Indian Sociology: Theories, Domains and Emerging Concerns 9819951372, 9789819951376

Citation preview

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 Formerly Department of Sociology M. D. University Rohtak, India

Kameshwar Choudhary Formerly Department of Sociology Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University 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 theoretical 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 professional 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 Universities, 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 Lucknow, India

B. K. Nagla Kameshwar Choudhary

About This Book

This book is brought out as a humble tribute in memory of an eminent Indian sociologist (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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. K. Nagla and Kameshwar Choudhary

1

Part I Theoretical Orientations 2

Indology and Sociology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pradip Kumar Bose

27

3

The Civilizational Approach: Contributions of Surajit Sinha . . . . . . Biswajit Ghosh

41

4

A. K. Saran on Modernity, Indian Tradition and Sociology in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ajit Kumar Pandey

59

Sociology and Public Life: Professor Yogendra Singh and His Contribution to Liberal Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dipankar Gupta

73

Re-visiting Islamization as a Contribution to Indian Sociology and Yogendra Singh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. M. Ziyauddin

83

Exploring B. R. Ambedkar’s Sociology: A Biographical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swapan Kumar Bhattacharyya

99

5

6

7

Part II 8

Thematic Domains

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

xiii

xiv

9

Contents

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 international 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 Swachhata Samman’ with Gold Medal for authoring an outstanding book, Sociology of Sanitation. He is awarded Lifetime Achievement Award by Rajasthan Sociological 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 Sociology 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, Government 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 Commission, Government of India. He was honored with Prof. L. P. Vidyarthi Memorial Award 2017 by the Indian Social Science Association (Email: [email protected]).

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 Societies, 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 Identities (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 Samajbidyacharcha (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 University 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 documents 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 University, 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 Empowerment 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 coedited 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 Exclusion: 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 politics, 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: Sociological Narratives of Dalits’. He is Convener (RC-26: Minority Studies) of the Indian Sociological Society. (Email: [email protected]) Swapan Kumar Bhattacharyya is former Professor of Sociology, Calcutta University 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 Philosophy 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 universities—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: [email protected]) 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 Stratification in India: Weberian Legacy”, in Edith Hanke and Sam Whimster (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Max Weber (New York: Oxford University Press). His forthcoming book is Class, Caste, and the Making of Colonial and Contemporary India (Lieden: Brill). (Email: [email protected])

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, Institute 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 reproduction. 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. Schicktanz, Cross-cultural Comparisons on Surrogacy and Egg Donation: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from India, Germany and Israel (2018) (Palgrave Publishers). Her articles 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: [email protected]) 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: [email protected]). 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 development, social aspects of science, Gandhian theory, representations of health and illness, and sociology of HIV/AIDS. (Email: [email protected]) 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: [email protected]) Nilika Mehrotra is Professor of Social Anthropology at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. For the past three decades, she has been researching and supervising 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 (201314). She is also editor of Indian Anthropologist, journal of Indian Anthropological Association. (Email: [email protected]) 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: [email protected]) 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: [email protected]) 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 Association). 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 Globalization: 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: Perspectives from the Gulf (Dubai and Abu Dhabi: Zayed University Press, 2010). (Email: [email protected]) 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: [email protected])

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 scientific investigation. Later, a French social thinker and philosopher Auguste Comte (1798–1857), who is considered the founding father of sociology, made rich contribution 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 Sociologique 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 nineteenth 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: [email protected] K. Choudhary Department of Sociology, B.B. Ambedkar (Central) University, Lucknow, India e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_1

