Contextualization of Indian Sociology

Within the context of history, colonialism, and its impact on the intellectual and cultural
traditions in India, of which sociology and other social sciences are at a certain level of
manifestations, provides an important historical backdrop for its theoretic, ideological and
professional evaluation.

Major theoretic orientations in Indian society have shown varying degrees of ups and
downs during the last century. The analysis is not possible without a framework of
sociology of knowledge within the context of history

Radhakamal Mukerjee, B.N. Seal and B.K. Sarkar continuously refuted the efforts of
western ideologists. Seal thought that institutions could only be compared when they were
historically co-existed and parallel. To Mukherjee, Indian social institutions are unique.

Therefore, the study of any society should be done in the particular context of that society.
Ideology, theory and method are related to the context. Without the context, there is no
relevance of any ideology, theory and method. Keeping this in view, we would discuss the
work of sociologists in Indian context.
The Indian sociology, as an emergent distinctive discipline during colonial and post-colonial
phases, has been significantly influenced and patterned on western paradigm. Almost all
sociologists in India have taken up studies on the theoretical paradigm of Durkheim,
Weber, Marx and Parsons.

Besides the western paradigms, according to Singh (1993), Indian sociologists

have adopted four theoretical orientations:
(i) Philosophical

(ii) Culturological

(iii) Structural

(iv) Dialectical-historical

Before the discussion of these theoretical orientations, we would like to refer an important
essay on ideology, theory and method in Indian sociology by Yogendra Singh (1993) which
covers a period of about a quarter century from 1952 to 1977:

(i) 1952 to 1960 – a period of adaptive changes and innovations;

(ii) 1960 to 1965 – a period of significant shifts in theoretic priorities and beginning of
some critical tensions in theory and ideology of Indian sociology;

(iii) 1965 to 1970 – a period of marked sociological self-awareness and growth of new
directions in theoretical and substantive contributions; and

(iv) 1970 to 1977 – a period of new maturity and new horizons of knowledge.

These four periods correspond with four theoretical developments in Indian sociology as
mentioned above.

(i) The philosophical orientation in Indian sociology is associated with the contributions of
Radhakamal Mukerjee, D.P. Mukerji and A.K. Saran. This orientation has not made a
significant impact on the theoretical nature of the Indian sociology. According to Singh
(1983) it is interesting to note that despite the profoundness of scholarship of these
scholars, the impact is minimal.

The impact of western sociology was becoming more and more enveloping and empirical
bases of societal understanding looked simpler than the rigour of philosophy and pain of
meaningfully digging the past; that to swim with the current stream was easy sociological
course, than the cognitive grasp of complex historical past.

(ii) The culturological orientation begins with the work of Srinivas, Religion and Society
among the Coorgs of South India. Brahminization, Sanskritization and Westernization were
major concepts derived from this study. Sanskritization characterized a change within the
framework of Indian tradition.

(iii) The structural orientation focuses on power structure, social stratification, family
structure, demography and similar aspects, which reveal patterns, arrangements and
repetitiveness. The empirical aspects are converted into abstracted concepts, models and
categories. The structural studies have also taken comparative framework.

(iv) The dialectical-historical orientation is primarily based on Marxist approach and

method for the analysis of social reality (Breekenridge and Veer, 1994). The dialectical
method has not been termed as Marxist as adaptations have been made keeping in view the
Indian social reality. It is, however, a less developed branch of Indian sociology.
D.P. Mukerji and Ramkrishna Mukherjee emphasized the significance of dialectical model
(Singh, 1983). A.R. Desai had consistently used dialectical-historical approach with
ideological fervour and commitment. He has consistently exposed contradictions in policies
and programmes of change. The dialectical-historical orientation grew rapidly in the
seventies, when micro-empirical realities were subjected to class observation along with
macro-structural social and economic processes in India (Singh, 1983).

Singh’s typology of four major theoretic orientations is significant and logically coherent.
According to Singhi (1993), these theoretical orientations basically have implicit or explicit
ideological connotation. The implications can be discerned at the level of analysis, which as
a critique rejects the way social reality is managed or justifies the formation of social
reality as it has come to be manipulated and constructed.

At other level, they imply need for alternatives, modifications and corrections. Knowledge-
neutrality is contradictions in terms. Evaluation and analysis of social reality reveals
systematic formulation of scattered, diverse and immediate impressions which are
mediated through common man’s impressionistic perceptions and views. At the third level,
dominance of theoretical orientations generated institutionally tends to lead to negation
and blinding of our own intellectual traditions.

In his book on Sociology of Indian Sociology, Ramkrishna Mukherjee (1979) describes the
trends in Indian sociology. He itemized the narratives, which are presented in Tables 1-4
with particular reference to the Indian sociologists who played the pioneering role. The
contributions of some of the pioneers of Indian sociology focus mainly on the ‘why’ and
‘what will it be’ questions, these constituted their main interests in the dynamics of Indian
society.

When considered in greater detail, their value preferences, theoretical formulations and
research orientations vary considerably. However, so little attention has been paid to the
pioneers and their works that a precise account of these variations would be impossible at
present.

Also, research into this phase of Indian sociology may elicit more names and enables these
variations to be understood more comprehensively. Nevertheless, even the superficial
analysis of the similarities and differences among the pioneers brings out certain trends
which characterize the first phase of Indian sociology and provides the base from which the
next phase can be examined.

The Indian society cannot develop under colonial conditions was implied or stated explicitly
by the pioneers. At the same time, they regarded the independence of India as merely a
stage in the development of the society: it was not the ultimate goal. This goal was also
defined differently by the pioneers, as will be noticed from the rough outline of their value
preferences given in the Table 1 below:
Table 1 shows that within the framework of man and society, the goals set by the pioneers
ranged from an idealized version of oriental culture to the materialistic view of social
development as propounded by Marx. Also, between these two polar-opposite goal sets,
there are those emphasizing the culture-specific or value-specific development of man or
the establishment of a society free from exploitation but coming about through cooperation
and harmony among the social segments of the resolution of contradictions and conflicts
among them.

Table 2 shows that the theoretical formulations of the pioneers were not unsystematic and
abstract generalization about man and society. Also, they did not merely express those
characteristics of a social phenomenon, which were spontaneously observed by them – a
point in which, like in their value preference, they differed from the modernizers who
supplemented them in the social arena.

On the contrary, their multi-dimensional comprehension of social reality from historical,

contemporary and futuristic perspective meant that their widely divergent theoretical
formulations had considerable inductive power to explain the changing reality by
accentuating different aspects of social dynamism. The pioneers considered different
aspects of the Indian (or the world) society to reveal its substantive reality.

Empirical research was strongly advocated by the pioneers, except perhaps by

Coomaraswamy. (refer table 3) However, irrespective of the above formulation of their
approaches, which may have to be revised or elaborated in the light of further research
into the work of the pioneers, it is evident that their interest in empirical research was not
exclusively with respect to any particular social phenomenon like caste, family, national
integration, stratification, or rural or urban society. Also, even while dealing with one
phenomenon (such as caste), they did not restrict their attention to only one specific
aspect, such as the relative positions of the castes variations in that aspect of the
phenomenon.

Thus, we find even from an imprecise account of the works of the pioneers in Indian
sociology that from different points of view they had proceeded systematically to analyse
the Indian social reality is neither an insular nor an imitative manner. Even
Coomaraswamy, who appears to have rejected western culture, had the entire Oriental
culture with its various mores and modalities in view (see Table 4).

The others too did not indulge in repetition of these theories to suit the native situation.
Indian thinkers, with one to two exceptions, have been too much dependent on the West for
their theory and have been promptly accepting the changing theoretical framework from
the West (Saran, 1958: 1023).

