This article initiates the CIS (New Series) Archive.

It unlocks the prehistory

of the journal’s association with Louis Dumont, the founder editor of the
Contributions to Indian Sociology (original series, 1957–66) and includes
comments on his encounters with its new avatar.
Editors

From the Archive: Transition to

Contributions to Indian Sociology
(New Series)

T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

Comprising two parts, the article focuses on the closure in 1966 of Contributions to Indian
Sociology, the journal founded in 1957 by Louis Dumont and David Pocock. The two authors,
T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer, write about the transition of Contributions to Indian
Sociology to Contributions to Indian Sociology: New Series in 1967. Their recollections
are based on their correspondence with Dumont and each other. The intention is to place
on record the origin and scope of the two journals.

Keywords: Dumont, Contributions, behaviour, ideas, values

T.N. Madan is Honorary Professor at Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, India.

E-mail: tnmadan@gmail.com
Adrian C. Mayer is Emeritus Professor of Asian Anthropology, School of Oriental &
African Studies, University of London, London, UK.
E-mail: adrian@acmayer.co.uk

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC/
Melbourne
DOI: 10.1177/0069966718763848
2 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

I
The transition of Contributions to Indian Sociology to
the New Series
T.N. Madan

In two earlier articles (Madan 1999, 2008), I have written about the tran-
sition of Contributions to Indian Sociology (henceforth, Contributions)
from the original series (1957–66, nine numbers; there was no issue in
1963) to the New Series in 1967. The present note may be considered
an elaboration of the second of the two articles. In it I have quoted from
Dumont’s letters to me (1964–91) about his views on the scope of the
original series, and his suggestions regarding the nature and scope of a
successor journal, if and when launched. Dumont’s letters are presently in
my possession. I have taken the liberty of editing selected excerpts from
them to avoid excessive detail and repetitiveness.
I have not included here any reference to my conversations and corre-
spondence on the transition with any colleagues other than Adrian Mayer.
He provides in Part II a comprehensive account of the exchange of views
between Dumont and him, and between the two of us.
As I have earlier noted (especially in Madan 2008), I was a faculty
member of Karnatak University in Dharwar when I read in 1964 Du-
mont’s announcement of the impending closure of the journal (CIS 7,
1964). I deeply regretted this decision. I had personally come to regard a
direct engagement with ideas and values, and with relevant Indological
and historical materials, in the reconstruction of a sociology of India as a
much needed broadening of the prevailing methodological and theoreti-
cal perspectives derived primarily from Anglo-American social/cultural
anthropology.
Accordingly, I wrote to Dumont asking if he might reconsider his de-
cision in the best interests of the discipline. He responded promptly but
negatively (15 October 1964):

It is heartening for me that you express concern about the fate of Con-
tributions to Indian Sociology.
I feel I ought to inform you that we [Dumont and Pocock] knew from
the beginning that the publication would have to cease after some

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

 Transition to Contributions to Indian Sociology / 3

time (Editorial in No. 4). Whatever gaps remain, I feel we shall have
exemplified the approach we initially purported to do ….1 The col-
laboration cannot be widely enlarged without it losing its character and
purpose. I have announced the impending end in order to give alert to
those who might take an active interest in some kind of continuation.
According to all appearances they are few. Of course, the publication
could be resumed after some time. But even with the help of occasional
collaborators, I do not feel able to carry the burden of editorship ….
A possibility appeared during a recent conversation with F.G. Bailey.
A different publication might be launched with an editorial board of
scholars of different tendencies, which might be wider in scope but
might relate in some manner [to the present periodical], with a differ-
ent title and with Pocock as one of the editors. I would drop out. Thus
advantage could be taken of the present venture to launch a decent …
international journal of the speciality. For the moment, I am thinking
of, besides you, Bernard Cohn, and Adrian Mayer …. There is still time
[two more numbers of CIS were in the pipeline], but it is good that those
who might take the torch from us give some thought to the question.

