Perspectives on the Study of Indian Society

The study of Indian society is a multifaceted and complex endeavor that encompasses a wide range of perspectives, theories, and approaches. Indian society is characterized by its diversity, with a rich tapestry of cultures, languages, religions, and social structures. As such, scholars and researchers have developed various lenses through which to understand and analyze this intricate social landscape. In this exploration, we delve into some key perspectives on the study of Indian society.

Indology (G S Ghurye)
Structural functionalism (M N Srinivas)
Marxist sociology

1. Indology (G S Ghurye)

Indology, as a perspective on the study of Indian society, emphasizes the fundamental differences in Indian thought and psychological characteristics compared to the West. It contends that to gain a deeper understanding of Indian society, one must explore it through the lens of Indian thinking, traditions, and philosophy.

MN Srinivas characterizes Indology as the textual examination of Indian society, focusing on ideas found in classical religious texts such as the Vedas, Upanishads, Dharma Shastra, Manusmriti, Mahabharata, and Ramayana. This approach does not directly engage with the real-life conditions on the ground.

Orientalist/Indologist views of India often depict the society as static, timeless, and unbound by space. These scholars highlight the significance of traditions and social groups as the foundation of social relations, prioritizing these aspects over individual agency. They also underscore the role of religion, ethics, and philosophy in shaping social organization, rather than emphasizing interpersonal or group dynamics.

However, the British, in their attempt to understand Indian tradition through textual analysis, inadvertently exaggerated the discrete nature of Indian social entities while overlooking the interconnectedness that unified these entities into a cohesive whole. The inflexibility that became a defining feature of the caste system during the British colonial era was, in part, a result of the British administrative and legal systems.

G.S. GHURYE

Govind Sadashiv Ghurye emphasized the integral connection between Indian tradition and Hindu tradition, asserting that a profound comprehension of Indian society necessitates a deep understanding of Hindu traditions. In parallel, BK Nagla is credited with pioneering a distinct branch of sociology known as Hindu sociology.

On Caste

Ghurye studied caste from a historical, comparative and integrative perspective. He identified six basic features of caste system:

Segmental division.
Lack of choice of occupations for each segment.
Purity and pollution associated with the occupation.
Hierarchy of these divisions based on purity and pollution.
Commensal and conjugal relations. (Civil/religious disabilities/privileges of sections)
Restrictions on marriage. (Caste endogamy and Gotra/Pinda exogamy)
Ghurye laid emphasis on endogamy as the most important feature of the caste system. The rules of endogamy and commensality marked off castes from each other. These rules acted as integrative instruments which organised segmented castes into a totality or collectivity.

On Tribes

Ghurye believed that the tribes had been Hinduised after a long period of contact and acculturation. He felt that it was futile to look for a different identity for tribes, rather they should be treated as backward caste Hindus. He felt that this backwardness was a result of their imperfect integration into the Hindu society and that could only be improved by their acculturation. Ghurye debated with Verrier Elwin about the issue of tribals. Elwin held that tribals should be left to their own devices while Ghurye was a strong proponent of acculturation. Finally, Nehru’s view of assimilation prevailed.

On Culture & Civilization

According to Ghurye culture constitutes the central element for understanding society and its evolution. For him the challenging task of a sociologist in India was to analyse the complex acculturation process in India, he refers to how the caste system was developed by Brahmins and how it spread to other sections of the society. He identified five foundations of culture which cut across problems of civilisation growth:

Religious consciousness.
Conscience.
Justice.
Pursuit of knowledge and free expression.
Toleration.

Ghurye felt that religion is at the center of the total cultural heritage of man, it moulds and directs behaviour of man in society. He recognised the importance of the concept of reincarnation and the changing concept of godhead in Indian society.

On National Unity

As a sociologist, he was interested in the concept of integration and the process of national unity in India. Ghurye held that while groups play an integrational role in society that is true only up to a certain extent. He felt that in modern Indian society there were five sources of danger to national (basically Hindu) unity due to their excessive attachment to their groups:

Scheduled castes.
ST
Backward classes.
Muslims and minority groups.