It is true that a lot of empirical work has been done during past few decades but it would
be difficult to suggest that sociology has gained theoretical maturity of its own in India.
New areas of research have multiplied but the theoretical rigour and depth of
interpretation seem to be lacking. The contribution of earlier generations of sociologists
continues to be regarded and recognized as rigorous and significant by serious scholars.
It reflects the following major approaches to the study of Indian society: Indological:
Ghurye and Dumont; Structural-Functional: Srinivas and Dube; Marxian: D.P. Mukerji and
A.R. Desai, Ramkrishna Mukherjee; Civilizational: N.K. Bose and Surajit Sinha; Subaltern:
Ambedkar, David Hardiman and Ranajit Guha; Cultural Approach: Yogendra Singh etc.
Most of these approaches have been discussed in the lessons of different units of the
course on the Perspectives on Indian Society.

Use of Native Categories in the Analysis of Indian Society

The categories of knowledge, their meaning, content and the methodology of their
construction bear the deep imprint of the social and historical forces of the time. We see its
evidence in the writings of the pioneers of sociology like Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile
Durkheim. We find similar social conditioning in the writings of the Indian pioneers of
sociology.

This social conditioning, however, is historically constituted. To the western pioneers of

sociology, major challenges came from the merging industrial society and its accompanying
cultural and epistemological tensions. In the Indian context, the colonial experience, the
memory of the past glory and the project for future political and cultural emancipation
constituted the major cognitive and moral concerns.

These concerns were, as sociology gained its status in India, reflected in problems of
concepts, theory and method. A close relationship can be established between the social
and historical forces working in Indian society and the evolution of the concepts and
methods of Indian sociology. In this context, Yogendra Singh (1986: 1-31) discusses the
social conditioning of Indian sociology. We have adapted Singh’s ideas in the following
pages.

During the colonial period, many British and European writings on Indian society and
culture used conceptual categories, which were Eurocentric in cognitive and value terms;
some of these also tended to distort history and imputed meanings to Indian reality in the
abstract (a historically) as it to perpetuate colonialism. Concepts such as ‘caste’ ‘tribe’,
‘village’, ‘community’, ‘family’ and ‘kinship’ were defined as segmentary entities, often
analogous to their socio-historical equivalents in European society.
The emphasis was on showing how each of these social entities affirmed the principles of
segmentation and autonomy rather than being parts of an organic whole. The element of
discreteness was overemphasized and the linkages, both social and cultural, which bound
these entities into an organic system of social structure and civilization, were neglected.

This bias, which had its roots probably in the colonial ideology of the British social
anthropologists and administrators, is obvious in their treatment of ‘caste’ and ‘tribe’ as
discrete structural and cultural formations. G.S. Ghurye drew attention to this way back in
1943 in his The Aborigines-so-called and their Future in response to Verrier Elvin’s The
Aboriginals (1943).

He attempted to demonstrate continuities and linkages between the tribal and caste
structure and tradition in Indian society. Apart from such biases, the basic social categories
of Indian society appeared to be devoid of a dynamic historical viewpoint. The colonial
ethnographers, for instance, “took a placid, even a synchronic view of the tribal society.

The conceptual framework developed by the British administrators-turned-ethnographers

and by anthropologists was inspired by the then prevailing model in anthropology. Tribal
communities were treated as isolates, tribals as Noble Savages, and the primitive condition
was described as a state of American simplicity” (Singh, 1985: 104).

Similar a historicity and segmental treatment of concepts can be seen in the colonial
administrators-turned-sociologists’ view of village communities in India. As Louis Dumont
(1957) rightly observes, Sir Henry S. Maine “hardly ever looked at the Indian village in
itself, but only as a counterpart to Teutonic, Slavonic or other institutions”. India was to
him little more than “the historical repository of veritable phenomena of ancient usage and
ancient judicial thought.” They treated the village community as an autonomous
sociological isolate. This is particularly reflected in the writings of Charles Metcalffe and
other British administrators in India. The concept of ‘community’ was formulated by them
injural administrative terms patterned after Teutonic-Slavonic experiences where the
notion of community was postulated as communal expression of individuals’ rights and
obligations and not as sangha – the Indian notion of community.

D.P. Mukerji (1958) interprets sangha as being devoid of the notion of individual. The
absence of the notion of ‘individual’ in the Indian tradition was later reiterated by Louis
Dumont in his concept of the Homo hierarchicus. The collective principle not only operated
at the normative level but also at the level of market and economy.

It demonstrated the macro-structural linkages between caste, tribe, village community and
family systems and the integrative role these institutions played in the unity of the Indian
society (see Joshi, 1970). The roots of these integrative principles go far back into the
historical past of Indian society. Irfan Habib illustrates it for Mughal India when he says:
“the village was deeply affected by the requirements of commodity production (i.e.,
production for the market) … the towns had not only to be fed by the countryside but to be
supplied also with raw materials for their manufacturers” (1963: 37).

During the 1950s and 1960s much literature generated by social anthropologists,
economists and historians did away with the myth of the autonomy of the basic components
of Indian social structure, i.e., the caste, tribe, village, family and kinship. On family and
kinship systems, while Dumont (1957) demonstrated the structural similarity between the
inter-regional kinship systems, Gough (1979) demonstrated the linkages between these
institutions and the modes of production.

The ideology in the interpretation of Indian society and its institutions by the colonial
scholars can be seen in the way they defined these institutions and in the methods they
employed to study them. Each institution was treated as an a historical isolate devoid of
linkages, and methodologically, emphasis was more on synchronic descriptions largely with
the help of informants, mostly laymen.

The contribution it made was not entirely free from conscious or unconscious partiality in
the portrayal of social reality. In this context, several orientations in the interpretation of
social reality of India emerged during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Bernard S. Cohn has analyzed three such important orientations: the ‘orientalist’,
‘missionary, and ‘administrative’. The orientalists took a textual view of India offering a
picture of its society as being static, timeless and spaceless. “In this view of the Indian
society, there was no regional variation and no questioning of the relationship between
prescriptive, normative statements derived from the texts and the actual behavior of
individuals or groups. Indian society was seen as a set of rules which every Hindu followed
(Cohn and Singer, 1968: 8).
The missionary view developed a little later. It saw all the roots of degeneration and evil in
Indian society in its religion (Hinduism), and offered avenues for its redemption in
conversion to Christianity. Unlike the orientalists, who often took a positive or even
laudatory view of the Indian tradition, the missionaries treated Indian, particularly Hindu
institutions as ‘degenerate and base’.

According to Cohn, the differences in the perspectives on India between the missionaries
and the orientalists rested on differences in their social origin. The administrative
perspective on the Indian social reality was grounded in the British utilitarian tradition (see
Stocks, 1978) which also viewed traditional institutions in Indian as impediments to
development of a rational modern society; hence, the need for social and institutional
reforms.

These perceptions of Indian social reality were conditioned by the social origin of the
scholars and by their specific ideological positions: classicism for orientalists, evangelicism
for missionaries and rational utilitarianism for administrators-turned-social scientists. In
addition, they all held a static, non-historical and fragmentationist view of Indian
institutions.

Even their economic anthropology of the village tended to circumscribe all relationships
within the confines of a village territory, as we see in William Wiser’s The Hindu Jajmani
System (1936). The general theory of the Indian village organization in the writings of Sir
Henry Maine and Charles Metcalffe was a near-transplantation of the European model of
village organization on the Indian scene, and of course, these generalizations were without
an ‘intensive ethnographic base’.

Thus, the sociology of India from roughly 1775 to 1940 to which Bernard S. Cohn refers
was conditioned by the social background, ideology and preferred methods of collection of
data by each category of sociologist or ethnographer concerned.

Yogendra Singh discusses four types of theoretical orientations related to the Indian
sociology.

They are:
(1) Philosophic – theoretic orientation;

(2) Culturological orientation;

(3) Structural theoretic orientation; and

(4) Dialectical historical theoretic orientation.

On the formalization criteria of theory none of these existed in a systematic form. Most of
them have operated at styles of analysis or have been evolved into quasi-formal systems of
conceptual schemes. We, however, observe the changes in the theoretic structure of Indian
society in terms of innovation, universalization of concepts and categories.