After this initial exchange of letters between Dumont and me, I had
occasion to discuss the matter in some detail with Adrian Mayer twice,
early in 1965 (first at a conference in Patna and then when he visited
Dharwar). Mayer was very supportive of the idea of a successor journal
rather than a wholly unrelated new publication. He agreed to be one of
the editors, but insisted that I take the responsibility of coordinating
the efforts of the editorial team. It followed that I find a good reliable
Indian publisher.
In between the two meetings with Mayer, I was also able to discuss
the proposal with F.G. Bailey (he too came to Dharwar). He emphasised
the desirability of an editorial policy, broad in scope and explicitly sup-
portive of a plurality of methodological perspectives. It may be noted
here that Bailey was the first contributor to Contributions, other than
Dumont and Pocock. He had sent to the editors a sharp attack on what
he considered an excessively one-sided approach, and the same had been

1
On David Pocock’s reminiscences of the beginnings of Contributions to Indian
Sociology, see Parry and Simpson (2010).

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

4 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

published (Bailey 1959).2 David Pocock too had visited Dharwar in the
summer of 1964. We talked about Contributions, particularly in the
light of his withdrawal from editorial responsibility jointly with Dumont
in 1960. At that time, I had no idea that the closure of the journal had
already been announced by Dumont in Contributions’ Number 7 which
had not reached me by then.
Following the meetings with Mayer and Bailey, I wrote to Pocock
and Cohn, as suggested by Dumont and agreed to by Mayer. Pocock
agreed readily, welcoming the idea of a successor journal. Cohn was
positive, but regretted his inability to join the editorial team because of
other commitments. I then wrote to Edward Harper at Bailey’s sugges-
tion, and he too agreed to work together with the three of us—Mayer,
Pocock and me.
With the editorial team in place, I wrote to Samuel Israel—chief ac-
quisitions editor at Asia Publishing House, Bombay—and he agreed to
publish an annual periodical without a subsidy. These preliminaries settled,
I formally invited F.G. Bailey, S.C. Dube, Louis Dumont, Milton Singer
and M.N. Srinivas, after consultations with my co-editors, to accept our
invitation to be the editorial advisers, and they all agreed.
Commenting on these developments, Dumont wrote (1 August 1965):

2
Bailey opens his critique by calling the approach advocated by Dumont and Pocock as
‘too narrow’ which comes ‘near to defining “sociology” out of existence’ (1959: 88). Further:
‘In my view a knowledge of cultural values is only the beginning or the raw material of
sociological analysis …. It is only as culturology that the subject can be made distinctively
“Indian”’ (ibid.: 98–99). Bailey concludes: ‘Many people who have missed the very special
and narrow meaning which the editors [Dumont and Pocock] attach to “Indian sociology”,
will have been offended by the astounding arrogance of “the sociology of India has only
properly begun in the last ten years”’ (ibid.: 100).
In a short comment sent to Dumont in 1965, and published by him in the concluding
number of Contributions (9, 1996), I attempted to briefly explore the possibility—admittedly
a difficult if not impossible task—of reconciling Bailey’s behaviouristic (outsider view only)
approach with the dialectic of insider–outsider views advocated by Dumont and Pocock.
By opening the door, as it were, to the view from outside, I argued, without surrendering
to dogmatic positivism, they were not totally opposed to Bailey’s approach although he
emphatically rejected theirs (Madan 1966).
In response, Dumont reiterated: ‘Duality, … is here the condition sine qua non of social
anthropology … of sociology of a deeper kind’ (Dumont 1966: 23). Incidentally, with this
exchange began the forum ‘For a Sociology of India’ which featured short articles on the
theme in the concluding number of each volume of Contributions to Indian Sociology: New
Series for three decades and more.

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

 Transition to Contributions to Indian Sociology / 5

I have corresponded from the start more with Mayer than you. But I
am very glad you have accepted to become the responsible editor, and
that a satisfactory agreement has been reached with Asia Publishing
House ….
I should sum up for you the substance of recent letters to Mayer (and
Pocock), especially Mayer. I expressed a preference for a slightly differ-
ent title …. If the title is to be Contributions to Indian Sociology: New
Series, as suggested by Mayer, I could then be an editorial adviser. As
one, I would like to have a say in the transition from the one journal to
the other. … An announcement could then be carried in Contributions 9.

