Indian Sociologists

Both were “accidental anthropologists” who did not start with formal training in the discipline:

• L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer: He was a school teacher and clerk in Cochin. In 1902, the Dewan of Cochin asked him to assist with an ethnographic survey of the state. His amateur interest turned into a professional career, and he later set up the Anthropology department at Calcutta University.
• Sarat Chandra Roy: He was a lawyer in Ranchi. He became deeply moved by the struggles of the tribal people (Oraons, Mundas) who were his clients. To defend them better in court, he studied their customs and laws, eventually producing immense anthropological works on them.

The debate in the 1930s-40s was between the **Isolationists** (Protectionists) and the **Integrationists** (Nationalists).

Viewpoint	Arguments	Key Proponent
Isolationist / Protectionist	Tribals are distinct “aboriginals”. Contact with Hindu society leads to their exploitation (land grabbing, moneylending) and cultural degradation. They should be protected in “National Parks” or reserved areas.	Verrier Elwin (Early phase)
Integrationist / Nationalist	Tribals are essentially “backward Hindus”. Segregating them is a colonial divide-and-rule tactic. They should be integrated into mainstream society and uplifted through education and reform.	G.S. Ghurye

• Herbert Risley (Colonial View): He believed that Caste = Race. He argued that upper castes were Aryan (fair, sharp nose) and lower castes were non-Aryan/Dravidian (dark, broad nose). He used the “Nasal Index” to claim a scientific basis for caste hierarchy.
• G.S. Ghurye (Nationalist View): He disagreed with the strict race theory. He argued that “racial purity” only existed in parts of North India (Indo-Aryan influence). In the rest of India, races had mixed extensively. He famously stated that caste is comparable to extended kinship, not just race.

G.S. Ghurye identified six comprehensive features of the caste system:

1. Segmental Division: Society is divided into mutually exclusive segments determined by birth.
2. Hierarchy: These segments are arranged in a ladder of high and low rank.
3. Restrictions on Feeding/Social Intercourse: Rules on who can eat with whom (kachcha/pakka food).
4. Civil/Religious Disabilities and Privileges: Lower castes faced restrictions (e.g., using wells), while upper castes enjoyed privileges.
5. Lack of Unrestricted Choice of Occupation: Hereditary occupations were mandated.
6. Endogamy: The restriction on marrying outside one’s caste (the most essential feature).

Living Tradition: For D.P. Mukerji, tradition was not just the dead past to be preserved. It was a dynamic, flowing entity that grows by adapting to new changes (just as a river takes in new tributaries). It maintains a link between the past, present, and future.
Rootedness: He argued that an Indian sociologist cannot just borrow Western theories (like Marxism or Liberalism) blindly. To truly understand Indian society, one must be “rooted” in Indian tradition and history (study the epics, customs, and vernaculars) to see how local people make sense of their lives.

D.P. Mukerji argued that the Indian social system is fundamentally different from the West:

• Collectivism: In the West, the “Individual” is the unit of society. In India, the “Group” (Sangha/Caste/Family) is the unit of action.
• Pattern of Change: Because of this group-focus, change in India is not usually a violent “break” from the past (revolution). Instead, it is evolutionary and adaptive. New groups are absorbed into the existing structure without destroying the core tradition.

Welfare State: A system where the government plays a key role in protecting and promoting the economic and social well-being of its citizens (education, health, housing), rather than just maintaining law and order.
A.R. Desai’s Critique (Marxist Perspective):

• He argued that the Indian state claims to be a “Welfare State” but is actually a Capitalist State.
• Its development policies benefit the property-owning classes (industrialists, rich farmers) while offering only “doles” or minimal relief to the poor to prevent unrest.
• He showed that despite “welfare” claims, inequality and poverty were increasing.

Sociologist	Stance on Village Studies	Argument
Louis Dumont	Against	He argued that the village is not a real social unit. For him, Caste and Religion were the only true unifying structures in India. People living in a village are just individuals loyal to their castes, not the village.
M.N. Srinivas	For	He argued that the village is a social reality. Despite caste differences, villagers share a sense of identity and unity (e.g., during festivals or disasters). It is a microcosm of Indian society essential for study.

Significance:

• Data over Theory: Before independence, knowledge of India was based on ancient texts (Book View). Village studies provided hard data on how people actually lived (Field View).
• Nation Building: In the 1950s, studying villages helped policymakers plan rural development.

Role of M.N. Srinivas:

• He pioneered the Field Work method in India.
• His study of ‘Rampura’ village gave us key concepts like “Dominant Caste” (a caste that dominates the village economically/politically) and “Sanskritization” (lower castes imitating upper castes to rise in status).
• His book “The Remembered Village” remains a classic of ethnographic literature.