The first two decades of the twentieth century mark caste, social customs, folklore, land
systems and the village communities; and their comparison with similar institutions in the
West. Most important meta-theoretic contribution was engendering and also ethno-
sociological awareness about Indian sociology. It needs the quest for the universalization of
the use of native categories in the analysis of Indian society.

Singh (ibid.) discusses the following conceptual categories, which have been
broadly used by different scholars for the study of Indian society:
1. Sanskritization and westernization – M.N. Srinivas

2. Little and great traditions – McKim Marriott

3. Multi-dimensional tradition – S.C. Dube

4. Theory of structuralism – Richard Lembert, D.P. Mukerji, A.R. Desai

5. Historicity of emotions – Louis Dumont

Besides, we have come across some other major categories also, which have been
constructed or used by some other scholars.

They are, for example:

1. Modernization – Yogendra Singh

2. Dominant caste and caste hierarchy – M.N. Srinivas

3. Reference group model for the caste – Y.B. Damle

4. Universalization and parochialization – McKim Marriott

5. Concept of rural cosmopolitanism – Oscar Lewis

6. Resource group – K.N. Sharma

All the above conceptual categories are constructed or used by the two types of the
scholars: one, the Indian scholars, e.g., Srinivas’ concept of sanskritization; and second,
western scholars, who did fieldwork in India and constructed them for their analysis. Here,
we may say that though scholars are western but constructed native categories while doing
studies in India, e.g., Marriott’s category of little and great traditions. Keeping in view all
these conceptual and theoretical categories, Yogendra Singh presents an integral approach
for doing the study in Indian society.

Village Studies:
Sociologists in India have broadly concentrated their studies on the villages of India. Here,
excerpts from Atal’s (2003: 174-81) analysis of the village studies have been presented to
understand the use of native categories in the analysis of Indian society.

Village studies movement in India has gone through a series of phases. As we have noted, it
began in the pre-independence period largely as a concern of the administrator, and was
led by the practitioners of the discipline of economics; sociologists and social
anthropologists arrived on the rural scene much later, and mostly after independence.

They began their work in the style of an ethnographer, concentrating on a single village
and following a holistic approach. It may be noted that the so-called microcosmic approach
of the anthropologists, developed and practised by them in the tribal settings, treated tribe
as a unit of study, which consisted of several villages; the villages were parts of the wider
whole of the tribe.

Application of the same approach in the rural areas was, however, different; in the latter
case, the village was treated as a unit of study, a community social system, and ‘whole’ of a
sort. Thus, in a sense, anthropology in the rural setting adopted a still smaller unit for
observation and reporting than in the case of tribal studies.

It is in this context that Robert Redfield’s seminal concepts of indigenous civilization, little
community, peasant society, and great and little traditions were examined, and their
validity tested empirically. Taking clues from Redfield, and also from Srinivas’ concepts of
spread (local, regional, and all-India) and sanskritization (1952), McKim Marriott (1955)
came up with two complementary concepts explicating the twin processes of
universalization and parochialization.

Oscar Lewis (1958) added to this inventory the concept of rural cosmopolitanism. A critical
examination of these concepts led by S.C. Dube (1955) to propose a five-fold classification
of Indian tradition; he tentatively listed them as classical, regional, local, western, and
emergent national.

While researchers continued their village studies in the model of ethnography, these
concepts offered them with useful talking points. In the process, the style of description
changed, analytical categories began to be used and methodological innovations were
made.

Debate on concepts and methodology led to the diversification of village studies. Questions
of representatives promoted interest in comparative studies: more than one village, in the
same or in a different culture area, was chosen for purposes of comparison.

Rather than studying all aspects of life in a village, attention was focused on specific
aspects such as caste, family, group dynamics and factionalism, economic life and jajmani
system, village pantheon and the like. Efforts have also been made to study the same
institutions in a number of villages.

Introduction of the comparative approach necessitated proper and usable definition of the
key concepts, viz., village, caste, and joint family. Of these three concepts, very little has
been written on the concept of village; the definition given by the census has generally
been accepted. There are instances where administrative definition was found
unacceptable.

Two illustrations will suffice:

(1) In Rajasthan, one of the places was, on popular demand, classified as town but later,
upon the introduction of Panchayati Raj, political leadership of the community managed to
reclaim its village status; and

(2) The satellite villages, called Nagla in Uttar Pradesh, are generally included in part of
the core village though they possess, in many cases, all the sociological attributes of
separate village community. Based on these considerations, the present author ignored the
revenue definition and treated a Nagla as a village in his study in Local Communities and
National Politics (1971).
Attempts have also been made to classify the villages. Thus, some have taken the degree of
nucleation as the key classificatory variable and talked about nucleated and dispersed
villages. The concept of nucleated village includes the core village and the surrounding
satellites. Similarly, coastal villages have been identified as a separate type. Studies have
also been made of the fringe villages.

In terms of social demography, classification based on the size of settlement, and the
number of ethnic groups (single caste versus multi-caste villages) is also in vogue. In terms
of economic pursuit, while there is recognition of the presence of fishing and pastoral
villages, studies have mostly concentrated on agricultural villages.

A unique village from the Kullu valley has also been reported, which has managed to keep
itself from more or less completely insulated from the rest of the village of the region by
physically shutting its doors off to the outside world, but speaking its own language, and by
practicing its own culture (Rosser, 1955).

The most talked about concept in Indian rural sociology is that of caste. Whether the title of
the study emphasizes village or caste, it is the latter which invariably holds the floor.
Village studies came in for heavy criticism because of this ‘obsession’ with caste.

The fact, however, remains that caste is a vital element of Indian society, and its neglect in
a study would have made the entire exercise worthless. It is only the students of village
who started empirical investigation of this most complex phenomenon of Indian social
structure.

The great gap between the ideological percepts and the living reality – between the text
and the present-day context – that they discovered was an eye-opener. While the urban-
based armchair theoretician was content with what has been written about caste in the old
scriptures and transmitted it to others with his seal of approval, the village sociologist
found it difficult to digest.

Controversy was raised as regards the status of this concept – is it to be treated as a

cultural concept associated with pan-Indian civilization or is it to be regarded as a social
structural category of universal application? Culturologists, following the line of Indology,
opted for the former and sociologists for the latter.
A seminal essay by Irawati Karve (1958) raising the question unambiguously, what is caste?
deserves special mention. Distinction between varna, jati, gotra, vansha and the like
assumed significance. The concept of sub-caste came under heavy fire, whereas Karve’s
concept of caste cluster found many followers.

Mayer’s (1960) distinction of kindered of cooperation and kindered of recognition as two

facets of caste was quite attractive but was challenged by Atal (1968). Atal strongly
emphasized the need for distinguishing between caste as a unit (jati) and the caste system;
using the notion of subset he provided a specific definition on the concept of sub-caste. For
the caste as a unit, Atal regards endogamy as the pivotal attribute; by the same token caste
system is characterized by a plurality of interacting endogamous groups.

Other related concepts are those of dominant caste and caste hierarchy. The concept of
dominant was proposed by M.N. Srinivas (1959) in his essay published in the American
Anthropologist. Soon it caught the fancy of many and became a catchword in rural
sociology, as did his earlier concept of sanskritization.

The concept of dominant case was challenged by B.R. Chauhan (1967), Yogesh Atal (1968),
S.C. Dube (1968), and T.K. Oommen (1970). In this connection, the concept of faction may
be mentioned. In village studies in India, this was introduced by Oscar Lewis (1958) in his
studies on group dynamics in a north Indian village.

While Lewis talked of permanent factions, which were kin-linked, and were cooperative in
orientation. Yogesh Atal (1963, 1968) identified short-lived alliances as aspect of village
factionalism, which he designated as ephemeral factions.

A number of scholars have written on the concept of faction, important among them being
Ralph Nicholas (1963), Paul Brass (1965), Richard Sisson (1972), B.K. Nagla (1984) etc.
K.N. Sharma (1963, 1969) introduced the concept of resource group.

