dominant view espoused by Ghurye. This view posited that human beings could be categorized into distinct and separate races based on physical characteristics, such as skull circumference, nose length, or cranial volume.
Risley believed that India served as a unique laboratory for studying the evolution of racial types due to the strict prohibition on inter-marriage among different caste groups. His primary argument was that caste must have originated from race because the different caste groups appeared to belong to distinct racial types.
Generally, the higher castes exhibited traits resembling Indo-Aryan races, while the lower castes seemed to belong to non-Aryan aboriginal, Mongoloid, or other racial groups.
Based on extensive research, including comparisons in average measurements for facial features like nose length and cranium size, Risley and his contemporaries concluded that the lower castes were the original inhabitants of India and had been subjugated by an Aryan people who had migrated to the region from elsewhere.
Ghurye agreed with the fundamental premise of Risley’s argument but also acknowledged its partial correctness. Ghurye noted that Risley’s assertion that the upper castes were Aryan and the lower castes were non-Aryan held generally true only for Northern India. In other regions of the country, the differences in anthropometric measurements between groups were not significant or consistent, suggesting that interracial mixing had occurred for a considerable period in most of India, except for the Indo-Gangetic plain. This indicated that ‘racial purity’ had been preserved primarily in North India (Hindustan proper) due to the interdiction of inter-marriage.
In the rest of the country, the practice of endogamy (marrying only within a specific caste group) may have been introduced into groups that were already racially diverse. Today, the racial theory of caste is no longer widely accepted, but it held significant prominence during the first half of the 20th century. Historians continue to engage in debates about the origins and arrival of the Aryans in the subcontinent.
Ghurye also offered a comprehensive definition of caste, emphasizing six key features.
(A) Caste is an institution based on segmental division, meaning it divides society into numerous closed, mutually exclusive segments or compartments. Each caste constitutes one such compartment. Caste is determined by birth, and individuals born to parents of a specific caste are perpetually bound to that caste. This aspect of caste is unchangeable and cannot be avoided.
(B) Caste society operates on a hierarchical structure, where each caste is strictly unequal to every other. In theory, no two castes are ever considered equal, although this ideal is not always upheld in practice.
(C) The caste system inherently involves restrictions on social interaction, particularly the sharing of food. Different rules govern what types of food can be shared between specific groups, often based on concepts of purity and pollution. These rules extend beyond food sharing and also encompass social interactions. For instance, in the practice of untouchability, certain castes are considered impure and their touch is considered polluting.
(D) Caste also encompasses rights and duties that vary among different castes. These rights and duties extend beyond religious practices and impact various aspects of life, including the secular world. Ethnographic accounts provide insights into how interactions between people of different castes are governed by these rules.
(E) Caste restricts the choices individuals have regarding occupation. Since caste is determined by birth and is hereditary, it functions as a rigid form of the division of labor, allocating specific occupations to different castes.
(F) Caste also imposes strict restrictions on marriage. Individuals belonging to a specific caste are only permitted to marry within that caste. They adhere to rules governing exogamy, which dictate who is considered eligible for marriage. This combination of rules helps perpetuate the caste system.
Sociology between the 1920s. and the 1950s
Sociology between the 1920s. and the 1950s
Between the 1920s and the 1950s, sociology in India was equated with the two major departments at Bombay and Lucknow. Both began as combined departments of sociology and economics. While the Bombay department in this period was led by GS Ghurye, the Lucknow department had three major figures, the famous trinity of Radhakamal Mukerjee (the founder), DP Mukerji and DN Majumdar. Although all three were well known and widely respected, DP Mukerji was the most popular.
Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji
DP Mukerji was among the most influential scholars of his generation not only in sociology but in intellectual and public life beyond the academy. His influence and popularity came so much from his teaching, his speaking at academic events, and his work in the media, including newspaper articles and radio programmes.
He had an active interest in a variety of subjects like literature, music, film, Western and Indian philosophy, Marxism, political economy and development planning. DP Mukerji wrote many books in English and Bengali. His pioneering work which considered a classic in its genre was
‘Introduction to Indian Music. Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji was strongly influenced by Marxism but has started thinking about sociology from history and economics.