Actually, this last issue of Contributions carried the announcement of the

New Series in both the editorial, Dumont wrote, and at the end, a full page
announcement on behalf of the new editors. Things then started moving to
search for papers of the inaugural issue of the New Series. I asked Dumont
in May 1966 to contribute an article, even a short one, to underscore the
connection. He responded (1 July) that he should be allowed to keep his
distance and act only as an adviser, and not also contribute an article then
or later. He maintained this position throughout the next 25 years of the
tenure of the first editorial team which underwent only minor changes
during the period (for details, see Madan 2008). Only thrice did Dumont
relax this self-imposed restriction in special circumstances, as is evident
from the nature of the articles concerned. Two of them are responses:
one to a symposium on Homo Hierarchicus and the other to an article
we published, which followed but also departed from Dumont’s stand on
aspects of kinship in north India. The third occasion was when he agreed
to let us reprint an article (with minor editorial changes which he accepted)
published elsewhere (Dumont 1971, 1975, 1983).
I also informed Dumont that, on the advice of M.N. Srinivas (one of the
advisers), I had formally requested P.N. Dhar, director of the Institute of
Economic Growth, Delhi—where I had moved from Karnatak University
in April (1966)—to sponsor the journal, and he had agreed. 3

3
Actually, it was several months before the formal acceptance of the proposal was
received by me, and this caused some concern to Dumont. In his letter of 1 May 1967, he
inquired again: ‘I hope you got your sponsor in the meantime. Do not doubt my interest in
the New Series ….’

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

6 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

Dumont responded as follows (8 August 1966): ‘I also think very

strongly that ownership should not be abandoned to a publisher.’ He in-
formed me that the original series too had been sponsored by the institution
with which he was associated at that time—École Pratique des Hautes
Études (EPHE), Paris. The publishing firm of Mouton (Paris, The Hague)
had undertaken publication.
Early in 1967, I sent Dumont a list of the papers that we had accepted
for the first number of the New Series. In response, he wrote (7 February
1967) that he found it ‘quite interesting’. Further, he wrote:

I should like to meddle as little as possible with the new publication,

at least in its initial stages. Do not send me any paper for approval un-
less you cannot do otherwise. I understand that you will as a rule not
review books. Here I have a problem regarding works in French which
are likely to escape attention of Indian students.

He mentioned three titles, particularly Bernard Pignède’s monograph on

the Gurung of Nepal. In consultation with the other editors, I conveyed to
him our agreement that we could occasionally publish reviews and book
notices. Accordingly, he sent me a commented summary of Pignède’s
book by Lionel Caplan, which was published (CIS: NS, 1: 84–89, 1967).
Early in the following year (on 13 January 1968), he recommended
continuation of the programme of exchange of journals, which he had
initiated, as a good way of widely publicising Contributions. The exchange
programme with 31 international journals continues to this day.
On receiving the first issue of the New Series, Dumont wrote (18
March 1968): ‘It looks quite honourable and substantial.’ Later that year,
he visited Delhi, and told me jokingly that Lévi-Strauss would have been
pleased with this first issue. Obviously, he was not particularly impressed
with one of the articles which followed the Lévi-Straussian method of
interpreting myths.
On 29 September 1969, Dumont wrote acknowledging receipt of the
second number (CIS: NS, 2), calling it ‘quite rich’. Thereafter, he always
acknowledged the arrival of each succeeding issue, offering appreciation,
disagreement or, on some occasions, severe criticism. On 14 May 1971, after
receiving the fifth number (CIS: NS, 5), he wrote appreciatively: ‘Someone
here said the other day that Contributions [is] far above many publications
of kind’, adding that this was a ‘tribute’ to the quality of editorship.

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

 Transition to Contributions to Indian Sociology / 7

But On 27 August 1989, he wrote about a special number: ‘Surely,

you did not imagine I relished it! … I have just passed it on to Jean-
Claude Galey.’ Obviously, he did not want to look at it again! Similarly,
he was quite unhappy with what he considered erroneous, misleading
and unacceptable criticism of his work on Dravidian kinship by Rudner
(1990). He felt stung by the use of the term ‘inquest’ in the title of the
article. On 17 April 1991, he wrote: ‘Am I a malefactor to be subjected
to an “inquest”? Why such hostility? Is it there in place of solid argu-
ment? … It is a relief to turn away from such inanities. The apple trees
in my valley are in full bloom.’
Nothing was too small for a positive or negative comment. On 4
August 1983, he responded to my expression of dismay on seeing the
changes of colour of the cover page and the style of lettering made by the
new publisher, SAGE India (CIS: NS, 17, 1), without my clearance. He
commented: ‘I too had noticed the unaesthetic aspect of the new cover.’
In early 1987, I sought Dumont’s consent to reprint the original series,
as a single volume. M.N. Srinivas was one of the persons to write to me
about the importance of making Contributions available again. In a letter
M.N. Srinivas wrote to me from Stanford (USA) on 4 November 1970, he
observed: ‘I hope the publishers will agree to the reprinting of Contribu-
tions (O.S.) in one or two volumes. I do not think it should be difficult to
sell about 2000 copies. They [the original nine numbers] are indispensable
for any department teaching sociology in India.’4
Actually, SAGE was more than willing to do this, as they had received
many inquiries about the original series, but Dumont did not agree. He
wrote to me on 7 April 1987: ‘Contributions was a very circumstantial
undertaking, the scene is so different today from what it was, that reprint-
ing these articles would only foster misunderstandings. Many pieces had
a polemical aspect, which was resented then, and [reprinting them] could
not be justified.’ Needless to add, Dumont’s position here testifies to his