A major motivating factor for village studies in the 1960s was the Community Development
Programme (CDP). Several scholars went to the village to study the process of externally
induced, directed, culture change. As a result, a number of case studies on innovation and
innovators, and on the leadership, were prepared.
These changed the focus of village studies from the description of social structure to social
change. Some re-studies have also been attempted: Wiser’s Behind Mudwalls (1961) and
Ghurye’s After a Century and Quarter – Lonikand: Then and New (1960) may be
mentioned. Srinivas has revisited his legendary village of Rampura several times in past 20
years and has written a book entitled The Remembered Village.

Beyond the Village:

In more recent years, attention has shifted to a more general process of modernization.
This has taken the scholars beyond the village. Employing more sophisticated tools, either
of survey research or of psychological testing, a group of villages have been taken up for
investigation.

There have been studies of communication links, flows of information, voting behaviour,
attitudes and aspirations, health practices and family planning, and of economic
transactions in the village communities. Some have attempted to analyse class and power
relations in a caste society, following largely the Weberian model (cf. Beteille, 1966).

There is, thus, a much more differentiated pattern of village studies in India. Of late, rural
research in India has received a certain setback. The interest seems to be on the wane.
Indian social science is increasingly getting oriented towards the urban. This shift in focus
is understandable, although the neglect of the village cannot be commended.

It must be admitted that considerable data have been generated regarding the villages.
There is a need to look at this data with a view to stocktaking. Most of this material is
discrete, descriptive and discipline-specific. Very little has been done to consolidate and
codify it. While methodological questions have been raised and debated, and concepts have
been evolved and conceptual frameworks have been formulated, no rigorous writing on
theory has appeared so far.

Social Structure: Social Stratification:

The Indian social structure, in a broader way, is stratified into two divisions: (1) the folks or
the unlettered peasantry, and (2) the elites. The folks and peasantry follow the little
tradition, i.e., the village tradition. The second division of elites follows the great tradition.
The great tradition consists of the traditions contained in epics, Puranas, Brahmins and
other classical Sanskritic works.
The roles and statuses of Sita and Draupadi constitute the parts of great tradition. The little
tradition, on the other hand, is local tradition tailored according to the regional and village
conditions. The great tradition is found clearly in twice-born castes, specially priests, ritual
leaders of one kind or other. Some of these corporate groups follow the traits of civilization
and the great tradition. The carriers of little tradition include folk artists, medicine men,
tellers of riddles, proverbs and stories, poets and dancers, etc.

Little and great traditions help to analyse social change in rural India. The nature of this
change is basically cultural. There is a constant interaction between the two traditions
which brings about change in rural society. Yogendra Singh explains this interaction as
follows: “Changes in the cultural system follow through the interaction between the two
traditions in the orthogenetic or heterogenetic process of individual growth. The pattern of
change, however, is generally from orthogenetic to heterogenetic forms of differentiation
or change in the cultural structure of traditions.”

Both Singer and Marriott (1955) argue on the strength of data generated from the villages
of their study that the cultural content of social structure at the level of little tradition in a
village witnesses changes. First, there is change in the village culture due to the internal
growth of village. In other words, the little tradition witnesses changes due to its own
internal growth.

Second, the little tradition also undergoes change due to its contact with great tradition
and other parts of the wider civilization. “The direction of this change presumably is from
folk or peasant to urban cultural structure and social organization.” The great tradition,
i.e., the epic tradition also witnesses universalized pattern of culture resulting from its
interaction with the village or little tradition.

Singer has made certain statements about cultural change in rural India.

His observations are as under:

1. The Indian civilization has evolved out of pre-existing folk and regional cultures. This
aspect of civilization constructed the great tradition – Ramayana, Mahabharata and other
religious scriptures. This great tradition maintained its continuity in India’s diverse
regions, village, castes and tribes.
2. The cultural continuity of great tradition is based on the idea that people share common
cultural consciousness throughout the country.

3. The common cultural consciousness is formed through the consensus held in common
about sacred books and sacred objects.

4. In India, cultural continuity with the past is so great that even the acceptance of
modernizing and progress ideologies does not result in linear form of social and cultural
change but may result in the traditionalizing of apparently modern innovations.

To conclude, it could be safely said that there is one cultural approach out of several to
explain rural social change in India. In simple words, one could say that a villager borrows
norms and values from the great tradition of country’s civilization. In this borrowing, he
makes changes according to his village’s local conditions and history.

The villages vary from region to region and, therefore, the little tradition also continues to
remain diverse. On the other hand, the great tradition, i.e., the sacred books, also receives
a uniform pattern. The concepts, therefore, explain the cultural change both at regional
and national levels.

Parochialization and Universalization:

Parochialization and universalization are complementary to the concepts of little and great
traditions. These are processes of cultural change. When the great tradition, i.e., the
tradition of epics and sacred books, undergoes change at the local or village level, it is
parochialization or localization of great tradition or civilization. Parochialization, therefore,
is the cultural change made at the village level.

Universalization, on the other hand, is a cultural change from little tradition to great
tradition. Both these processes are related to the interaction between little tradition and
great tradition. Interpreting the process of universalization, Yogendra Singh observes that
when the little tradition moves upward to the great tradition, it is the process of
universalization.

And, when the great tradition moves downward to the local or village level, it is
parocialization. His interpretation runs as follows: “Elements of the little tradition,
indigenous customs, duties and rites circulate upward to the level of the great tradition and
are identified with its legitimate forms.

This process, Marriott calls ‘universalization’. Likewise, some elements of the great
tradition also circulate downward to become organic of the great tradition, and lose much
of their original form in the process. He (Marriott) used the term ‘parochialization’ to
denote this kind of transaction between the two traditions.”

In the process of parocialization, obviously, there is some loss of the elements of great
tradition. Whatever is laid down as elements of great tradition is reduced at village level or
interpreted differently by local leaders of priestly castes. This process is called de-
sanskritization.

Sociology of India

The discussion on sociology in, of and for India came for debate in the year 1950.

We, therefore, discuss the following issues relating to the status of sociology in
India:
1. Sociology in India

2. Sociology of India

3. Sociology for India

Sociology in India deals with the professional activities of sociologists, which are related to
the teaching of sociology in India. The discussion on sociology of India concerns itself with
approaches to the study of Indian society. This is related to the researches, which are done
on Indian society, e.g., caste, kinship, village studies etc.

But, the western theories are applied in the researches done in India, e.g., Srinivas and
Dube applied structural-functional approach in their studies. In the cast of sociology for
India, the effort seems to be one of postulating a set of concepts and theories suitable to
study Indian social reality (Oommen, 1986).

Therefore, what should be the sociology for India? Young sociologists want emancipation
from colonial sociology. Even Dumont was a French sociologist, who did studies on India
but he did not agree to the idea of inequality in caste. He talks of hierarchy in the structure
of Indian society. There is a need of decolonization of thoughts or deconstruction of
western approaches.

In this context, there emerge the following issues for ponder the debate:
(i) Emancipation

(ii) Indological sociology (book view)

(iii) Contextualization: Indigenization (Indianization: field view)

All these issues have been discussed in our discourse analysis. Here, our main focus is on
the debate of sociology for India.

Ideology, Theory and Methods in Indian Sociology:

India had colonial cognitive traditions in the past and it has become an independent nation
since 1947. This provides a new context and milieu. Sociology of knowledge perspective
would demand examination of the continuity/discontinuity in the colonial approaches,
concepts and methods of study.

Yogendra Singh (1986) observes that even the debate – whether sociology has universal
concepts and techniques or it refers to culturally cognitive styles and structures – could be
seen in the context of the hangover of colonialism in independent India today.

Today, the tension in Indian sociology is between:

1. The ‘Master Theory’ or ‘General Theory’ and conceptual schemes.

2. Universalism of concepts and proposition and their ‘particularism’ or ‘contextuality’.

3. The role ideology in theory construction.

Singh has analyzed the debate on sociology for India. Here, we are giving excerpts of his
analysis. Therefore, the details about the references mentioned in the present text may be
seen from the writing of Singh (1986). An issue in Indian sociology, which has been carried
over from the 1950s to the 1970s and 1980s is that of the quest for ‘Sociology for India’.