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 administration 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 ethnographic 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 twentieth 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 Indological 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 sociology, 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 conditions 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 tradition 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 questioning 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 communitarianwholistic principles of Indian social organization. Some indicated ideological biases in most Western sociologists’ emphasis on discreteness and isolation in the analysis 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 community, community development projects, processes of institutionalization, voting behaviour, leadership, etc. This was done mostly from the structural–functional viewpoint. 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 Independence 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 connection, 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 understanding 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, Chandigarh, 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 explorations 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 analysis, 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 traditions 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 tradition. This was reflected in increasing studies in the areas of social mobilization and movements, restructuration of social statuses, roles and institutions due to modernization and development in Indian society. Studies on movements brought in use of new perspectives and methods like sociological historiography, theory of collective 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 liberalization, 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 sociological 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 indological studies and holistic-monographic studies almost disappearing. Even multidimensional 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, empowerment, 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 theoretical 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) Protoprofessional 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 postindependence 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 Independence 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) philosophicsociological 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 (culturological), (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 dominant. 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 development of Indian sociology into three phases. According to her, the first phase of development is characterized by interrogations of the colonial impact on the discipline 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. Anthropology 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 sociology 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 differentiate 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 modernized. 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 exogenous perspectives and vociferously advocated a distinct Indian sociology having indigenous approach to analyse and explain Indian society. Another set of sociologists 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 application 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 Independence, 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 applicability of these concepts is largely confined to the Indian context, rather than being applicable across societies like the general concept of acculturation. In his celebrated work titled Modernization of Indian Tradition, Singh (1973) made an important 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 interdisciplinary 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 overcome 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 indigenous 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 sociology. There is a general fragmentation in contemporary sociology as a discipline. Dilemmas and tensions faced by Indian sociology are also present in other sociologies. 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 contexualize 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 advocacy 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 descriptive, 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 privatesector-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 sociology needs, both institutionally and at individual levels, to connect and collaborate with sociologies in other countries, especially with the developing and underdeveloped countries who have similar historical experiences, to broaden and deepen its epistemological horizons based on ancient civilizational depth and modern experiences, 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 selfidentity 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 discussion 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 sociology 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 specifically 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 dehistoricize 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 categories 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 voluntary 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) practiced 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 challenged the very elemental trait of dignified human existence, i.e. fraternity. Fraternity 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 critically 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 dominance 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 landownership, 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 macrocosm 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 understand tribal communities to administer them. The second phase is marked by national movement where Indian scholars debated whether tribals should be isolated, assimilated 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 somewhat 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 theoretical 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 Sociological 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 publications. 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 historically 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 interpreting 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_2

27

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 theoretical 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 statement, 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 sociology 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 understanding, where the Indian society is conceived not in terms of systems of relationship 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 acceptance, 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 conception 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 abstractions 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 perspective (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 recognised 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 theoretically 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 methodological 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 illustrated 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. Historicising 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 traditional social formations and sects such as the sadhus and sampradayas (Ghurye, 1951, 1953, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1963, 1968). However, Ghurye remained an empiricist 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 Indological 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 sociology 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, spirituality, 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 colonialism. 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 important 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 higherlevel 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 integration 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 acculturation 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 nationalist, 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 orientalism’ seems to have become the most problematic issue in postcolonial scholarship in India. The orientalist sociological categories still have such power that it is exceedingly 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 influence, of the traditional higher, sanskritic, civilisation demonstrates without questioning the unity of India. More generally it is possible to say that following Independence, 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 nationalism 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 tradition, 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 circumstances 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 anthropological 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 constitution 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.), Localizing 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.), Anthropology 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 ‘integration’. 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_3

41

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 Civilizational 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 community, 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 organization 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 continuity 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 crosscontacts 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 conditions leading to the growth of cultural pluralism within the broad Hindu social structure. 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, notwithstanding 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 triangulation 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 notwithstanding certain uniformities, Bose and Sinha developed their approach from divergent and contrasting points of view. While Bose followed a slightly different ‘tribeHindu 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 organizes the Hindu society. Additionally, he showed us the reasons ensuring continuity of Indian culture for centuries. Finally, Bose recognised the forces which weakened 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 production 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 beefeating 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 organization ‘Brahminical’, which had a superior technological base, more complex organization 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 Brahminical civilization attracted Bose, unlike Ghurye. He did not believe that Brahminical civilization influenced tribes because of its superior political power or religious 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 maintaining 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 religions 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 existence 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 Bhuinphut 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 production, 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 recognition 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 identity 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 inconsistencies. 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 contradiction. 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 interested 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 orthogenetic 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). Consequently, Milton Singer and McKim Marriott became his good friends. This association 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 tradition. 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 StructuralFunctionalists 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 uncritically 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 interaction between tribe and caste. These claims have given rise to numerous theoretical frameworks to explain how tribes are transmuted into castes. To explain such transformation, 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-castepeasant 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 socalled 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 functional lineages, classify kinship terminology strictly, give importance to age and genealogy in the kinship system, consider village as a territorial unit and prefer democratic 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 characteristics 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 transitional 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, therefore, 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 ‘tribecaste 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 position 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 participation 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 represent 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 enlargement 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 ‘tribecaste 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 castepeasant 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’ association 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 themselves 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 political 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 acknowledge 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 understand 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 civilization 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 religious 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 protection 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 recognised 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, particularly 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 Publication. 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 tradition, 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 questions 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_4