4
This evaluation of the original series is particularly noteworthy because when I met him
in his office (at the Delhi School of Economics) in the summer of 1966 to request him on
behalf of the editors to become one of the advisers, Srinivas had agreed (as I have already
note earlier) but stressed (like Bailey) the need for a more open editorial policy than that of
Dumont and Pocock. I recall him saying that while he had welcomed Contributions as an
important intervention in the making of a sociology of India, he had been unhappy with the
‘magisterial style’ of Dumont and Pocock’s ‘pronouncements’, which were not quite like
‘proposals’ as claimed by them.

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

8 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

generally unrecognised openness to at least some readers’ critical reactions

to the approach advocated by him and Pocock. This does not of course
mean that they accepted all the criticisms, such as Bailey’s.
Volume 15, 1–2 (1981) comprised invited essays, contributed by a
number of scholars from India and abroad, in Louis Dumont’s honour.
The volume was published early in the following year as a hardcover
festschrift under the title of Way of Life: King, Householder, Renouncer
(1982). He was justifiably pleased with this manner of honouring which
did not mean, as he told me, that he agreed with everything that the con-
tributing authors had written, or that he considered all essays of equal
merit. The Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (Paris) also published the
book under its own imprint the same year. It received excellent reviews
in reputed journals everywhere.
A second edition was published in 1988. It had a new Preface, which
included a brief report on the ceremony felicitating Louis Dumont at the
Institute of Economic Growth on 11 January 1982 and a supplementary
bibliography of his writings. On receiving a copy of this edition, Dumont
wrote on 19 January 1989: ‘Way of Life is certainly a success story.’
In August that year, I wrote to him that the time had come for the
editorial team to make way for a group of new editors. He responded to
my letter on 27 August 1989:

Does it imply that your choice is only between going on or stepping

down? But what about a transitional period during which you remain
[in overall charge] while trying out the [possibility of] a new editorial
team? In any case, one would like the journal to have one foot in India
and one in Europe.

Obviously, he was keen on preserving the international character of

Contributions.
In the event, the editorial team and the board of advisers continued
for another two years. A new arrangement was in place by early 1991.
Dumont’s final comment on the rather prolonged process of consulta-
tions was that he was confident that things would proceed smoothly, but
insisted that his formal association with the journal must also come to an
end. As he put it (17 April 1991): ‘the time has come for an end to that’.
He never again wrote to me about Contributions although a copy of each

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

 Transition to Contributions to Indian Sociology / 9

issue was sent to him regularly. We continued to be in touch, however,

by correspondence and at personal meetings up to early 1998. Dumont
passed away later that year.

II
Contributions: New Series
Adrian C. Mayer

Professor Madan has suggested that I might like to add to his note on
Louis Dumont’s attitude to the New Series of Contributions, since I
was in continuing contact with Dumont during the journal’s gestation
in 1964 and 1965. Thinking about those days, I opened the file of letters
that I had kept and found that the memory of someone in his 96th year
is far from complete. What follows is an account of Dumont’s letters
to me in the context of how Madan and I acted as the main midwives
to the new journal.5
My tale starts in the autumn of 1964 with a cryptic message from
Madan. I was at the time in (West) Pakistan on study leave from SOAS
and had written him to say that I hoped to visit India later in my leave. In
reply I got a chatty letter written on 13 November which ended with the
sentence: ‘That reminds me: it seems you and I may be associated with
two others in running another periodical [i.e., Contributions]. You must
be knowing about it already.’ In this, he was wrong, for I had no idea of
what he was talking about. However, I was soon to be put in the picture,
for I received a letter from Dumont, written on 22 October, which reached
me only a month later, having staggered from one forwarding address to
another until it found me in Kabul. It was in French, as were all Dumont’s
subsequent letters.6

5
In a covering letter Mayer wrote to Madan:

You will see from your file that the three matters which continued after this successful
start were l) the recruitment of Americans to the Editorial and Advisory Boards 2)
the form that our Announcement would take in LD’s (Louis Dumont’s) last issue
and 3) the question of Asia’s ownership of the journal.
6
I have provided an English translation of the parts which I think are relevant to this
story, summarising the remainder. Though not being a qualified translator, I believe that I
have provided the sense of what he wrote. My replies were in English.