During the late 1950s and the 1960s a debate began on this theme and grew in two
directions: the first was initiated by Dumont and Pocock. It was grounded in a structuralist
methodology for the treatment of social reality in general and the Indian social reality in
particular in the context of ideology.

Ideology, to Dumont, “commonly designates a more or less social set of ideas and values”,
which in the case of social facts, taking care not to mix up facts of ‘representation’ with
facts of ‘behaviour’ (Dumont and Pocock, 1957: 11) are constituted in the principle of
‘hierarchy’.

Indian sociology should, therefore, according to Dumont and Pocock, be a sociology of

Indian civilization. Its constituents are Indology on one hand and on the other social
‘structures’ which as ‘representations’ articulate the specific principle of ‘hierarchy’ with
its own governing components of ideology, dialectic, transformational relationship and
comparison (Singh, 1985; Jain, 1985), i.e., the basic elements of a structuralist perspective.
In contrast to Dumont and Pocock, F.G. Bailey (1959) postulated that Indian sociology was
the study not of ‘representations’ but of actual behaviour patterns, social roles, and
structures from an empirical perspective. This controversy, which was essentially between
two theoretical perspectives on social structure in the traditions of European social
anthropology, was mistakenly constructed in India as debate about the choice between a
particularistic versus universalistic paradigm for Indian sociology.

Although both Dumont and Pocock and Bailey did not visualize a particularistic Indian
sociology, in the social context of India, their contributions, especially that of Dumont, did
trigger a debate on this issue.

Debate on Sociology for India:

The main function of this debate was to help Indian sociologists to reach a level of self-
awareness. This debate was carried on in Contributions to Indian Sociology edited by
Dumont and Pocock, but with the end of its publication and the appearance of
Contributions to Indian Sociology (New Series) edited by T.N. Madan, a column was
assigned to the theme of a ‘Sociology for India’.

From 1970 to 1985 papers have been continually published on this theme (e.g., Yogendra
Singh, 1970; Dhirendra Narain, 1971; Imtiaz Ahmad, 1972; W.H. McLeod, 1978; T.N.
Madan, 1981; Satish Saberwal, 1982; Kantowski, 1984). Besides, Sociological Bulletin, the
journal of the Indian Sociological Society, has carried several articles on the paradigmatic
issues of Indian sociology, in addition to the addresses by the Presidents of the Society to
which we have already referred (e.g., M.N. Srinivas, 1970; S.L. Sharma, 1977; J. Lele,
1981, etc.).

One finds substantial continuity of concerns in these articles, especially on the issue of
indigenization of Indian sociology, yet, one also witnesses in these debates the emergence
of new perspectives. One finds a fundamental change emerging in the ideological basis on
which the issue of a sociology for India could be anchored.

The focus shift from a debate on sociological colonialism or dependency to the constructive
formulation and investigation of grounds on which the specific cognitive structure of Indian
sociology could be constituted. One set of contributions seeks to explore the various
contextual and historical variations from those implicit in the Dumont-Pocock
presuppositions in the observation of Indian or South Asian structure.

A few of them challenge the Dumont-Pocock notion of Indian civilization as an exclusively

Hindu civilization (Ahmad, 1970). Moreover, within Hindu civilization itself, the role of
Hindu and non-Hindu or non-Brahminical elements is emphasized by some sociologists on
the basis of intra-cultural variations (Burghart, 1983).

An intensive exploration of selected elements of traditions and social structures in India

with a view to analyzing their symbolic content as well as their inter-cultural and intra-
cultural comparability has been undertaken by others (see McLeod, 1978; Selwyn, 1973;
Saberwal, 1982). 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 (see Singh, 1970;
Narain, 1971).
In the debate on a sociology for India, we thus notice a distinct shift of emphasis in the
1980s. More attention is now paid to the nature of Indian social reality both in its intrinsic
and comparative contexts. Burghart, on the basis of his study of the Nepalese social
institutions in the setting of a Hindu kingdom, finds Dumont’s single system (Hindu)
conception of social order theoretically inadequate

He writes:
I shall argue on theoretical grounds that recourse to single system models commits the
anthropologist to understand order in the context of system and this commitment obliges
the anthropologist to situate the system in a changeless period of time. Order, however, is
quite a different concept from changelessness and until this difference is sorted out I do
not see how social change or changelessness can be adequately understood. I suggest
instead that an intra-cultural approach to the study of Hindu society permits valid levels of
generalization (1983: 276).

Further, the conception of Hindu society as a system and the representation of that system
in terms of a scheme of social relations have had the effect of obscuring other schemes
which South Asians use to represent their universe of social relations (ibid.: 282). One such
other scheme that Burghart identifies in the Nepalese Kingdom is that of tenurial system,
by which the king administers his possessions (muluk), its contractual relationships among
members enjoying tenurial status, his control over social hierarchy and a serried of other
relations and obligations.

Similarly, studies of sects and belief systems within Hinduism and its cognate branches
have shown characteristics that deviate from a neat structural fit among the components of
social system. A significant feature of the new debate on a sociology for India is its
grounding in empirical observations and analysis of social reality and its search for
principles of social structural integration in terms of contents, meanings and metaphors.

Most such studies are deeply influenced by the Dumont-Pocock tradition of social analysis,
which offered advantages in studying structures symbolically or in terms of values and
beliefs. Hence, one common feature of the new debates on a sociology for India is its
overarching symbolic, subjectivist and culturological tendency.

Defining structure as representation, this model is more attuned to studying belief systems,
ritual practices, the structure and dialectic of textual material, a myth or legend, than the
structures of political economy, power structures and social order.

Yogendra Singh (1983: 101) reviewed the main theoretic orientations in Indian sociology.
According to him, it may be useful to assess its impact on the process of universalization or
particularization of categories and theory. This issue is both ideological and theoretic.
Since Dumont and Pocock initiated the debate on “For a Sociology of India” in 1957, this
usage has been debated in response to their and Bailey’s writings and also independently.

Dumont’s emphasis in the study of Indian sociology is on its fundamental ideo-structural

categories from an “external point of view”. He would formulate his sociology from the
language of the sources as it were, from the sentiments and ideas of the people themselves.
Bailey finds fault with this model for its indifference towards study of ‘relations’, which are
the main sociological category.

With this frame of reference, sociology gets reduced to what Bailey calls ‘culturology’. In
his statement on “For a Sociology of India” in the final issue of Contributions, however,
Dumont clarifies that he does not see the possibility of a particularistic sociology even
though the substantive reality he would prefer the sociologists to deal with would be ideas
and sentiments and not relations. Thus, without taking a structural position as that of
Bailey, Dumont sees the possibility of a general sociology as the only way out.

The debate between Dumont and Bailey led Indian sociologists to ponder over this problem
from an Indian perspective, where the issue was not of two varieties of general sociology,
of which the Indian sociology would be a part, but it was mainly whether Indian sociology
could be universal or has to be particularistic.

A seminar was organized on this problem in 1966 and its deliberations have been published
(Unnithan et al., 1967). The conclusion of this seminar was that Indian sociology would
have to operate at two levels – the particularistic and the universal. Some concepts and
categories, as Srinivas’ Sanskritization-Westernization, would be of primarily particularistic
and ethno-sociological relevance, but these could be further abstracted for cross-cultural
comparisons (see, Singh in Unnithan et al., 1967).

The debate on this issue has not subsided. It was given a sharper edge by linking the
problem both of creativity and categories in Indian sociology to the colonial situation. Jit P.
Singh Uberoi, in his Science and Swaraj, concludes: “Every swarajist should recognize
what are the essential pre-conditions, under his system (structural asymmetries like rich;
poor; international; national; white-black), for the advancement of universal science in our
environment.