Ghurye majorly viewed the brahminical endeavour as the cause of national unity in India and thus while he calls it the process of acculturation, it is basically a one-way flow in which brahminical ideas and institutions gained prevalence among non-Brahmins.
Ghurye’s concept of cultural unity is not secular in nature. He is concerned with the India of Hindu culture and uses Indian and Hindu culture interchangeably. He viewed regional language as having a symbolic integration value for the region i.e. dysfunctional for the whole.

Relevance

He contributed to building sociology that was completely Indian in orientation and with his deep knowledge of Hinduism he contributed greatly in many spheres.

Critique of Ghurye’s Indological Perspective

The biggest limitation of his understanding of India was that he never acknowledged the contribution of Christianity and Islam to the cultural pluralism of India.
Ghurye failed to recognise that a qualitative change has occurred in the dynamics of Indian unity in modern India. His knowledge of India’s past instead of helping him stood in his way of gaining a better understanding of contemporary Indian society.
SC Dube says that his approach is mostly criticised as culture-bound, myopic, textual, and Brahmanic view of India but since most other approaches developed as reflexive critiques of Ghurye’s writings his impact on Indian sociology cannot be discounted.
His view that the development of a regional language could lead to disunity is also claimed to be an oversimplification. Ex. Eco Survey 2016-17 noted that language was not a barrier to trade within India.
He also failed to appreciate that the political involvement of caste as an outcome of the collective mobilization process in modern India.

2. Structural Functionalism (M N Srinivas)

Structural functionalism emerged within the realm of British Anthropology, gaining prominence through Radcliffe-Brown’s critique of Malinowski’s functionalist approach. This perspective posits that society comprises interconnected and interdependent components that collectively constitute a cohesive whole, referred to as its structure. These constituent parts fulfill the societal requirements and are, consequently, deemed functional, drawing an analogy to organismic functionality. The core tenets include the concepts of a unified whole, universal functionalism, and indispensable components.

M N Srinivas

Srinivas did not rigidly adhere to a structural-functional approach; instead, he adapted his methodologies as needed. It was only in hindsight that his adherents and detractors categorized him as a structural-functionalist. He contended that earlier scholars, including Indologists and Marxists, had ambitiously sought to comprehend Indian society on a macro scale, despite its vast population and extensive diversities. Srinivas advocated for an approach that was both methodically sound and well-received in the study of Indian society. He is credited with pioneering the tradition of deriving macro-level generalizations from micro-level anthropological insights, notably through village studies, within Indian sociology.

On Caste

Srinivas employed the Structural Functionalist approach in his examination of the caste system. Recognizing the impracticality of empirically studying the myriad variations among India’s numerous castes, exceeding 20,000, he proposed that a deeper understanding could be gleaned by delving into the inherent structure of the caste system.

Within this structure, Srinivas identified two distinct hierarchies: one ritual and the other secular. A caste’s position in the ritual hierarchy was delineated by commensal relations, ritual status, values, deities of worship, and speech patterns. In contrast, secular criteria were determined by factors such as wealth, power, access to education, and employment opportunities. Based on these observations, he formulated influential theories such as Sanskritization, Westernization (as pathways to social mobility), and the concept of Dominant Caste.

Theory of Sanskritization by M N Srinivas:

Sanskritization is a process of upward mobility within the ritual hierarchy, typically preceded by advancements in the secular hierarchy. This transformative process involves a group altering their ritual practices, including commensal relations, teetotalism, and dietary choices, to align with those of the target group, often a dvija caste. Over time, these changes aim to elevate their own ritual status. Srinivas observed that such mobility was attainable, particularly within the middle of the caste hierarchy. To capture the broader phenomenon of mobility not limited to Brahmanization, he coined the term Sanskritization. This concept, originally developed by Srinivas in his study of the Coorgs titled “Religion and Society Among the Coorgs,” finds examples in various contexts, such as the Kayasthas of Bengal assuming administrative roles during the Mughal era, leading to significant improvements in their ritual hierarchy through advancements in the secular hierarchy.

Theory of Westernization by M N Srinivas:

Westernization, similarly, was the process by which either an upper caste or the lowest castes (places with limited mobility in the traditional structure) adopted western habits, traditions, education, etc. to gain mobility in status. Other castes too used this method but it must be noted that the uppermost and lowest castes could only use this as other means of mobility were blocked for them. Westernisation happened at three levels:

Primary – Interacted with the western culture directly
Secondary – Interacted with the primary beneficiaries
Tertiary – Indirect contact with western customs.