DP Mukerji on Tradition and Change After dissatisfaction with Indian history and economics DP Mukerji turned to sociology. He believed very strongly that the crucial distinctive feature of India was its social system.
Therefore, each social science must be grounded in the Indian context. The defining aspect was the social dimension: while history, politics, and economics were less developed, the social aspects were ‘over-developed.’
As DP Mukerji wrote, “India had society, and little else. Her history, economics, and philosophy centered on social groups and socialized persons.”
Given society’s centrality, Indian sociologists must study and comprehend its traditions. Mukerji believed this included sensitivity to change, as tradition was a living tradition adapting to the present.
Mukerji emphasized that an Indian sociologist must be an Indian, sharing folkways, mores, customs, and traditions to understand the social system. He advocated for knowledge of both ‘high’ and ‘low’ languages and cultures.
Indian culture and society were not individualistic in the Western sense. The social system was oriented towards groups, sects, or castes rather than individual action.
Although voluntarism influenced the urban middle classes, its emergence should be studied. Mukerji identified tradition as transmission, with Sanskrit equivalents meaning succession or history.
Traditions, sustained through storytelling, adapt to change. Societies are influenced by internal and external sources of change. While the economy is a primary internal source of change in Western societies, its effectiveness varies in India.
Three Indian tradition
Principles of social change: shruti (scripture), smriti (memory), and anubhava (personal experience). Anubhava was revolutionary and crucial.
However, personal experience evolved into collective experience, making generalized anubhava, or group collective experience, the most significant. High traditions center around smriti and shruti, which are challenged by group collective experiences, like the Bhakti Movement.
Mukerji noted this phenomenon wasn’t limited to Hinduism but also affected Muslim culture in India. Sufis emphasized love and experience over holy texts, effecting change. In Indian culture, discursive reason isn’t the dominant force for change; anubhava and prem have historically proven more effective.
Conflicts and rebellions in Indian culture have channeled through collective experiences. Tradition’s resilience ensures change without disintegration.
We witness repeated cycles of dominant orthodoxy challenged by popular revolts that transform orthodoxy but are assimilated into this transformed tradition.
This process of change, characterized by rebellions within a tradition, is typical of a caste society where class formation and consciousness have been defining. Mukerji criticized unthinking borrowing from Western intellectual traditions, including in development planning. He emphasized the importance of tradition but not blindly adopting modernity. Mukerji was a proud yet critical inheritor of tradition and an admiring critic of modernity that shaped his perspective.
A R Desai
Akshay Ramanlal Desai, a Marxist, enrolled in the Bombay Sociology department to study under Ghurye. While involved in politics, he later resigned from his Communist Party of India membership. His doctoral dissertation, titled “The Social Aspects of Indian Nationalism,” was published in 1948 as “The Social Background of Indian Nationalism.”
Desai offered a Marxist analysis of Indian nationalism, focusing on economic processes and divisions while acknowledging the influence of British colonialism. Despite facing criticism, his book gained popularity and underwent numerous reprints. He delved into various other themes, including peasant movements, modernization, urban issues, political sociology, state forms, and human rights.
Given the limited prominence of Marxism in Indian sociology, Desai may have achieved greater recognition outside the discipline than within it. Despite receiving honors and being elected President of the Indian Sociological Society, he remained an unusual figure in Indian sociology.
Desai’s interest in the modern capitalist state was a prominent theme in his work. In his essay “The Myth of the Welfare State,” he critically examined the capitalist state, exposing its shortcomings.
Desai highlighted several distinctive features of the welfare state:
– Unlike classical liberal political theory’s ‘laissez faire’ approach, which aims only for the minimum necessary to maintain law and order, the welfare state is an interventionist state that actively employs its substantial powers to design and implement social policies for the betterment of society.
– Democracy was considered a fundamental prerequisite for the welfare state’s emergence. Formal democratic institutions, such as multi-party elections, are defining characteristics of the welfare state. However, liberal thinkers excluded socialist and communist states from this definition.
