Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Paper2 1
Paper2 1
com
INDOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Indology (G.S. Ghurye)
Sociology as a discipline developed in Europe. Sociological perspectives like
functionalism, positivism, conflictism etc. developed out of the experience and
observation of European society.
As over the period other societies of Asia, America, Africa became the colony of the
West, its uniqueness attracted the intellectuals of Europe.
Indian society was unique in many ways for the European scholars. Caste system, joint
family, jajmani system, polytheism were some of the distinguished features of Indian
society. Over the period, it was realized that the western perspective cannot be applied on
Indian society because it is unique of its own kind.
Indology : Meaning/Definition
Indology is known as the science of Indian Society. The Indological perspective claims to
understand Indian society through the concepts, theories, frameworks that are closely
associated with Indian Civilization. It made a claim that Indian society is unique in
structure, function and dynamics and cannot be associated with the European Society.
Indology relies on book view and culture and denounces rigorous empirical investigation.
Indology is both an approach to study the Indian Society and also an independent
discipline with Indian Society as a subject matter. Indology demands inter-disciplinary,
multi-disciplinary, and cross disciplinary approach. Indology is also older than
Sociology. It is antique in its origin owing to 1784 by Sir William Jones of Calcutta.
Jones in 1784 established ‘Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal’ to understand Indian society
through Indian perspective. It is beginning of Indology in India, which has been followed
by several other scholars. They gave more importance to the culture of Indian society
than to the empirical structure. 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. In both European and Indian versions Indological
studies comprise investigations of language, ideas, beliefs, customs, taboos, codes,
institutions, tools, techniques, rituals, ceremonies and other related components of the
Indian culture and civilization. (The mainstream of Indology, however, has been the
1
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
In brief, Indology literally means a systematic study of Indian society and culture, and the
sources of Indological studies are primarily classical texts, manuscripts, archaeological
artefacts, and symbolic expressions. The aim of Indological studies is to gain a deeper
understanding of the Indian culture.
[The Oriental Institute in Baroda was second important Indological centre in India
founded in 1893 by Maharaja of Baroda. The major objective of the institute was to
develop a well equipped library or rare and unpublished Manuscript and reference books
on Oriental and Indological studies.]
Indological Approach
Within Indological studies, there are broadly two types of Indological approach.
(a) Indology or Indic studies
(b) Oriental studies or Orientalism
There are both commonalities and differences between Indology and Oriental studies.
Indology is said to be the westerner’s labour of love for the Indian wisdom. And
Orientalism emerged as the ideological need of the British Empire. Indology seems to
offer a sympathetic and positive account of the Indian society and culture. This type of
Indological writings have been enriched by William Jones, Wilkins, Colebrooke and
Wilson in British India, Louis Renou and Bougle in France, and Anand K.
Coomaraswamy, Joseph Campbell and Mirea Elliade in USA. Prominent Indian
Indologists are G.S. Ghurye, B.K. Sarkar, Radhakamal Mukherjee, K.M. Kapadia, P.H.
Prabha and Iravati Karve.
On the other hand, Orientalism presents a rather unsympathetic and negative account of
the Indian society and culture. Oriental studies emerged to serve the need of the British
Empire and other colonial powers of the West. Important exponent of this school
(Orientalist writing about India) were Max Mueller, James Mill and William Archer, Max
Weber, Karl Marx.
The Orientalists see primarily the negative elements in Indian tradition and rationalizes
the missionary activities as well as the British rule in India. These Indologists
overemphasized Indian spiritualism and underemphasized the achievements in the realm
of material culture and the practical wisdom of the common people of India.
The Western Indologists tried to malign the image of Indian society with the help of
Indian text. They presented as if inequality, untouchability, low status of women, caste
2
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
segregation, isolation were prevalent in India from its very beginning and western values
and institutions can correct the wrongs of Indian Society.
He relied on both the empirical and textual methods for studying Indian Society. Ghurye
was initially influenced by the diffusionist approach of Anthropology and later on he
switched to the study of Indian Social reality from Ontological and Anthropological
perspective. Ghurye’s Indological Approach hovers around the study of Indian Culture
and Social Structure drawing its substance from sanskritic literature base. He was more
influenced by the writings of Indologists of Bhandarkan Institute of Bombay rather than
the British writings established by Sir William Jones or Max Muller. So he is often said
to be relying on indigenous Indology. Ghurye tried to make a judicious blending between
the Indological and Sociological discipline.