Until we can concentrate on decolonization, learn to nationalize our problems and take our
poverty seriously, we shall continue to be both colonial and unoriginal” (Uberoi, 1968:
123). This observation of Uberoi has echoes in many quarters. As we mentioned, Saran
(1958) is its strong exponent, who does not see contradictions in methods and categories of
the ethno-sociology and general sociology. The problem is ideological and as such it
pervades through all levels of sociological thinking in India where normative questions and
not merely technology of research are involved.

Even, the universality of methods and tools of research is questioned. Most of these involve
translation of cultural idioms and symbols from one culture into another. What is more
seriously questioned, however, is the choice of problems and research priorities that
sociologists undertake for investigation. In a recent debate on this problem, which is
contained in Social Sciences and Social Realities: Role of Social Sciences in Contemporary
India (1976), edited by S.C. Dube such issues have reopened for a variety of social
sciences?

The distortions in sociological thinking and practice are created by alienation of the
professional sociologists from the other sections of elites and people of the society. This
leads to the distantiation of sociologists from the major issues of national concern or with
national identity. His uncritical acceptance of models of theory and research tools imported
from abroad has come in for thorough examination (see, Singh, in Dube, 1976).

The question of universalization or particularism of sociological categories in Indian

sociology or social sciences as such remains open. A more enduring solution to this issue
would probably come from accumulation of empirical knowledge through the findings of
Indian sociologists and social scientists from studies conducted with self-awareness and
scientific objectivity within their own ideological setting. Surendra Sharma (1985) analysed
this question as universal versus specific related to the sociology for India. Here, we give
excerpts from his book for understanding the issue for sociology in India.
Universal vs. Specific Sociology for India:
Now, let us take up proceedings of the two seminars on sociology in India held in the
1960s. R.N. Saxena, Y.B. Damle, Yogendra Singh, B.R. Chauhan and Indra Deva are
contributors to both the volumes. However, R.N. Saxena has the same view in several
addresses and papers which he holds in “Sociology in India” and “Sociology for India”.

The other well-known names are Victor S. D ‘Souza, K.M. Kapadia, K.C. Panchanadikar and
J.M. Panchanadikar. None of these scholars with the exception of Yogendra Singh have
joined the debate on Indian sociology in the pages of Contributions to Indian Sociology.

An Indological or culturological approach has been the hallmark of several sociologists.

They have hammered against the acceptance of theoretical and methodological
orientations of the western countries. These scholars emphasize the role of traditions,
group rather than individual as the basis of social relations, and religion, ethics and
philosophy as the basis of social organizations. R.N. Saxena (1965), for example, stresses
on the role of the concepts of Dharma, Artha, Kaama and Moksha.

Dumont and Pocock (1957) emphasize utility of the Indological sources for sociological
formulations. Saxena observes that sociology in the Indian universities has been shaped on
the western pattern. The western sociology is no doubt ’empirical’ and ‘positivistic’, but it
fails to provide a proper examination of spiritual values and other super-non- empirical
ideas.

After arguing a case for the relevance of the study of categorical values and norms, Saxena
(1965) writes: “A correct approach to Indian sociology can only be a synthesis of
empiricism and intuition and a proper recognition of the fact that spiritual values have an
important role on our social life.”

Indra Deva (1965) discerns the following points, which might make a reference to
the term ‘Indian sociology’:
1. A body of concepts and generalizations applicable specifically to Indian society and
culture;

2. Sociological principles derived from traditional Indian sources;

3. The study of social structure and social processes in India; and

4. Sociology as it has developed in India.

However, these points are not exclusive when they are used for denoting ‘Indian sociology’.
After having discussed these points, Indra Deva formulates a view contrary to that of
Saxena. He observes that though Indian society has some features of its own, the
distinctiveness about it is not so fundamental as to necessitate the development of an
‘Indian sociology’ in the sense of special conceptual and theoretical framework.

The task is to develop the general sociological theories, concepts and methodology, which
can be applicable to a pre-modern, mainly peasant society, like India. Coomaraswamy
(1948) talked of the essential unity of all traditional societies. In other words, such societies
would represent a social formation different from that of the western industrialized
societies.
Deva suggests that western ethnocentrism must go from the existing theoretical and
conceptual framework of sociology, and a theoretical system be evolved, which can do
justice to the structural and functional and the dynamic aspects of society (Deva, 1965).

Damle (1965) is very particular with regard to sociology in India. He writes: “In order to
take cognizance of both stability and change I would suggest the use of the Parsonian
frame of reference for the study of Indian sociology.” Parsons’ view that personality,
culture and society are ‘atomistic’ as well as interdependent systems and constitute the
social system is explained by Damle as relevant for studying Indian society.

Damle observes: “Talking in terms of functional prerequisites one finds in India that
greatest amount of premium is put on pattern maintenance rather than on adaptation and
goal attainment.” Later on, Damle adopted Merton’s theory of ‘reference group’ for
analyzing social mobility in the caste system in India. Damle gives a paradigm adopted
from Parsons for application to the analysis of social system in India. He concludes that no
special theory is needed for studying Indian sociology.

Western Social Science and Sociology in India:

Yogendra Singh (1965) counts three points relevant to the disciplinary growth of
sociology in India:
(1) the changing historico-political status of the country;

(2) the changing nature of western intellectual contact and its vicissitudes; and finally,

(3) the native intellectual traditions from which the sociologists themselves emerged.

In the first phase, Indian social structure and values and institutions were analysed but not
as a response to the western social science. The second phase refers to the combination of
empirical and historico-philosophical analysis of Radhakamal Mukerjee, and the application
of a Marxologist approach to the study of Indian society, its tradition and culture, and class
structure by D.P. Mukerji.

The macro-static studies by B. Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown replaced the macro-
dynamic studies in Britain at the time when the two Mukerjees were busy in giving a sound
shape to Indian sociology. With the freedom of India started the era of sponsored
researches in India. However, the researches funded by the western countries were also
carried out in the fifties and sixties in India on a bigger scale.

Thus, the ideology of the government on one hand, and of the western social sciences on
the other simultaneously influenced social science research in the first two decades of
India’s independence. Singh (1965) states that (1) increased quantification and abstracted
empiricism, (2) increased experimentalism, and (3) greater arbitrariness in regard to
concepts and definitions are the significant trends of sociology as a discipline in India.

Sociology in India in the early sixties is characterized by functionalism and neo-

functionalism, historical comparative method and logico-philosophical and symbolic
methods of analysis. Thus, anti-positivism and functionalism, positivism and logico-
philosophical orientations influenced Indian sociologists simultaneously in the fifties and
sixties. The western ‘scienticism’ could not overtake Indian sociology completely; it
remained in India also as a philosophy of society and history. Singh prefers to have a
synthesis of sociological empiricism and analytical quality of vision.
In two essays: (1) “Scope and Method of Sociology in India”, and (2) “Sociology for India:
The Emerging Perspective” in Sociology for India, Yogendra Singh (1967) exemplifies his
own view and the resume of the above seminar, respectively. Some of the points mentioned
in the Agra seminar have been repeated by Singh in the first paper of the above seminar.

He writes: “Sociology in India or the whole university culture in this country has been an
extension of the western, primarily the British tradition. Growing American influence is a
post-independence phenomenon” and intellectual parasitism and regression. The pre-
independence sociology could be characterized by descriptive, evolutionary, analytical and
comparative studies and by particularism of Indian society and culture.

However, Singh notes that both the organic positivism and mechanistic positivism of
nineteenth century European sociology were absent in Indian sociology, and even some
sociologists strongly reacted and refuted them (Sharma, 1985: 40-41).

Thus, in the above pages, an attempt has been made to formulate sociology for India or
Indian sociology. The significance of the development in the changing conditions reflects
the various new areas of research and studies. It indicates the shift in theoretical and
methodological issues that took place after 1970s. 1980s signifies a remarkable shift in
terms of emphasis. More attention is now paid to the nature of Indian social reality. An
important feature of the new debate on sociology for India emphasizes on empirical
observation and application of theory in context.

Despite the continuity reflected in the quest for social relevance on an indigenous
paradigm for Indian sociology, 1980s and 1990s in India mark several directions in which
new explorations have been made.