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

10 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

My dear Mayer:
I am writing to put you in the picture about one or two things which
concern Contributions, and to end by asking you a question. Please treat
as confidential any judgements I may be led to make about individuals.
Here’s a little too solemn a beginning. As you will see, it is only about
simple enough things.
It happens that we did not speak about Contributions [when we met] in
London, but I was able to do so with Bailey. I was led to tell him that
once the next two issues that I’m working on had appeared I would
end the publication. If one or two colleagues were interested in build-
ing on our work by starting an acceptable journal I would think it a
possible continuation. The title would be more or less modified and an
editorial board chosen, of which [David] Pocock could be one, to show
the continuing presence of the previous approach in the new journal.
On receiving a letter from Madan who seemed sincerely concerned
at the ending of the journal, and replying in the same way but adding
to Pocock’s name those of Madan himself, B. S. Cohn and yourself
as possible editors I realised that you were the person best able to run
the publication. (I’m thinking of an editorial committee meeting once
a year and as it were an executive editor). Having got that far—my
apologies for not consulting you—I had at least to put you in the picture.
A few comments. First, one can decide to do nothing, or start a com-
pletely separate journal. Moreover Mouton’s distribution is so bad that
one might best choose another ‘publisher’ [English used]. I hope soon
to have circulation figures to clarify this. Second, if one wants to do
something of this kind it goes without saying that the new team will
be the essential agent, and thus the usual formula of a Board with all
the professors in the world on it seems to me to detract from an active
team of which at least three members can periodically meet (given the
funds). From this point of view the centre must be in England … as to
my absence from this team I think it best, and it suits me personally,
for I wish to focus on something else, though perhaps offering you a
paper sometimes.

He goes on to say that there’s nothing urgent in all this, and that he hopes
that the concerned people will become a team which can agree about a

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

 Transition to Contributions to Indian Sociology / 11

transition. As to the composition of such a team, he says that he’s under

no obligation to Pocock (since he has by now become sole editor) and
that he has no objection to Bailey being on the ‘Committee of Direction’,
though it would not be good for the thing to be ‘too strongly English’
(his italics). In this connection, he comments: ‘As to it being preferable
to leave to one side the “professors” of the Anglo-Saxon world, I think
comment is superfluous.’
He ends by repeating that there is no haste required since the last issue
of Contributions will not appear until spring 1966. But neither could he
have left informing me until I returned (from Pakistan). In a PS, he adds
that another possibility would be to end the journal and re-start it after an
interval when this appeared possible, but that he prefers the alternative
(i.e., of an uninterrupted continuation).
My reply of 21 November starts by saying that I find his proposal ‘an
important one’ and that I am ‘most interested’. I then raise two questions:
First, to whom has he suggested that I be the editor or chairman of the edito-
rial committee, and to whom has he suggested that they be other members
of the board? Second, I wonder how such a journal would fit in with others,
present and projected, since, for example, there is talk in England about a
new Journal of South Asian Studies, and Professor Ishwaran intends start-
ing a biennial journal to be published by Brill. I continue, ‘I do not suggest
that either journal would have the same interests, coverage, or possibilities
as the one you envisage, but it does seem that there is a possibility of over-
journalising the field with perhaps not enough really first class material
forthcoming.’ I end by saying that I do not wish to sound pessimistic and
think the idea is well worth exploring and considering such points early
on, and that I hope to sound people out when I go to India in the new year.
Dumont’s reply (1 December 1964) mentions Bailey and Madan as the
people he has contacted, though not yet Pocock or Cohn: but he does not
say whether he has outlined to the former the role he has projected for me.
He has more to say about my second question as follows:

I understand the problem you raise but have little to say; had it been a
new journal I would have had absolutely nothing to say. It is only that
it will follow in some sense the Contributions that I have felt inclined
to make suggestions. It is from this point of view that I have suggested
people for the Board of Editors, seeking effectiveness and seriousness
[an article could be written glossing some of the words used by Dumont:

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

12 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

for instance, the word ‘sérieux’ could be translated as ‘dependability’,

‘reliability’, ‘responsibility’ or even ‘genuineness’], rather than aca-
demic ‘representation’. For it goes without saying that the continuity of
Contributions could not be filled by a ‘Journal of South Asian Studies’,
where appear all the ‘pontifes’ [pundits, big shots] and in which more
or less anything is published. My feeling is that an enlarged biannual
publication, treating the subcontinent in a serious manner should be
viable. But you are right in considering the competition and there is no
reason why Contributions should not simply end publication, though
I’ll be interested to see what will happen to it.
My idea is that those who would like it to continue should consult
together, my intervention only being sought when the question of the
filiation with the present series arises. It is in this sense that I have
proposed Pocock though, as you know, I am now solely responsible
for the journal.