Y. Singh says that Westernisation led to:

Growth of a universal legal system
Expansion of education
Urbanisation and industrialisation
Increased network communication

Theory of Dominant caste

Dominant caste is an important concept to understand the rural social life in any part of India according to Srinivas. Typical features of a dominant caste in a village are:

Numerical strength,
Economic and political power, and
Western education and occupations.

Dominant castes typically wield authority within the secular hierarchy, but their position in the ritual hierarchy may not necessarily reflect the same dominance. When a caste simultaneously possesses control over various elements such as wealth, power, education, and employment opportunities, it is said to enjoy decisive dominance, although such instances are rare, often marked by the dispersion of these elements among different groups. In cases where a caste exhibits dominance across several villages within a specific region, it is referred to as having regional dominance. Srinivas formulated this concept during his study of Rampura village, documented in his work “The Remembered Village.”

Srinivas views caste as a stratification system, emphasizing that caste positions and relationships are dynamic in nature. Consequently, he contends that this understanding of caste can be applied effectively at both micro and macro levels of analysis.

M N Srinivas on Indian Villages

Srinivas’ perspective on Indian villages departs from the purely textual or cultural approaches. He challenges Louis Dumont’s mono-causal approach, which seeks to understand Indian society primarily in terms of purity and pollution. Instead, Srinivas asserts that every Indian individual possesses multiple identities. Even within a single caste, divisions emerge based on family and kinship ties, and within a single village, caste divisions persist. However, when confronted with external forces, villagers unite, transcending these internal divisions. This dynamic can be likened to the Bedouin proverb: “me against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I, my brother, and my cousin against the world.”

In light of this perspective, Srinivas concludes that while caste engenders horizontal solidarity among groups, villages foster vertical solidarity. He further underscores that Jajmani relations and power dynamics among factions contribute to this vertical unity, opposing Dumont’s notion that solidarity exists exclusively within caste groups.

He advocated village studies in order to understand:

The social structure of village communities,
Specific structural characters of a given village.

Srinivas did not assert that a single village represents Indian society as a whole. Instead, he maintained that a comprehensive study of villages scattered across different regions of the country could provide valuable insights into the evolution of village traditions and norms. Through this approach, one could gain a deeper understanding of the broader continuity and change occurring within Indian society. Consequently, his perspective marked a departure from the deterministic tendencies of Indology and Marxist approaches, ushering in a tradition of empirical research and extensive fieldwork within Indian sociology. Srinivas is credited with spearheading a transition from a book-centered viewpoint to a field-centered perspective.

On New Avatar of Caste

In his examination of Indian unity, Srinivas observed that although divisions based on religion, language, and caste were prevalent among the Indian population, a shared cultural and emotive consciousness played a unifying role. He introduced the term AJGaR (Ahir, Jat, Gujjar, and Rajput) to illustrate how prosperous agricultural communities were transcending caste distinctions to assert political influence in states. This perspective aligned him with the Marxist viewpoint that suggested caste was gradually transforming into class in India.

Srinivas further noted that contemporary India saw a shift in conflict dynamics. Rather than a stark upper-caste versus lower-caste confrontation, conflicts arose between OBCs (Yadavs) and Dalits (BSP), resulting in the exclusion of Brahmins and Rajputs from positions of power in states like UP. This dynamic demonstrated that castes with shared class interests were engaged in intra-caste rivalry. A similar pattern emerged within AJGaR, where Ahirs and Jats, while often in competition at the village level, united as backward castes to access reservation benefits. Srinivas also delved into the concept of vote-bank politics and the transformation of the caste system into casteism. In doing so, he aimed to challenge the Marxist notion of caste evolving into class, highlighting the prevalence of internal frictions.