Sociological studies show a new sensitivity in the choice of concepts and their uses as they
move away from a continuum framework of analysis of social processes to that of a notion
of levels. The use of conceptual typologies, historical data and symbolic structural
techniques adds new depth and dimensions to the studies of social structure.

The Marxist historical method of the analysis gains momentum as a series of studies on the
peasantry, agrarian structure, and working classes by younger generation sociologists.
New series of study became sensitive to theoretical orientations, such as structuralism and
post-structuralism, ethno-sociology, functionalism and neo-functionalism Marxism and neo-
Marxism, modernity and post-modernity and so on. These perspectives have been used to
analyse social structure.

Specific areas of sociological research, such as sociology of development, specifically

sustainable development, sociology of education, sociology of health and medicine,
sociology of profession, sociology of organization, sociology of management, sociology of
communication, sociology of tourism, sociology of environment, sociology of science and
technology, and analysis of problems of weaker sections of society, particularly scheduled
castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes, women etc. are expanded in order to
promote social reconstruction and development. The understanding of the nature of these
problems further enriched sociological insights into the nature of social structure, culture
and its dynamics in Indian society.

Sanskritisation
The concepts of sanskritisation and westernisation were developed by M.N. Srinivas in
1952. Srinivas had defined ‘sanskritisation’ as a process by which low castes take over the
beliefs, rituals, lifestyle, and other cultural traits of those of the upper castes, especially the
Brahmins.

In fact, Srinivas had broadened his definition of sanskritisation from time to time. Initially,
he had described it as “the process of mobility of lower castes by adopting vegetarianism
and teetotalism to move in the caste hierarchy in a generation or two. Later on, he
redefined it as “a process by which a low caste or a tribe or other groups change their cus-
toms, rituals, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high twice-born caste

The second connotation of sanskritisation is thus much broader because first Srinivas
talked of imitation of mere food habits, rituals and religious practices but later on he talked
of imitation of ideologies too (which include ideas of karma, dharma, pap, punya, moksha,
etc.)

In the process of imitation of customs and habits of high castes or Brahmins by the low
castes, sometimes even when the low castes followed some such practices which according
to the present rational standards are considered to be good and functional, they discard
such customs and in their place adopt those ideas and values of Brahmins which according
to the present standards are considered degrading and dysfunctional.

Srinivas has given some such examples from his study in Mysore. Low castes are liberal in
the spheres of marriage, sex, and attitudes towards women. They permit divorce, widow
remarriage and insist on post-puberty marriage. But Brahmins practise pre-puberty
marriage, regard marriage indissoluble, prevent widow from remarrying and expect her to
shave her head and shed all jewellery and ostentation in clothes.

They prefer virginity in brides, chastity in wives, and continence and self- restraint in
widows. But as a low caste rises in hierarchy and its ways become more sanskritised, it
adopts the sex and marriage code of Brahmins. Sanskritisation results in harshness
towards women. Let us take a few other examples of irrational practice adopted on
sanskritisation.

A high caste Hindu wife is expected to treat her husband as a deity. She is expected to take
her meal only after the husband has taken it and perform a number of vratas (religious
fasts) to secure long life for her husband, regard the importance of having sons a religious
necessity, and so forth.

Sanskritisation involved taking up all such beliefs and practices by the lower castes. These
examples thus point out that sanskritisation is nothing but a blind and irrational imitation
of the customs, practices, habits and values of higher castes, especially Brahmins. Could it
be said that the process of de-sanskritisation is also possible? Srinivas has said that “it is
not inconceivable that occasionally the de- sanskritisation of the imitating castes may take
place”.

Features of Sanskritisation:
A few facts are worth noting in the process of sanskritisation:
(1) The concept of sanskritisation has been integrated with economic and political
domination, that is, the role of local ‘dominant caste’ in the process of cultural transmission
has been stressed. Though for some time, the lower castes imitated Brahmins but soon the
local dominant caste came to be imitated. And the locally dominant caste was often .i non-
Brahmin caste.
(2) Sanskritisation occurred sooner or later in those castes which enjoyed political and
economic power but were not rated high in ritual ranking, that is, there was a gap between
their ritual and politico- economic positions.

(3) Economic betterment is not a necessary pre-condition to sanskritisation, nor must

economic development necessarily lead to sanskritisation. However, sometimes a group
(caste, tribe) may start by acquiring political power and this may lead to economic better-
ment and sanskritisation.

(4) Sanskritisation is a two-way process. Not only a caste ‘took’ from the caste higher to it
but in turn it ‘gave’ something to the caste. We find Brahmins worshipping local deities
which preside over epidemics, cattle, children’s lives, and crops, besides the great gods of
all India Hinduism.

(5) Unit of mobility is group and not individual or family.

(6) The British rule provided impetus to the process of sanskritisation but political
independence has weakened the trend towards this change. The emphasis is now on
vertical mobility and not on horizontal mobility.

(7) Describing social change in India in terms of sanskritisation and westernisation is to

describe it primarily in cultural and not in structural terms. Srinivas himself has conceded
(1989:55) that sanskritisation involves ‘positional change’ in the caste system without any
structural change.

(8) Sanskritisation does not automatically result in the achievement of a higher status for
the group. The group must be content to wait for an indefinite period and during this
period it must maintain continuous pressure regarding its claim. A generation or two must
pass usually before a claim begins to be accepted. In many cases, the claim of the caste
may not be accepted even after a long time. Further, it is likely that a claim which may not
succeed in a particular area or period of time may succeed in another.

The fact that sanskritisation may not help a lower caste to move up does not prevent it
from discarding the consumption of beef, changing polluting occupation, stopping drinking
alcohol, and adopting some sanskritic customs, beliefs and deities. Thus, the process of
sanskritisation may remain popular without achieving the goal of mobility.

Factors Promoting Sanskritisation:

Factors that have made sanskritisation possible are industrialisation, occupational mobility,
developed communication, spread of literacy, and western technology. The development of
communications carried sanskritisation to areas previously inaccessible and the spread of
literacy carried it to groups very low in the caste hierarchy.

M.N. Srinivas has specifically referred to one factor which has helped the spread of
sanskritisation among the low castes. It is the separation of ritual acts from the
accompanying mantras (citations) which facilitated the spread of Brahminical rituals
among all Hindu castes, including the untouchables.

The restrictions imposed by Brahmins on the non-twice-born castes banned only the
chanting of mantras from the Vedas. Thus, the low caste people could adopt social
practices of the Brahmins. This made sanskritisation feasible. The political institution of
parliamentary democracy has also contributed to the increased sanskritisation, according
to Srinivas. Prohibition, a sanskritic value, has been mentioned in the Constitution of India.
Some states have introduced it wholly or partially.

WESTERNIZATION

Like sanskritization, westernization is an important process of social change. It has taken

place in India as a result of the British rule. The 150 years British rule produced some
radical and lasting changes in Indian social set up. The Britishers brought with them new
technology, knowledge, beliefs, values and institutions. For example, the introduction of
Printing Press by them are produced many changes in the life of the Indians. The concept
‘Westernization’ is easy to understand but difficult to “Explain. We can define.
Westernization is a process or changing life style of the Indians towards the west.

Types of Westernization:
On the basis of influence on the both little and great tradition, westernization took place in
two phases, i.e. Primary Westernization and Secondary Westernization. The little tradition
have been termed as Primary Westernization and the great tradition have been termed as
Secondary Westernization.

Primary Westernization:
By Primary Westernization, Prof. Y. Singh means, “Changes induced by the western impact
on Indian little traditions.”
Such changes are of two types:
1. Firstly, the emergence of westernized sub-cultural pattern limited to a specific group of
Indians within an area who first came into contact with western culture.

2. Secondly, primary westernization refers to the process of general diffusion of western

cultural traits. For example, the use of new technology, dress, food, language, changes in
habits and’ way of living. This is in general, resulting from the cultural contact with
Britishers.