59

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 altogether),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 (especially 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 domination—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 socalled 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 methodological 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 orthogenetic 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 discussion. 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, symbolized 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 postIndependence 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 propositions 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 repudiated 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 necessarily producing) a Westernized Indian society. In Indian sociology, this ideology prospered by accepting the Weberian framework. Weber has provided to Indian sociologists a typical Hindu framework for viewing and explaining social change in terms of inner thought processes, rather than institutional reform. In this framework, structural 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 sociologists (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 establish 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 religions 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 condescending 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 pseudonationalist model of self-understanding and social change. Yet his attempt does not go far enough to produce a viable explanation of Hindu tradition, either sociologically 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 established, Hindu tradition would have to be juxtaposed with other traditional systems to demonstrate how change is neither substantively linear (e.g., from fusion to separation 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. Bottomore 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 international context of sociological circles—couldn’t but relinquish his former patronizing 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 responsibility in forwarding the ideals of liberalism which can only be done by examining 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 comparative 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_5

73

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 politician. 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 sociologists 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 GDPway 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 anthropological 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 ascertainable. 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 differentiated. 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 dogmatically 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 democracy privileges fraternity, sociology tells us of the many obstacles in its way. Democracy 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. Sociology 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 backgrounds 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_6

83

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 Engineer (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 extraordinary 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 political 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 deEuropeanizing 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 disciplines 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, attitude 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 alFaruqi (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 alQur’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 accommodative 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 elsewhere. 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 understanding 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 heterogeneity 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 traditions. 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 impossible 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 population 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 encompass 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 presentday 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 disturbances 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 empirical 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 traditional. 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 adaptations, 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 postcolonial 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 traditional 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 scientific 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 acceptable 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 sociological 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_7

99

100

S. K. Bhattacharyya

substantial difference from the notable figures in the mainstream of social and political 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 ‘criticizing 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 distinguished 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, homogenisation, 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 greatness. 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, variously 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 intellectual 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 sociological [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 knowledge claims’ (2003:417). Indeed, reflexivity destabilizes the authority of a singular perspective (in Ambedkar’s instance, the savarna perspective); it looks to the structural 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 sociology. 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 sociology. 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 accentuation 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 overwhelming 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 ‘sanitized’ 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 notwithstanding 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 thousands 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 vociferous 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 conspicuously 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 development of the idea and value underlying the concept of social exclusion from the Aristotelian thought through Adam Smith’s notion of relational features of ‘capability deprivation’ of the socio-economically marginalized to deliberations by the recent western writers expanding the meaning of the term. The European provenance 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 socioreligious 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 authenticity, 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 difficulty 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 physically 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 cosmological 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 discrimination 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 multilayered 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 Supersession 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 reverberating 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 (devotion) to the Lord in repudiation of Brahminical rites and rituals and caste (-andcommunity) 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 (Bandyopadhay, 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 untouchability. 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 Kabirpanth and was an admirer of Jotirao Phule. The household was filled with the resonance of devotional singing and recitation of prayers from holy texts. Ambedkar’s mother, Bhimabai, too came of a Kabirpanthi family which boasted of several generations 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 ‘touchables’ 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 continuance 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 sociopolitical order of India and articulation of the problems and suffering of the untouchable and also their demands for corrective measures. Indeed, all the journals initiated, 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 untouchables for their struggle against the ‘touchables’ of the Indian society to establish an egalitarian order endowed with fraternity, he shared his knowledge of anthropology/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 sociological 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 maintain 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 problems 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-today 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 independent 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 Satyagraha, 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 Satyagraha. They focused successively on the responsibility of the savarna Hindus, of the British Government, and of the Untouchables. In the first piece of the aforementioned, 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 ridiculous!’ (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 untouchables 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 portfolio 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 investigation. 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 ‘Untouchable’ 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 900soldier-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 interconnections of religion or ethnic component (cf. Parkin 2002, Chap. 4), society, power system, and the economic structure where status-power rooted in collective castepsyche 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 posthumously. 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 Publications.