I acknowledged this letter (10 January 1965) saying that I planned to

discuss the issues it raised with Madan when visiting India in February,
and at the same time, writing to the latter to say that Dumont had now
sent me his proposition and that I looked forward to considering it with
him at a conference of sociologists in Patna.
We had several long discussions during the conference, agreeing on the
following points: The journal would initially be issued annually, perhaps
biennially in future, and it would not contain reviews, though perhaps
review articles.
We would follow Dumont’s suggestion of having a small number of
working editors and a somewhat larger editorial board. The former would
consist of ourselves, plus an American and David Pocock to provide
continuity. The latter would consist of two Indians and one from each of
the other major contributing nations.
I was to sound out Professor Dube for membership of the latter body,
when I visited Sagar shortly after the conference, and I am glad to say
that he agreed to serve and concurred with the outlines we had drawn up.
By that time, Dumont had informed Pocock of the discussion that had
already occurred. The latter wrote to me shortly after this (5 March 1965),
saying that he had replied asking what financial support was backing this
enterprise and adding:

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

 Transition to Contributions to Indian Sociology / 13

I myself am lukewarm in the matter and will only engage myself on

two conditions: 1) that you are editor in chief with authority for final
decisions etc. 2) that there is the finance to enable the editors to meet.
Apart from [overseeing] the publication this would be a valuable facility
for meetings, seminars etc. Please let me know, however tentatively,
your reactions.

This letter prompted my letter to Dumont of 1 April 1965. After listing

the points that Madan and I had agreed on at the conference, I said that
before committing myself, I would like to know the financial backing
we could expect and also the present circulation figure. I added that my
decision had recently been complicated by an invitation to edit the RAI’s
new quarterly journal, this being a merger of the JRAI and Man, to which
I had replied that I could give them no answer whilst the editorship of
Contributions was still a possibility.
Dumont’s reply (10 April 1965) is unequivocal:

You ask me about ‘financial backing and circulation’ [in English]. As

far as circulation goes, I asked some time ago for the figures, without
result. Today I’m told, vaguely, that they are, ‘around 500–600’. They
also confirm that publication is assured by a subvention from our
School [i.e., the École Pratique des Hautes Études (ÉPHÉ)] with noth-
ing from Mouton [the publisher]. My view is that one cannot expect
anything from the moment that nothing happens in Paris any longer,
and that it will then be up to the new team to arrange for the financing
of the new journal. I’ve just spoken with M. Clemens Heller who is
our administrative head and he says more or less what I expected. He
suggests you contact him on your return; he is well disposed, but it
must be clear between us that I cannot be included as an editor solely
to obtain a subvention from this source.

By May 1965, my study leave was over and I was back in London, and
on 2 May 1965, I send three letters appraising the situation. To Dumont,
I write only briefly, to say that with the ending of aid from the ÉPHÉ,
we must start anew. We will try to identify sources of support but that if
we are unsuccessful, we may well have to abandon the idea of a second
series. I ask what reply he has had from Cohn, since American money
might be easier to raise than British.

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

14 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

To Pocock, I write asking for ideas about money, adding ‘I am writ-

ing to Madan, asking if he has any bright idea—he did mention that he
thought that Asia might do the whole thing on a commission basis if we
could get a financial guarantor.’ To Madan I also ask:

What do you suggest should be done? Do you have any idea as to whom
we might approach for a subsidy—I think we should have one pledged
for, say, five years …. The other thing is would you care to contact Asia
and ask them whether they would be interested in publishing such a
journal for us, on the basis of a regular annual issue of, say, 125 pages.

Dumont replies (7 May 1965) that Heller has seen my last letter and
wants to meet him:

Though I maintain my resolution of separating myself from the journal

he on the contrary seeks a solution which would both continue my
collaboration and the continuation of financial support by the ÉPHÉ.
I doubt very much whether we can agree, but he is so concerned that I
cannot refuse to discuss the matter with him. I haven’t written to Cohn
or any other American about this, I have wanted to leave this entire
initiative to you.