Critique of M N Srinivas’s Structural Functionalism

As the founder of modern sociology in India, he was not committed to any particular approach or theory, rather he adapted his approach as he went along. He began as an Indologist and moved on to structural functionalism and used various other approaches in his vast array of works.
Yogendra Singh considers MNS’ sociology as a form of objective idealism, i.e. undergoing both continuity and change. Objective because he used empirical methods and idealists ’cause he believed that India can never go for absolute change or modernity.
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak holds that it is because of Srinivas that Indian society was studied from a caste perspective till the 80s. The subaltern perspective is important.
Dalit scholars consider that Srinivas was a Brahmanic sociologist much like Ghurye. While Ghurye celebrated Hindu culture, Srinivas celebrated Sanskritization.
His concept of Sanskritization is no longer valid in today’s society. Middle and lower castes have begun opting for westernisation and political representation by mass mobilisation instead to gain social mobility.
Dominant caste too is no longer a valid concept in rural areas. OBCs and lower castes have successfully displaced the traditional upper castes like Brahmins and Rajputs from the power structure of the states. Also since the Jajmani relations have broken down, the traditional patronage system no longer works to maintain the dominance of the land-owning castes.
Srinivas’ approach has been termed as brahminical by his critics. When he speaks of Sanskritization and speaks against reservation it can be said that the Brahmin in Srinivas supersedes the sociologist in Srinivas.

3. Marxist Sociology

There are multiple Marxist approaches to the study of Indian society. In contrast to Indologists, who employ a dialectical approach, Marxists critique the sociological stance of Indologists while seeking to elucidate the dynamics of Indian society.

EMS Namboodirapad:

Building of India on modern democratic and secular lines requires a struggle against the caste-based Hindu society and its culture.
Socialist secular democracy cannot exist unless the division of society into a hierarchy of castes is broken.
The struggle for radical democracy and socialism cannot be separated from the struggle against caste society.

The first Marxist analysis of Indian society was done by S.A. Dange, the father of the CPI.

He held that the rituals performed by the Brahmins were not initially a cultural act, rather it was a ritual to increase production in agriculture, increase soil fertility, etc.
Thus, rituals were instrumental for the gratification of the materialistic needs of the people.
Hence, respect for Brahmins was neither because of their command of scriptural knowledge nor because of their divine origin (Purushasukta).
This implies that the existence of structured inequality between Brahmins and the rest is driven by material conditions. Therefore, Dange considers Brahmins as a class and not as a caste. From Vedic to contemporary times, Indian society has passed through various forms of class divisions. In contemporary India, he felt that workers and labourers should come together to initiate the revolutions of the proletariat.

D.D. Kosambi was a historian. He collected data from historical texts and applied contemporary context to these sources.

In Rigveda, there is a mention of dasyus or slaves.
These slaves were not born as slaves and were most likely a different ethnic group living in the subcontinent.
Due to the loss of sovereignty to the Aryans, they were pushed out of the Varna system and forced to take up menial occupations.
Vedic society was not egalitarian but exploitative, hierarchy-based, and had a class character. Therefore, the history of Indian society is a history of class formation, consolidation, and struggle for liberation from class-based inequality. (Adi-Dravida/dharma/Hindu movements based on this idea)DALITS in Punjab call themselves Dravidians in the North. Raavan Sena and names like Danav and Lankesh!

R.K. Mukherjee indicated that:

Hindu cultural values were created by the Brahmins and transmitted by them as teachers and preachers.
It was forced into the subconscious of the masses, who now conform to the Hindu values not because they need them but rather because without them the existence of society will be at stake.
The unity of Indian society is a product of brahminical class consciousness that gave Kshatriyas the right to rule, Vaishyas the right to make wealth, and Shudras to gratify others. Structural inequality in India is a product of coercive values created and transmitted by Brahmins who wanted to institutionalise and consolidate their domination throughout the history of Indian society.

A.R. DESAI

Desai considers that the Marxist approach offers an alternative to the Indological approach to understanding Indian society. He says that Marxist understanding of India is an attempt to develop a Historical Materialist interpretation of the history of India.
He says that Indian history (Marxist perspective) can be divided into three stages:

Pre-colonial.
Colonial.
Post-colonial.

Pre-colonial Mode of production – It is defined by Marx as the Asiatic mode of production.

It is characterised by:

Communal ownership of property,
Presence of political inequality,
Absence of markets,
Subsistence production, and
Mutual exchange of service and skills (jajmani relations).

Hence, the concept of equality was notably absent in the Asiatic Mode of Production (MoP). Over centuries, a succession of Indian rulers and conquerors came and went, leaving little impact on the village life in India. The only noticeable change for the villages was the identity of the tax collector. Until the Mughal era, there were no direct efforts to alter this established structure. The Indian feudal system can be characterized as corporate feudalism in contrast to the manorial feudalism of Europe.

