Indology (G. S. Ghurye)

Indology

Indology is known as science of Indian society.

Indology is a perspective which believes that the ancient text and mythologies present the real account or picture of Indian society. More ancient the text more original the account.

There are broadly two types of Indological approach;

1. Indology or Indic studies - westerner’s labour of love for the Indian wisdom. offer a sympathetic and positive account of the Indian society and culture. Against this orientalist approach, a National School of Indology developed, popularly known as Bombay School led by G.S. Ghurye, B.D. Sankar, Irawati Karve etc.

2. Oriental studies or Orientalism - emerged as the ideological need of the British Empire. Presents a rather unsympathetic and negative account of the Indian society and culture. Orientalist writing about India were Max Mueller, James Mill and William Archer, Max Weber, Karl Marx.

Methodological approach of G. S. Ghurye (Indological)

Relied on both the empirical and textual methods for studying Indian Society.

G.S. Ghurye in his book ‘Caste and Races in India’ and Indian Sadhus’ explained that Indian society is a humanitarian and egalitarian society and based on mutual consensus; which was always maligned when foreigners settled down in India. In Ramayana, Ram ate half eaten fruit of Shabri and Hanuman used to always sit around Ram hence there was no untouchability and caste segregation.

• Western indologist Verger Elwin – tribes were always isolated.

• Ghurye – tribes are backward Hinuds. Vanar Sena helped Ram and Nishad helped Ram in crossing river, which shows that they were always part of Indian society

• Western Indologists - Indian sadhus as orthodox, suspicious and reason of all evils.

• Ghurye - Rishi Dadhichi sacrificed his backbone to make the bow to kill demons. Sadhus have always backed out Indian society in the period of crisis.

• Western Indologists - status of women lower due to patriarchy. In Manusmriti, women are compared with animals, more they are beaten it is better.

• Ghurye – in Rigveda women have participated in public domain. Maitreyi, Ghosha, Apala are some of the main women intellectuals.

Criticism

1. M.N. Srinivas - ‘text view’.

2. Yogendra Singh - based on non-observable and non-empirical evidences.

3. Sociology seeks objectivity which lacks in Indology.

4. A.R. Desai - ancient texts are literature that represents Brahminical view. Studying India from the lens of culture provides us no space to understand the real India that lives within inequality, diversity, dialectic and exploitation.

Structural Functionalism (M. N. Srinivas)

Structural functionalism

Functional approach to the study of society views society in terms of its constituent parts and their relationship with each other in order to maintain the society as a whole.

Radcliffe-Brown defines function of any social institution in terms of the contribution it makes to the maintenance of the whole society.

The structural- functionalists view that the Indian society is made up of castes as significant parts that collectively constitute the social system.

Methodological approach of M. N. Srinivas (Structural functionalism)

Srinivas was interested to study the Indian society from direct observation and his field experiences. He highlighted the structural functional aspects and the dynamics of caste system.

M.N. Srinivas studied ‘Rampura village’ of Mysore and in his book ‘Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India’ (1952) presented Structural Functionalist view:

1. 19 Hindu castes and Muslims

2. Traditional occupation

3. Clear cut hierarchy

4. Rules of endogamy

5. 2 classes – landlords (upper caste) and peasants (lower caste)

6. Mutual interdependence – Jajmani system

7. Sanskritization was seen.

In this was why M. N. Srinivas tried to explain how different institutions practice and units of the society contribute in the maintenance of social structure of Rampura.

Criticism

1. M.N. Srinivas presented ideal rosy picture of society and totally ignored crime and deviance in society. He also ignored the suppression of lower castes by upper caste.

2. Ignored conflict aspect.

3. M.N. Srinivas view is also called as Brahminical view in which he tried to portray upper caste as judicious and responsible for law and order in villages. But Oscar Lewis, Louis Dumont, etc. believes that upper caste exploits lower caste.

4. A.R. Desai said, M.N. Srinivas tried to justify everything in Indian society, may it be superstition, evil practices, etc.

Marxist Sociology (A. R. Desai)

Marxist approach

Marxist perspective of society is based on two basic dimensions:

1. Economic interpretation of society i.e. economic determinism

2. Conflict between two classes

Methodological approach of A. R. Desai (Marxist sociology)

A. R. Desai is known as the secular interpreter of Indian society.

Desai in his book ‘Social Background of Indian Nationalism’ identified the economic reason of emergence of Indian nationalism.

Before British rule, Indian agriculture was a community affair.

During British rule, capitalist economy was introduced in Indian society in the form of Ryotwari, Zamindari, Mahalwari, industrialization, urbanization.

2 economic classes emerged;

1. Exploiters – British industrialists, officials and their Indian allies like Zamindars etc.

2. Exploited –Ryots, landless labourers, industrial workers, etc.

In his another book ‘Peasant Struggle in India’, he tried to understand the reason of peasant movement during colonial rule.

During British rule, two economic classes emerged out of British economic policies.

1. Beneficiaries – Industrialists, landlords and other allies.

2. Losers – Ryots, cottage industrialists, artisans, etc.

Losers formed a class (class-for-itself) against the benefiters, which ultimately overthrew the British regime which was nothing more than abolition of capitalism.

In other book “Indian Path of Development’ he explained that even after the independence, state remained in favour of the capitalists. He gave following examples in the favour of his logic:

• Why not all the property of the industrialists was confiscated or nationalized just after the freedom?

• Zamindari was abolished in 1951 whereas independence was achieved in 1947.

• Why the gap of four years?

• Why India opted for, mixed economy?

• Why right to property was made a fundamental right initially?

Criticism

1. Except A.R. Desai, economic determinism perspective was not used by any other prominent sociologists because they believed that Indian society was never guided by the economic forces. The factors like caste and religion were the core of Indian society.

2. Yogendra singh – A. R. Desai’s perspective was not properly backed up by proper facts.

3. M.N. Sirnivas - Indian society was always governed by tradition, caste and religion rather than economy. Always Vaishya Varna had control over economy but not religion and caste system.