To this letter, I send a brief reply (15 May 1965), saying that ‘I am
glad to hear that you are discussing with Heller ways of continuing the
Contributions.’ I mention that I am being ‘pressed very hard’ to take on
the editorship of the RAI’s new journal and that ‘I would consider this
invitation very seriously were you to continue to edit the Contributions.’
At the same time, I write to Madan and Pocock (21 May 1965) to keep
them in the picture. To both of them, I ask the question: What should
happen if Dumont and Heller cannot agree and Dumont ceases to be
editor? I remind them that I am ‘under considerable pressure (not to say
badgering) to become editor of the RAI’s new journal’ and wonder what
they would say if I gave up ‘what is at present a purely hypothetical
executive editorship of the new Contributions’. I would not wish them
to feel that I had let them down, but it was clear to me that there were
several fully qualified people able to take on the job, if we found the
financial backing, specifying to Pocock that ‘Madan would do an excel-
lent job especially if the journal were to be published by Asia,’ and to

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

 Transition to Contributions to Indian Sociology / 15

Madan that I thought ‘you yourself would be most suitable—especially

if Asia were to publish it’.
Even as I was sending the letters, Madan was writing one which
unlocked our remaining problems. Dated 22 May 1965, it started: ‘Dear
Adrian: we do not need a subsidy! I have persuaded Asia Publishing
House to accept responsibility for the journal on a “losses theirs—profits
theirs” basis. Is that all right?’ There followed various conditions, some
of which we could agree then and there (e.g., that we would publish both
commissioned and unsolicited contributions) and others which did not
seem to me to present major problems. I immediately replied (28 May
1965) accepting the offer in principle, adding that the success of the plan
would depend on his taking on the job of executive editor since such
a person needed to be in close touch with publishers and printers now
to be in India. My letter to Pocock elicited the reply (31 May 1965) ‘I
think very highly of Asia. Confirm my opinion of Madan, I have great
confidence in him.’
There remained only the letter to Dumont, and on 28 May 1965, I wrote
setting out what I have broadly adumbrated earlier. His reply (4 June 1965)
informed me that Heller had been seriously ill, but that he hoped to see
him soon. Given Heller’s interest in the future of the journal, he did not
wish to appear too positive about recent events, but noted:

Asia’s proposition is a very interesting one and actually seems to

have settled the question. I would have liked to have had the editing
in England but willingly realise that my opinion in the case in point
is irresponsible and finance is fundamental. I will ask Heller whether
ÉPHÉ will be able to make small grants for minor expenses: I doubt
it, but I will ask him. Only one question is not clear to me: what is to
be the journal’s new title? And how will its connexion with the old
one be marked?

Two days later (6 June 1965), Madan sent me a surprising proposition,

together with a welcome agreement. He wrote:

I doubt if the work for ‘our’ journal would be so heavy as to preclude

you from taking up the editorship of the RAI journal, particularly if
you can have the services of a secretary for the latter. What I mean is:
can’t you accept both?

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

16 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

I was more realistic than he about the likely time each of these jobs would
take and, though I have no record of my having overtly declined this
generous suggestion, it was not mentioned again. More encouragingly,
he goes on:

David [Pocock] has written to me also saying that I should be the editor.
As the person physically closer to the printer–publisher, I am willing
to shoulder all the routine chores connected with the production of
the journal: but, let us not please make any distinctions of designation
among ourselves.

Shortly after this, I received a note from Dumont (11 June 1965):

I have finally met with Heller, still ill but already at work. Our meeting
proceeded as I had envisaged. 1) He insists that I remain among the
editors, adding that in that case the École would underwrite the journal
as in the past. 2) I maintain my decision to end the journal in its pres-
ent form, including my responsibility for it. 3) He finally accepts my
decision, making it clear that the École ends its interest in the journal,
and further, to please me, abandons its right to the journal’s title.
Now it’s clear and leaves the way open for your plans. The only matter
which concerns me is the one that I recently raised: the title of the jour-
nal and the way of marking a minimum of continuity with that which
precedes it. My preference is to mark both difference and continuity,
with a title such as New Contributions, and a few lines of text giving
the basis of the journal, to appear on the inside cover as is now the case.