The Colonial Mode of Production (MoP) began with the arrival of European traders in India. Initially, they imported goods manufactured in their home industries to be sold in the Indian market.

Desai points out that these traders enjoyed two significant advantages:

Industrial technology was used for cheaper mass production of goods,
The industry is used for the production of advanced warheads.

Initially, these traders primarily served the dominant classes, effectively replacing artisans in the towns. However, over time, their trade expanded to include the masses, affecting not only the urban artisans but also the autarky of the villages. The influx of cheap goods into the market led to the eventual collapse of traditional artisans, cottage industries, and domestic manufacturing units. This shift in the economy also resulted in an oversupply of labor in agriculture, burdening the land as a resource. Coupled with a lack of technological advancements in farming and the impact of natural disasters, agricultural production declined, leading to widespread poverty in India.

Following the British acquisition of state power through strategies such as divide and rule and subsidiary alliances, they implemented agrarian, industrial, and revenue policies aimed at maximizing their profits.

Change in economic structures (landholding patterns). The land became individually owned, sellable, mortgageable, and thus, alienable. Earlier it used to be communally owned and thus not alienable.
Change in forms of production. This system also increased the tax liability of the peasants. Thus, the failure of agriculture to raise production and increased tax liability led to pauperisation. Earlier the production had been of subsistence type with tax being paid as a % of produce during that year. Shift to fixed monetary tax irrespective of production changed the nature of agriculture from subsistence to commercial.
Change in social structures. Colonial rulers introduced intermediaries between them and the peasants in the form of the zamindars. These zamindars further appointed sub-zamindars and sub-sub-zamindars to collect revenue. Dependents on land increased while production remained the same. Zamindars were also created as a class of land owners dependent on the British for their power. Earlier the taxmen collected tax from village heads.
Change in trade structures. Further trade acts and policies of the British created a situation whereby even everyday use items such as sugar and salt were imported from Britain. The autonomy of the villages was completely broken down and traders in towns also lost out due to the import push.

According to A R Desai, the Indian freedom struggle was fueled by the proletariat’s response to the oppressive policies of the colonial government and the state. Over time, a new middle class emerged, educated in Western ideals and embracing Western occupations and values. Initially, the British favored this middle class as intermediaries between themselves and the illiterate masses, but these intermediaries eventually sought to apply Western ideals to themselves. They yearned for liberty, equality, and freedom from colonial rule to establish a nationalist government.

Desai acknowledges the role of the press and education in fostering Indian nationalism, and he highlights religious reform movements as expressions of national democratic awakening. Ultimately, nationalism found its voice in mass struggles led by the middle class, with fervent support from the marginalized and exploited masses.

In Desai’s view, India’s economic history reflects a shift from feudalism to exploitative capitalism.

In the post-colonial era, characterized by the plans of the newly independent bourgeois government, there was an initial focus on socialist development policies. These policies included land reforms, universal education, equal pay for equal work, the factories act, community development programs, and poverty alleviation measures.

Desai observed that by 1976, 80% of agricultural land was owned by just 10% of the population. The benefits of green revolution initiatives and agricultural subsidies primarily benefited affluent farmers, leaving more than 40% of the Indian population below the poverty line. Desai concluded that in independent India, capitalist development was gaining momentum at the expense of socialist development. He starkly noted that external colonialism had been replaced by internal colonialism.

Recent farm laws that facilitate increased capitalist involvement in agriculture underscore the relevance of Marxist theory in comprehending evolving modes of production in India.

Critique

Desai and Marxism offered a new perspective on Indian sociology, so far dominated by structural functionalism.
Andre Beteille says that Marxists are too committed to economic determinism and are so unable to realise that reality is vast, unorganised, dichotomous, and chaotic.
SC Dube: Marxists drag facts to fit a theory rather than make a theory to explain facts.
TK Oommen says that Indian sociology has been plagued by deterministic approaches (cultural determinism of Indology and economic determinism of Marxism) and needs to be liberated from this bondage.
Despite the regular critiques of Marxist sociology, it remains a dynamic paradigm to understand the various dialectical relationships present in Indian society to explain the change.

Read Also: Social Change