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 Jhoote Ber of Shabri and Hanuman used to always sit around Ram. This shows that
originally in Indian society, there was no untouchability and caste segregation. These
practices were introduced in India by Aryans who were foreigners.
Western Indologists like Verrier Elwin believes that tribes were always isolated and
never were part of mainstream society. He proposed the ‘policy of isolation’ for Indian
tribes.
Ghurye believes that ‘tribes are backward Hindus’ hence it is important for them to be
brought back in the Hindu fold. He gave the example of how Vanar Sena helped Ram and
Nishad helped Ram in crossing river, which shows that they were always part of Indian
society and he proposed ‘policy of assimilation’ for tribes.
Western Indologists portrayed Indian sadhus as orthodox, suspicious and reason of all
evils in Indian society. G.S. Ghurye in his book ‘Indian Sadhus’, tried to prove that
Indian sadhus have always been great contributor in the development of India. He gave
3
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
the example of Rishi Dadhichi who had sacrificed his backbone to make the bow to kill
demons. He said that sadhus have always backed out Indian society in the period of
crisis.
Western Indologists / Orientalists believed that the status of women has always been
lower due to patriarchy. In Manusmriti, women are compared with animals and it is
believed that more they are beaten it is better. Ghurye gave example of ‘Rigveda’ in
which women have participated in public domain and the intellectuals like Maitreyi,
Ghosha, Apala are some of the main women intellectuals.
Ghurye through his nationalist Indology tried to neutralize western Indologists who were
portraying wrong picture of Indian society.
Recently, under the influence of Louis Dumont and Mackim Marriott, culturological
writings on India have fruitfully utilized the insight of Indological approaches. All the
major sociologists before independence were influenced by Indological approach. Even
Srinivas had at times used Indological data to supplement his fieldwork.
Criticism
- M.N. Srinivas criticized Indology by calling it a ‘text view’. He proposed ‘field
view’ to understand Indian society.
- Yogendra Singh believed that though Indologists have taken the examples from
the ancient texts but it is based on non-observable and non-empirical evidences.
Empirical verification is important for establishment of any theory.
- Sociology seeks objectivity which lacks in Indology. It is more subjective
interpretation than objective reality.
- As A.R. Desai said the ancient texts are literature that represents Brahminical
view and cannot give real account of Indian society. He adds that, studying India
from the lens of culture provides us no space to understand the real India that
lives within inequality, diversity, dialectic and exploitation.
Conclusion
Indian society is considered as ‘cultural particularistic’ society which has attracted large
number of scholars but Max Muller, Sir William Jones, Louis Dumont and other scholars
realized that Indian society cannot be understood from the western perspective. But as
Ghurye believed the western scholars have their hidden agenda of making a ground for
missionaries, hence it is important to unmask their agenda. He proposed nationalist view
which became very popular followed by B.G. Bhandarkar, Thakkar Bapa, etc. A.K. Saran
said that though Ghurye’s explanation is compromise on the issue of objectivity but he
gave befitting reply to the western Indologists.
4
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
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.
5
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
integrated and collectively contribute towards the maintenance of the order and stability
of the system.
Functionalists believe in consensus, order and stability of the system. Unlike the
evolutionists, the functionalists search for the origin of institutions in terms of the
essential functions they perform.
The structural- functionalists view that the Indian society is made up of castes as
significant parts that collectively constitute the social system. Castes form the units or the
building blocks of Indian social structure since they have been enduring or lasting groups
that determine the person to person institutionally defined relationship in the society.
According to Srinivas there are basically two ways of understanding Indian society.
Those are: ‘book view’ and ‘field view’. Book view is to understand the society from the
books and literature available and is otherwise known as Indological approach. The other
is ‘field view’, where understanding society from field work is considered as important.