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, foundation 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) independent 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_8

127

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 introduction 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 relatively 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 judicial 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 intermediary 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-toproblem 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 Table 8.1 Number of families and persons by caste in village Mahuari towards the end of the 1960s

H. Singh

Caste

Number of families

Total strength

Ahir

54

400

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 transcend 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 traditionally, 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 dominance 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 nonRajput 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 sociology, following Weber and Dalit studies following Ambedkar separate economic, political, and cultural, making caste as cultural, albeit religious. That is a mystification 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: [email protected] Presently at Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi, India © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_9

139

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 semiarid 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). Enormously 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 agriculture 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 destruction 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 financial 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 excessively 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 production 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’ perspective. 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 hidebound, 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 BadenPowell (1899) through his focus on jajmani relations. Wiser (1936) later conceptualized 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 magnitude 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 conditions 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, castefunctions 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 preBritish 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 traditional, 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 faceto-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 compatibility 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 celebration 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 sponsors 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 employment 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 generations 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 benefitted 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 untouchables 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. Urbanward 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 relationships 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 epistemological 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 influence 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, assimilated, 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_10

153

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. Empirical 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 administrators, 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 enlightenment 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 enlightenment 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 considered 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 foundation of the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1774. The British administrators, missionaries, 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 institutions 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 Movement, 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 mainstream” (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 constructive 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. FurerHaimendorf’s (1943) works on the tribes of Hyderabad provided refined models for research workers in India (Vidyarthi, 1972: 39). In Indian universities, various departments 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 anthropologists 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 education 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 universities 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 development 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 development 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 tribeHindu 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 modernization 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 mainstream 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 certification 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 socioeconomic 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 development 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 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. Since the beginning of the planned era, the Indian state has promoted the 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. 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 available 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_11

169

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 academicians 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 Christianity—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 coordination 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 demographic transition theory (Davis, 1949; Kirk, 1996; United Nations, 1973; Weeks, 1996). It claimed that population transition occurs in certain stages. In the pretransitional 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 development 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 population, 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 demographic 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 developed 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, citysize 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 northIndian 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 Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has summarized population dynamics of India for college students. It is a good document on population growth and its components (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 quantitative 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, government, 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 empowerment, 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 demographers 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 sociological/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 planning 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 population (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 interesting 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 Problems 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 Commission 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 estimates. 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 information 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 developed 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 sociologists, 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 exploration 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 malnutrition–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 institutional 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 University 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 countries 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 sociology of population had adopted a positivistic methodology. The demographic analysis was based largely on census data, large-scale sample surveys, Sample Registration Survey (Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2020), and routine administrative 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 definitions 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 sociology of population, using qualitative or phenomenological methodology. There is a need to explore laypersons’ perspectives on marriage, reproduction, health, migration, mental health, emancipation, empowerment, and stigma. There is also a need to explore determinants of geriatric care, commodification of care, new modes of delivering 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 sociologists 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-groupname/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 discrimination? 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 (NFHS4). 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 sociocultural 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%20179-2019/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 demography 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, 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 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: [email protected] 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 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_12

187

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 hierarchies 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 sociocultural 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 inequalities, 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 hierarchies 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 impairment 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 movement 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 distinguished 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 subcontinent 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 cosmological 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 understandings 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, attitudes are ambivalent. The situation is even more difficult for women and other minorities 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 significant 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 disabilities, 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 disabilities. 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 nonefficient 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 stigmatized 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 comparison 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 important 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. Additionally, 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 everinteracting 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 intersectional 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: [email protected] 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 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_13

203

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 methodologies, 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 contributions 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 technologically, producing and exporting intellectual capital and labour, expanding international 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 demographically) are taking keener interest in the environment, building democracy, challenging 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 movement 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; normative 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 consequence 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 sociology vis-à-vis the International Sociological Association, other international and regional fora, and through bilateral interactions with sociological bodies and international 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. Sociology 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 sociological 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. Sociologists 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 privileges. 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 questions 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 literature 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 empiricism, 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 observable aspects of the world, but that science does not aim at truth about unobservable aspects. Acceptance of a theory, according to constructive empiricism, correspondingly 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 constitutional 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 intellectual 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 sociologies 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 sociological 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 sociology 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 interdisciplinary focus at its origins with Mukerjee leading the charge to focus on the under-privileged at Mumbai University, and Majumdar seeking to establish an interventionist 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 anthropologist 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 mobility