To this, I replied (15 June 1965):

Madan has just written to say that he agrees to take on the executive
duties connected with the journal, and I think it now remains to agree
on details of publication with Asia. We are now tentatively thinking of
an annual publication of about 125 pages rather than a biannual at least
to start with. As to the title, I have relayed your suggestion to David
and Madan and asked for their comments. I myself tend to favour
Contributions (New Series); it avoids the connotation of new and old
journal and it would be much, much easier bibliographically. Perhaps

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

 Transition to Contributions to Indian Sociology / 17

we could have a short piece in the last issue of the present Contribu-
tions, telling people of the new journal and enlisting their support.
I think that the whole arrangement accords closely with the outline you
put forward in your first letter to me about it all (small editorial board,
new publisher, basic continuation of the aims for which Contributions
was started), and I hope that you will agree with me that the outcome
is highly satisfactory and should produce the sort of journal we all
desire. Now that Madan has agreed to take over the detailed work I
feel that I can accept the invitation to edit the RAI’s new journal for a
limited period. It will mean quite a lot of extra work, but I hope it will
be worthwhile in aiding the JRAI-Man.

My penultimate letter from Dumont came in English, I know not why. In

it, he again raises the question of the journal’s title and whether his name
should be mentioned. Under his suggestion for a new title, his name would
not appear, whereas ... to be adopted:

my disappearance is not justified, indeed it does favour my remaining

somewhere among the Editors …. If this formula is retained the obvious
solution would be for me to be one of the [editorial] advisers [consist-
ing of Dube, Srinivas and 2–3 others]. I do not particularly relish the
idea, but it seems to impose itself insofar as I am not prepared to take
an active part in the editing. It also corresponds in the rough to a sug-
gestion from David that ‘France’ should be represented and it might
induce Heller to make an effort now and then. I ask you to discuss this
… particularly with Madan [this was the solution adopted] …. I see
no question otherwise: Contributions IX to appear some time in 1966,
may very well print, in addition to the Farewell of the present editor,
an Announcement by the new editors of their enterprise.

I reply (11 July 1965) that both Pocock and Madan hope he will agree to
be an advisory editor, and that his letter to me constitutes his agreement. I
end by saying: ‘My labours at the RAI are just beginning, and later I shall
probably regret having been induced to take the thing on.’
His last letter to me (2 August 1965) in this sequence reverts to French
and is mainly about his correspondence with Madan about the way in
which the new journal is to be announced in the present one. But his

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18

18 / T.N. Madan and Adrian C. Mayer

parting sentence reads: ‘I certainly suspected that the RAI would give
you tracas’. This French word can mean ‘worry, trouble’. Though this
was true at times, the positive compensations of my editorship by far
outweighed these.

REFERENCES
Bailey, F.G. 1959. ‘For a Sociology of India?’. Contributions to Indian Sociology 3: 88–101.
Caplan, Lionel. 1967. ‘Pignède’s Les Gurungs: A Commented Summary.’ Contributions to
Indian Sociology (New Series) 1: 84–89.
Dumont, Louis. 1966. ‘A Fundamental Problem in the Sociology of Caste.’ Contributions
to Indian Sociology 9: 17–32.
———. 1971. ‘On Putative Hierarchy and Some Allergies to It.’ Contributions to Indian
Sociology (New Series) 5: 58–81.
———. 1975. ‘Terminology and Prestations Revisited.’ Contributions to Indian Sociology
(New Series) 9 (2): 197–215.
———. 1983. ‘A Modified View of our Origins: The Christian Beginnings of Modern
Individualism.’ Contributions to Indian Sociology (New Series) 17 (1): 1–26.
Madan, T.N. 1966. ‘For a Sociology of India.’ Contributions to Indian Sociology 9: 9–16.
———. 1999. ‘Louis Dumont: A Memoir.’ Contributions to Indian Sociology (New Series)
33 (3): 473–501.
———. 2008. ‘Contributions to Indian Sociology at Fifty.’ Contributions to Indian Sociology
(New Series) 42 (1): 9–28.
Parry, Jonathan and Edward Simpson. 2010. ‘David Pocock’s Contributions and the Legacy
of Leavis.’ Contributions to Indian Sociology 44 (3): 331–59.
Rudner, David. 1990. ‘Inquest on Dravidian Kinship: Louis Dumont and the Essence of
Marriage Alliance.’ Contributions to Indian Sociology (New Series) 24 (2): 153–73.

Contributions to Indian Sociology 52, 2 (2018): 1–18