M.N. Srinivas rejected the cultural or Indological view by calling it ‘text view’ and
instead suggested ‘field view’. [M.N. Srinivas was disciple of G.S. Ghurye, A.R. Radcliff
Brown and W.H. Rivers (diffusionist approach).] Srinivas believed that the western
Indian sociological tradition is a cultural approach which do not portray complete picture
of Indian Society. Rather they study unique institution like caste system, jajmani,
polytheism, etc. but in the process of studying the unique institutions no one tried to
understand Indian society as a whole.
He suggested that all the institutions or systems of society should be understood in the
context of Indian society, how they contribute in the stability and continuity of society.
M.N. Srinivas himself studied ‘Rampura village’ of Mysore and in his book ‘Religion
and Society among the Coorgs of South India’ (1952) presented Structural Functionalist
view.
6
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
- In 1948, the total population of Rampura was 1523 in which there were 19 Hindu
castes and Muslims were living together. Most of the castes were attached with
their traditional occupations and there was clear cut hierarchy within the caste.
There were very clear rules of endogamy, Commensal relation, and social
interaction. All castes used to follow the taboos and prohibitions attached with
them.
- The economy of Rampura was agriculture based in which there were two classes
– landlords – generally upper castes and do not participate in agricultural
activities. Peasants/agricultural workers – who were either share croppers or daily
wage earners who generally belonged to lower caste.
- The relations between different castes were based on mutual interdependence and
Brahmins and landlords used to provide their patronage and direction to the
religious and community activities of village.
- In Rampura there were many castes like barbers, washerman, toddy trappers, oil
pressers, etc. who used to follow their caste occupations and under the jajmani
system they used to provide their goods and services to other castes.
- In Rampura, Brahmins and Vokkaliga were the upper caste who used to maintain
law and order and justice.
- The festivals and cultural fairs in the village was a ground of meeting and
revitalizing ‘we feeling’ in Rampura.
- In Rampura, initiation ceremonies, marriage, death, upnayan ceremonies were
basis of consideration of solidarity of the community.
- All the castes exchanged their goods and services though jajmani system which
kept them interdependent.
- Lower castes imitated upper caste oftenly (sanskritization) and in this process
they gave up alcohol, polluted profession, non-vegetarianism, etc. to acquire
social mobility.
- The festivals in the village helps to maintain the bonding otherwise society may
degenerate.
With the above mentioned explanation, M.N. Srinivas tried to explain how different
institutions practice and units of the society contribute in the maintenance of social
structure of Rampura. M.N. Srinivas’ perception is based on cooperation, mutual
dependence and harmony as the basis of Indian society and all the institutions perform
their respective roles in this context.
Criticism
- M.N. Srinivas presented ideal rosy picture of society. He totally ignored crime
and deviance in society. He also ignored the suppression of lower castes by upper
caste.
7
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
Later, his perspective was followed by S.C. Dube, B.R. Chauhan, Mackim Marriot,
Milton Singer, etc and still Srinivas’ perspective is guiding Indian sociology.
8
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
This perspective was applied by Marx to understand the European society and the nature
of capitalist exploitation. There are very few sociologists who try to apply Marxian
perspective on Indian society. A.R. Desai is the most prominent one to use it.
Desai’s Marxist sociology used the historical method to give specific meaning to the
Marxist notion of structure and the various elements in its constitution in India such as
feudalism, capitalism, the relationship between class and nation, peasants and working
class, the post – colonial state and the rights of the deprived. Desai framed an
interdisciplinary sociology in which there was very little differences between sociology
and social science which used the method of participant observation and fieldwork to
understand Indian social structure and capture the processes of change.
A.R. Desai is one among the Indian Sociologists who have constantly advocated and
applied dialectical historical model in his sociological studies. Desai closely studied the
works of Marx and Engel’s. He is regarded as one of the pioneers of the modern Marxist
approach to empirical investigations involving bibliographical and field research.
Desai has consistently applied Marxist methods in his treatment of Indian social structure
and its processes. He finds that the dominant sociological approaches in India are
basically non-Marxist, and Marxist approach has been rejected on the pretext of being
dogmatic, value-loaded and deterministic in nature. The relevant approach according to
Desai, is the Marxist approach as it could help to study the government policies, as well
as caste and class system into state apparatus and India’s political economy.
Desai rejected cultural perspective of Louis Dumont and G.S. Ghurye and also rejected
structural perspective of M.N. Srinivas and S.C. Dube.