19. Age and social structure

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 interfacing 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 sociological 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’ consolidating 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 sociability’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 globally, 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 experiences 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 orientation, 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 exBantustan 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 official 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, community 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 possibilities 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 structuralexistential. 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 distribution 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 population, 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 hierarchies 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 incidence 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 products…(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 historical 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 relationship 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 sociological 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 opportunities 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 understanding of the world. As representatives of sociology in two of the lesswealthy 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 location, 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 sociology 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 politicoeconomic 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 possibility 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 incorporating 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_14

221

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 transformation. 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 presupposition 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). “Americanization 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 subcategories: 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 globalized 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 representing different periods. In the words of Morris Ginsberg (Ginsberg, 1963[1934]: 7). “In the broadest sense, sociology is the study of human interactions and interrelations, their conditions and consequences.” According to Anthony Giddens, “Sociology 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 sociology 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 flowered 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 transformation. 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 philosopher, 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. Parenthetically, 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 handmaiden of colonialism and thus was more acceptable and useful. As far as anthropology 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, sociology 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, sociology 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 represents 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 sociology 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 universities 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 Sociologique 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 American 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 translated 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 Protestant 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 nationstate-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 empirical 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 universities 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 Sociological Association was set up which replaced the Japanese Sociological Academy (Yamagishi & Brinton, 1980: 193). Japanese sociology remained quite faithful to the mainstream European sociological 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 sociologists 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 sociology 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 Germaneducated sociologist published the textbook Modern Sociology in 1930. Chi Jin Hua, a US-trained sociologist wrote Introduction to Sociology, and Taek Kang, a Frenchtrained 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 University 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 sociologist 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 breakdown 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. EvansPritchard, 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 influence 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 sociology, 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 telecommunication 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 government 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 literature 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 International 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. Globalization 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 boundaries 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 illustration 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 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. 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. 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;

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 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. 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 macrosociological 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 understanding 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 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. 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. 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. 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, citizenship….) 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 framework. 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 possibility 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 (nationstate) 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 relativism. 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 societies. 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 contextspecific 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 philosophical 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 postcolonial 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 sociology: 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: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 B. K. Nagla and K. Choudhary (eds.), Indian Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5138-3_15

245

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 theories 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 divergence; 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 territorial 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 epistemologies of certainty, positivist science, and dualism between subject and object (Giri, 2006). Epistemology in modernity is also based upon the exclusion of the ontological. 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 epistemologies 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 epistemology. 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 colearning 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 dimension 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 emergence 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 transforming 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 practices 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, spiritual, 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 waymaking 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 understand 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 consciousness 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 collaborate 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 untouchability 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, tradition, and culture and another foot in another book, text, tradition, and culture. In multitopial hermeneutics we put our two feet and many symbolic, intellectual, and aspirational 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 particular 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 singlelocale 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 sociological 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 fieldwork 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 philosophy (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 renunciation 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 understanding 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 ontodecolonial critique and transform global studies.

256

A. K. Giri

Here connecting to our earlier discussion about Global South and the need to overcome 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 realizations. 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 responsibility 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 planetary 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 enunciatory 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 sociologies 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, longstanding, 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 consciousness. 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 conversations 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 engagement. Cosmopolitanism refers to being citizens of the world. But it refers to mainly the Western tradition of thinking about the world and cosmopolitanism where citizenship 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, simultaneously 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 methodological 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 simultaneously epistemic and ontological. We need to cultivate cosmopolitanism as an ontological 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 understanding, 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 understanding 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.

2. 3.

4.

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. Sociologist and historian Satish Saberwal also urges us to understand the American dominance of social sciences in the post-war era. 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). 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 5.

6.

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

A. K. Giri In the context of their studies of tribal communities and tribal movements carrying epistemologies 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). 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 analytical 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 ontologically 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). In his book Epistemologies of the South, de Sousa Santos (2014) speaks about emergence. 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. 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 interdependence, 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). 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. 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). 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). 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). 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 …

15.

16.

17.

18.

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). 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. 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. 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). 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 epistemology 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 flourishing: 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 decolonization. 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.