– A mixed economy, characterized by the coexistence of private capitalist enterprises and state or publicly owned enterprises, is prevalent in the welfare state. It does not eliminate the capitalist market or prevent public investment in industries and other sectors. In a welfare state, the state sector focuses on providing essential goods and social infrastructure, while the private industry dominates the consumer goods sector.
– R. Desai proposed several criteria to assess the performance of a welfare state. These criteria include ensuring freedom from poverty, social discrimination, and security for all citizens; redistributing income from the wealthy to the poor and preventing wealth concentration; transforming the economy so that the capitalist profit motive serves the genuine needs of the community; ensuring stable economic development free from the cycles of economic booms and depressions; and providing employment for all citizens.
Using these criteria, Desai examines the performance of welfare states such as Britain, the USA, and much of Europe.
Despite their advanced economies, modern capitalist states, even in highly developed countries, often fail to provide basic economic and social security to all citizens while struggling to reduce economic inequality, and in some cases, even exacerbating it.
Welfare states have also demonstrated their inability to foster stable development free from market fluctuations. Excess economic capacity and high unemployment are just two more examples of their failures. Drawing from Marxist thinkers, A R Desai emphasizes the crucial role of democracy in communist systems. He advocates for the preservation of political liberties and the rule of law in all genuinely socialist states.
M N Srinivas
Mysore Narasimhachar Srinivas, a prominent Indian sociologist, holds two doctoral degrees from Bombay University and Oxford. He studied under Ghurye at Bombay University.
Srinivas’ intellectual shift occurred at Oxford’s Department of Social Anthropology, where he embraced British social anthropology. His doctoral dissertation, “Religion and Society among the Coorgs,” solidified his international reputation.
He was appointed to an Oxford lectureship in Indian sociology but resigned in 1951 to establish a department at Maharaja Sayajirao University in Baroda. Later, he moved to Delhi to set up a department at the Delhi School of Economics, which became a leading sociology center in India.
MN Srinivas’ Contributions to Sociology
Srinivas, a lifelong enthusiast of Indian villages, developed his interest after a year-long fieldwork experience near Mysore. This firsthand experience provided valuable insights into village life.
His fieldwork shaped his career and intellectual journey. He passionately advocated for village studies as the dominant field in Indian sociology during the 1950s and 1960s. Alongside scholars like SC Dube and DN Majumdar, he established village studies as the leading field.
Srinivas’s writings on villages covered two broad categories:
(i) Ethnographic accounts of his fieldwork or discussions of such accounts.
(ii) Historical and conceptual analyses of the Indian village as a social unit. In these writings, he debated the utility of the village concept.
Srinivas and Louis Dumont held differing views on villages.
Dumont, a social anthropologist, argued against the significance of villages as social entities. He asserted that social institutions like caste held greater importance than villages, which are merely collections of people. Dumont believed that villages are transient, with people moving from one to another, while their social institutions persist. Consequently, he argued that it would be misleading to accord significant prominence to the village.
Srinivas vehemently disagreed. He believed in the relevance of villages as social entities. Historical evidence showed that villages had served as a unifying force in rural social life.
Srinivas also criticized British administrators-anthropologists who portrayed Indian villages as unchanging, self-sufficient, and little republics. Using historical and sociological evidence, he demonstrated that villages had undergone significant changes and were never self-sufficient.
The village served as an ideal site for Indian sociology, illustrating the significance of ethnographic research methods. It provided firsthand accounts of the rapid social transformation in the Indian countryside as the newly independent nation embarked on a program of planned development.
These descriptions of village India were highly valued during that time as urban Indians and policy-makers gained insights into the heartland of the nation. Village studies provided a new role for sociology in an independent nation.
Conclusion
The discipline of sociology gained a distinct identity through the contributions of several Indian sociologists, notably the four prominent figures: Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, DP Mukerjee, AR Desai, and MN Srinivas. Their efforts led to the ‘Indianization’ of sociology.
Ghurye, initially addressing questions posed by Western anthropologists, drew upon his profound understanding of classical texts and his insights into educated Indian opinion.
- DP Mukerjee, a Westernized modern intellectual, rediscovered the significance of Indian tradition.