He believed that Indian society should also be studied through the ‘economic perspective’
developed by Marx. Before Desai, there was a tradition in Indian sociology to understand
Indian society on the basis of caste, religion, festivals, rituals, etc. Desai, rejected this
9
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
perspective and believed that economy is the infrastructure which determines all others
aspects of the society.
A.R. Desai has applied Marxist perspective to understand the diverse aspects of Indian
social reality. In his books ‘Social Background of Indian Nationalism’, ‘Peasant Struggle
in India’, ‘India’s Path of Development’, he presented his perspective towards Indian
society.
Desai in his book ‘Social Background of Indian Nationalism’ identified the economic
reason of emergence of Indian nationalism. According to him, before British rule,
Indian agriculture was a community affair. Ownership over land was based on
community, ownership.
During British rule, capitalist economy in the form of colonialism was introduced in
Indian society in the form of Ryotwari, Zamindari, Mahalwari, industrialization,
urbanization etc. which gave birth to two economic classes:
(a) Exploiters – British industrialists, investors, officials and their Indian allies like
Zamindars etc.
(b) Exploited – Outcome of new economy like Ryots, landless labourers, industrial
workers, etc.
The similar economic condition of the exploited gave birth to similar kind of
consciousness as in Europe against the exploiters which emerged in the form of
nationalism.
Desai believes that the economic exploitation gave birth to a new form of awareness
which led to the organization of exploited like peasants, workers, labourers, etc. who
organized themselves in the form of freedom struggle.
In his another book ‘Peasant Struggle in India’, he tried to understand the reason of
peasant movement during colonial rule. According to him, during British rule, two
economic classes emerged out of British economic policies.
1) Who were benefitted by the British policies and programmes – Industrialists,
landlords and other allies.
2) Who were the losers due to the progress and policies of colonial rules – Ryots,
cottage industrialists, artisans, etc.
10
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
He believes that those who were the losers due to the British economic policy 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?
On the basis of above mentioned facts he accused national government for being soft
towards the capitalist interest after independence, though government claimed to be a
socialist. On the basis of above mentioned explanation it can be said that A.R. Desai’s
perspective towards Indian society was largely Marxist, which was mainly economic
interpretation of past, present and future of Indian society.
He applied Marxian perspective on Indian society in same manner the way Marx applied
it on western society.
Criticism
- 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, hence economic determinism view cannot be accepted as a dominant
perspective of Indian society.
- Yogendra singh said that though A.R. Desai tried to give proper logic in the
favour of his perspective but his perspective was not properly backed up by
proper facts.
- M.N. Sirnivas rejected this perspective who believed that though the importance
of economy cannot be denied but Indian society was always governed by
tradition, caste and religion than economy. He questioned Desai that why always
Vaishya Varna had control over economy but why not they controlled the religion
and caste system.
Conclusion
A.R. Desai is one of the most prominent sociologist who applied Marxist perspective on
Indian society. Though this perspective was not very much supported by other eminent
sociologists because economic forces have never been dominant force in Indian society
but the way A.R. Desai introduced economic perspective in Indian society, it was new of
11
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
its kind and later influenced many other sociologists and historians like Yogendra Singh,
T.K. Oommen, Sumit Sarkar, etc.
The Marxist approach is to understand any society and change in it. According to Marx
“Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion, or by anything
one likes”. Men begin to distinguish themselves when they produce the means of
subsistence. Because in producing the means of subsistence they produce the material
life.
The Marxist approach demands from everyone to understand social reality, to be clear
about the nature of means of production, the techno- economic division of labor and
social relations of production.
Marxist approach considers property relations as crucial because they shape the purpose,
nature, direction and objectives underlying the production.
In Marxist approach “History is a shank” of all well conducted studies of man and
society. It demands that a specific society should be studied as a changing system
comprised of contradictory forces some of which sustain and others which change that
society.
In short, the Marxist approach gives central importance to property structure in analyzing
any society. It provides historical location and specification of all social phenomenon.
The Marxist approach, in contrast to other sociological approach exhibits one
distinguishing feature i.e. the importance given to the “mode of production of material
life”.
12
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com