Secondary Westernization:
Secondary Westernization on the other hand started towards the end of the 19th century
and beginning of the 20th century. It refers to the changes which have contributed to the
growth of various forms of cultural structures extending over the whole of the country.
Education, law, science, technology, facilities of transport and communication are some of
the examples of cultural structure.

M.N. Srinivas defined it:

“I have used the term “westernization” to characterize the changes brought about in the
Indian society and culture as a result of over 150 years of British rule”. Westernization
occurs at different levels: in the levels of technology, institution, ideology and values. The
term ‘westernization’ is ethically neutral. So, it does not carry the value of good or bad.

Characteristics of Westernization
1. It is inclusive as it can accommodate various outside elements.

2. It is complex as it includes many aspects such as behaviours aspect, knowledge aspect

etc.

3. It is many layered for it occurs in many levels.

4. Emphasis is given more on humanitarianism and rationalism.

5. Westernization primarily focuses on cultural changes.

6. Westernization results in the introduction of new institutions and brings changes in the
old institutions.

M.N. Srinivas found contradicting situations in relation to westernisation. For example, the
manipulation of western technology does not mean that the manipulators have accepted a
rationalistic and scientific attitude. That is why, he found, the bulldozer driver of Rampura
village was a black magician. He thought that this situation represents a carryover of
traditional magico-religious beliefs into the new world of modern technology.

There are also instances where westernization has given birth to forces which are mutually
at cross-purposes. For example, the introduction of printing machine. Printing machine
helps in the transmission of modern knowledge as well as knowledge of the traditional
epics, mythology, religious literature etc. Likewise, in the political and cultural field,
westernization has given birth to nationalism and also to revivalism, communalism,
casteism, linguism and regionalism.

Prof. Srinivas used concepts like primary westernization, secondary westernization and
tertiary westernization. In primary westernization the linkage between western stimulus
and Indian response is simple and direct. It is easy to identify the stimulus and responses.
For example, increase in literacy due to printing machine

In secondary westernisation the links are numerous and are not visible on the surface. For
example, it is very difficult to find out the connection between westernisation and the
student unrest. There are some areas where it is too difficult to find out the linkage
between western stimulus and Indian response. It is known as tertiary westernisation.

Primary Westernization and Changes in Little Tradition:

Primary westernization indicates the changes induced by the western impact on the Indian
little tradition.

Such changes are of two types:

(a) Emergence of westernized sub-cultural patterns.

(b) The process of general diffusion of western cultural traits.

(a) Emergence of Westernized Sub-Culture:

The westernized sub-cultural pattern was first emerged through a minority section of
Indians who first came into contact with western culture.

They had done three things:

Firstly, these people acted as the link between the Indians and the Britishers.

Secondly, they themselves adopted various western elements such as dress pattern, food
habit, ideas, values etc. They adopted cognitive aspect of British culture as well as style of
life.

Thirdly, they supported the rapid expansion of all these elements among the people.

This group can be broadly divided into two classes:

(i) Commercial mediator class

(ii) English educated class

(i) Commercial Mediator Class:

Social composition of the commercial mediator class differs from one region to another. In
Kolkata they were ‘Baniyas’ or ‘Vaishyas’ by caste. In Chennai they were ‘Brahmins’ and in
Mumbai they were ‘Parsis’ so, it was localized. The most important thing in the growth of
this class of quasi-westernised middle men and traders was that even if they were less in
member, but the cultural break through was initiated by them.

In the process of westernisation, this class contributed in diverse ways. Of course, their
contribution was not always in an organised form but through them a sub-culture of
westernisation was gradually established. It also continued to expand in India, throughout
the eighteenth century.

The job of commercial mediator class required three things.

Firstly, specialized training to deal with the Britishers.

Secondly, English education to interact with the Britishers. Thirdly, ability of rational
managerial administration far different from traditional mode of transaction in business.
This group was utilizing western cultural elements mainly to gain economic benefit out of
the business.

(ii) English Educated Class:

Growth of this class was possible because of western educational institutions.

The result of establishment of these educational institutions was twofold:

(a) The interjection of the western values and ideologies among the members of the new
educated class.

(b) The rise of social and cultural reformation movements.

These changes combined with expansion of Christianity, gave a further push to the process
of westernisation. The members of this English educated group were influenced by the
value system of British culture. They were rational and they developed a scientific outlook.
They were in favour of humanitarianism, equalitarianism and individualism. They wanted to
bring reforms related to the social practices and traditions of the Hindu culture.

The second type of primary westernisation in the little tradition refers to the process of
general diffusion of western cultural traits such as changes in dress pattern, food habit and
style of life. It also includes use of new technology. These elements diffused among laymen
and scholars, rural as well as urban people.

Secondary Westernisation in Great Tradition:

Secondary westernisation is deeply rooted in Indian social system.

Mainly there are three reasons:

(i) Impact of different reform movements.

(ii) Role of the reformers and the leaders of the national movement.

(iii) Cumulative effects of the changes in the little tradition.

In this process two important changes are found in structural pattern of Indian society such
as, introduction of new institutions and replacement of old institutions. In this connection
various examples are there like introduction of universalistic legal system, expansion of
modern education, introduction of wider national network of transportation and
communication.

Establishment of Universalistic Legal System:

In the traditional Indian society, (before the contact of the British) the legal
system had three important characteristics:
1. It was hierarchical as punishment was given according to the position of the individual in
the caste hierarchy.

2. It was particularistic for, the legal system and its practices were changing from one
region to another.

3. It was also non-equalitarian as legal system was giving emphasis to the fulfillment of
sub-cultural requirements.
The new legal system abolished hierarchy and established universal legal system v the
norms of equality and equity in matters of its administration.

The new legal system had two results:

(a) The establishment of the principles of equality.

(b) The creation of consuocisness of positive rights.

The new legal system helped in bringing changes in the customs and structure of the
Indian society. Personal laws have been made with new interpretation which are related to
family, divorce, adaptation, joint family guardianship, minority, inheritance, succession etc.
It also helped in giving recognition to the individual as the unit in all matters of
negotiation.

Expansion of modern education:

Traditional educational system was philosophical and metaphysical. Education was
available for only higher caste groups. The teachers and the students were from higher
castes. Westernization introduced modern and universal educational system. It differs from
traditional educational system in two aspects: Firstly, in its orientation and secondly, in its
organisation.

Modern educational system contains liberty, equality, modern scientific world view etc. It
has a professional structure which is not ascribed to any specific group or class but can be
achieved by merit. Some branches of modern education such as science, engineering and
modern medicine are introduced.

Introduction of modern scientific and technological education helped the process of growth
of industrial centres. It leads to the expansion of urban centres. Wider national network of
transportation and communication such as expansion of railways, roadways, post and
telegraph etc. have broken the barrier of isolation among the regions. Growth of
nationalism is also the impact of westernization. Modern democracy is the outcome of
western culture.

Changes due to westernization:

1. Introduction of industrialization and urbanization.

2. Introduction of new institutions like election system, christian missions, etc.

3. Modification in the old institutions through reform movements. For example, putting an
end to some of the inequalities that were part of Hindus by introducing British Procedural
law.

4. Introduction of new judicial system on the basis of principle of equality.

5. Importance was given to humanitarianism through the establishment of hospitals,

orphanages.

6. Changes are found in behavioural level like taking food by sitting on the floor to dining
table.

7. Weakening of customary diet, from vegetarian to non-vegetarian among the Brahmins.

8. Introduction of new educational system which contains modern scientific world view.

9. Change of giving importance to ascribed status to achieved status.

10. Introduction of wider national network of transportation and communication.

11. Growth of nationalism through establishment of national congress.

12. Introduction of new ideas such as ‘welfare state’, ‘parliamentary democracy’.

During the British rule acceptance of western cultural element was not appreciated by
Indians. But social reformers and activists introduced radical changes in Indian society by
adopting western ideas and ideologies. Then, the building of railways, the growth of the
press, and the spread of education were added to it. After independence western cultural
elements have gained social sanction and western values are rapidly being absorbed into
Indian culture and life style.