- AR Desai was also influenced by Marxism and offered a critical analysis of the Indian state during an era when such criticism was uncommon.
- MN Srinivas, who received training in the dominant centers of Western social anthropology, adapted his knowledge to the Indian context and helped shape a new agenda for sociology in the late 20th century.
In a well-developed discipline, subsequent generations learn from and surpass their predecessors, as evident in the progress of Indian sociology.
Read more here
Useful terms
Traditions : encompass the totality of values, beliefs, experiences, knowledge, and wisdom passed down from previous generations to subsequent generations.
Administrator-anthropologists : British administrative officials who worked in the British Indian government during the 19th and early 20th centuries. They were particularly interested in conducting anthropological research, particularly surveys and censuses. Notable names include Edgar Thurston, William Crooke, Herbert Risley, and J.H. Hutton.
Assimilation : A process through which one culture gradually absorbs another.
Anthropometry : a branch of anthropology that focused on studying human racial types by measuring physical characteristics, such as the volume of the cranium (skull), the circumference of the head, and the length of the nose.
Endogamy : A social institution that defines the boundaries of a social or kin group within which marriage is permitted. Marriage outside of this defined group is prohibited.
Exogamy : A social institution that defines the boundaries of a social or kin group with which or within which marriage is prohibited. Marriages must be contracted outside of these prohibited groups.
Anubhava : refers to the ‘experience or intuition’ that serves as the foundation of an individual’s knowledge of Brahman, the Absolute. It also encompasses personal knowledge and aesthetic experience.
Laissez-faire : a French phrase that translates to ‘let be’ or ‘leave alone.’ It represents a political and economic doctrine that advocates for minimal state intervention in the economy and economic relations. This doctrine is often associated with the belief in the regulatory powers and efficiency of the free market.
NCERT Solutions
How did Ananthakrishna Iyer and Sarat Chandra Roy come to practice social anthropology?
Answer:
Ananthakrishna Lyer: He voluntarily practiced social anthropology by assisting British administrators in ethnographic surveys of India. Initially, he worked as a clerk and later became a college teacher at Ernakulum. In 1902, he was asked by the Dewan of Cochin to help with an ethnographic survey of the state. He later worked for the British government as an unpaid Superintendent of Ethnography. His work was well-received by British anthropologists and administrators.
Sarat Chandra Roy: He was educated in law and English and gave up his law practice to become a school teacher in Ranchi. After resuming his law practice, he was appointed as the official interpreter in the court.
Gradually, he became interested in the tribal society due to his need to interpret tribal customs in the court. He gained extensive knowledge about the culture and society of the tribal people of Chhotanagpur.
Roy produced valuable monographs and research articles on this subject through his extensive fieldwork and travels.
The experiences gained by Lyer and Roy in their respective fields led to their shared interest in social anthropology.
What were the main arguments on either side of the debate about how to relate to tribal communities?
Ans: The debate on relating to tribal communities was spearheaded by British administrators-anthropologists and nationalists.
The British argued that Indian tribes were primitive and had a distinct culture from Hindus. They feared that Hindu assimilation would exploit and degrade these simple people. Consequently, they believed the state should protect tribes to safeguard their interests.
Nationalists, led by GS Ghurye, countered that Indian tribes were not backward but had long interacted with Hindu society. They asserted that assimilation had affected all communities and that tribes were merely lagging behind.
Nationalists believed that preserving tribal culture hindered progress. They argued that tribal societies needed reform just like Hindu society.
The crux of the debate lay in differing perceptions of the impact of mainstream culture on tribes.
Outline the positions of Herbert Risley and GS Ghurye on the relationship between race and caste in India.
Ans: Herbert Risley’s Views on the Relationship between Race and Caste
Herbert Risley believed that human beings could be divided into distinct races based on their physical characteristics. His primary argument was that caste emerged from race because the various castes belonged to different racial types. He asserted that the higher castes originated from Indo-Aryans, while the lower castes originated from non-Aryan races. Risley held the opinion that India’s conditions were ideal for studying racial evolution due to the strict prohibition of inter-caste marriages in the country.
GS Ghurye’s Perspective on the Relationship between Race and Caste
Ghurye, however, held a different viewpoint. He acknowledged that Risley’s argument was partially accurate, particularly in the context of North India. He asserted that the notion that upper castes were Aryan and lower castes were non-Aryan was only applicable to North India.
Ghurye further emphasized that the prohibition of inter-caste mixing was not universal in India. He argued that people in other regions had been intermingling for a considerable period. According to him, racial purity was preserved only in North India, while other parts of the country adopted the practice of endogamy only after racial variations had occurred within specific groups.
What does DP Mukerji mean by a living tradition’? Why did he insist that Indian sociologists be rooted in this tradition?
Ans : By ‘living tradition’, DP Mukerji refers to traditions that have not only been established in the past but also evolved and adapted to the present. These traditions retain fundamental elements that have stood the test of time.
He emphasized the importance of Indian sociologists being rooted in this tradition, as an Indian sociologist should first understand their own social system. In Mukerji’s words, “it is not enough for an Indian sociologist to be a sociologist; they must be an Indian first. This means they should share in the folk-ways, mores, customs, and traditions of their country to gain a deeper understanding of their social system and its underlying structures.”
To achieve this, Mukerji advocated for sociologists to learn and be familiar with both ‘high’ and ‘low’ languages and cultures, not just Sanskrit, Persian, or Arabic, but also local dialects.
What are the specificities of Indian culture and society and how do they affect the pattern of change?
Ans: The Indian culture and society are not as individualistic as Western societies. An Indian individual’s behavior is determined by their socio-cultural group. Consequently, the Indian social system is structured around groups, unlike Western societies where people are highly individualistic. In Indian society, individual actions are often influenced by societal traditions and norms, leading to a pattern of involuntary behavior. Traditions are deeply rooted in the past, resulting in relatively few changes in Indian societies.
Changes in Indian societies tend to occur in an adaptive manner rather than through fundamental transformations. The role of the economy as an internal source of change is diminished in Indian society. Conflict arising from the caste system often leads to adaptive changes without overthrowing the institution of caste.
What is a welfare state? Why is AR Desai critical of the claims made on its behalf?
Ans:
Meaning of Welfare State
AR Desai explained welfare state among following three features:
- A welfare state is a positive state that uses its power in order to implement social policies for the betterment of society. It is interventionist in nature.
- Democracy and democratic institutions are considered the most important factors for the emergence of the welfare state.
- A welfare state includes a mixed economy.
- It means the co-existence of both the private and state owned enterprises. The public sector concentrates on basic goods and social infrastructure, while the private industry produces consumer goods.
Critical Claims of AR Desai on Welfare State
- Desai is critical of welfare states like Britain, USA and countries in Europe.
- He argues that the claims of these states are not real.
- They are not even able to provide basic social and economic security to their citizens. They are unable to reduce economic inequality.
- The process of development in these states is not independent of market fluctuations.
- A high level of unemployment alongside excess economic capacity indicates the failure of welfare state.
Therefore, AR Desai is critical of the claims made on behalf of welfare state and concludes that its existence is a myth.
What is the significance of village studies in the history of Indian sociology? What role did MN Srinivas play in promoting village studies?
Ans : Significance of Village Studies in Indian Sociology
The study of Indian villages has always held significant importance in the history of Indian sociology, serving several key purposes. Firstly, it provided an opportunity to emphasize the significance of ethnographic research methods. Secondly, it offered examples of rapid social change that transpired in the country following independence and the implementation of planned development. Thirdly, the village studies played a pivotal role in giving sociology a newfound relevance in the context of an independent nation. They enabled urban Indians and policymakers to form informed opinions about the developments occurring in the villages of India.
MN Srinivas played a pivotal role in promoting village studies by dedicating his research efforts to these areas. He conducted extensive fieldwork in villages and diligently coordinated the production of comprehensive ethnographic accounts of these communities. His writings featured detailed ethnographic descriptions, along with historical and conceptual discussions about villages. Srinivas was a vocal critic of the arguments presented by British anthropologists and firmly believed that the village held equal importance as any other social institution. He also highlighted the connections between the village community and the external economy.
