Sociology in India

Author(s): T. B. Bottomore
Source: The British Journal of Sociology , Jun., 1962, Vol. 13, No. 2 (Jun., 1962), pp. 98-
106
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/587886

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and The London School of Economics and Political Science are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal of Sociology

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SOCIOLOGY IN INDIA

T. B. Bottomore

'N THIS SHORT PAPER I shall not attempt to review all the
sociological work which is being done at present in India. Following
, ithe general plan of this Conference I shall outline the background
of Indian sociology, discuss some present styles of work, and finally con-
sider the place of Indian studies in British sociology.2

THE BACKGROUND

Soeiology was first introduced into the Indian Universities some forty
years ago; in I9I9 in the University of Bombay (by Patrick Geddes, who
was suceeeded as head of the department, in I924, by G. S. Ghurye)
and in I 92 I in the University of Lucknow, where Radhakamal
Mukherjee became head of a department of economics and sociology.
It was also taught, in this early period, in the department of anthro-
pology of Calcutta University. But the discipline grew very slowly
thereafter. In Lueknow, sociology had only a minor place in the curri-
eulum and until the I940'S there was no separate paper in the subject
in the B.A. degree and only one paper in the M.A. degree. In Bombay,
sociology had from the outset a more important place and made some
advances; there were four sociology papers in the M.A. degree, and
after I924 it became possible to take the degree entirely in sociology by
submitting a thesis. Later changes established sociology as an inde-
pendent subject for both M.A. and Ph.D. degrees. The University of
Bombay became, in fact, the centre of sociological studies in India, and
it was there that many of the older generation of university teachers
reeeived their first training.
The failure to develop is to be seen, however, not only in the fact that
sociology did not establish itself as an independent discipline outside
Bombay, but also in the character of sociological thought and research.
Mueh of the theoretical writing was devoted to presenting speculative
schemes of social evolution, and it was remote from the major intel-
leetual controversies of the times. Empirieal research, which was on
a small scale, was almost entirely descriptive and largely confined to the
sphere of social work (or 'social problems' in the narrow sense). Several
reasons might be adduced to account for this lack of progress; but there
are two which seem partieularly important. In the first place, Indian
sociology, like other disciplines, was intellectually dependent upon the
British Universities, and since academic sociology in Britain itself
98

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SOCIOLOGY IN INDIA

developed slowly in this period it was hardly to be expeeted that it

should burst into vigorous life in India. Seeondly, while soeiology is not
neeessarily subversive it is always likely to engender social criticism; in
order to flourish it needs, in greater measure than many other disci-
plines, a general freedom of thought, and it does not flourish under
authoritarian, or eolonial, governments.
It is worth noting that the position of social anthropology in India
was different in both these respeets. Its contacts with the British
Universities had a more stimulating effiect, because of the intelleetual
liveliness of British social anthropology, while its initial and predomin-
ant concern with the study of tribal peoples gave it a practical value for
the Government of India, and research was not merely unimpeded but
eneouraged. As a result, social anthropology attracted some outstand-
ing students, who were able to keep up with modern work in their field
and to carry out field studies which possessed some theoretical interest.
Sinee I947 the situation has greatly changed. Sociology is now taught
in more than half of the forty Universities in India and there are
separate departments of sociology in some twelve Universities. Outside
the Universities a number of well-equipped research institutes for
example, the Indian Statistical Institute (Calcutta), the Gokhale
Institute of Politics and Economics (Poona), and the Central Institute
of Study and Research in Community Development (Mussoorie)
have given a place to sociological research. With the more rapid, and
planned, changes in Indian society, sociological research has begun to
attract greater public interest, and it receives much official encourage-
ment and support, notably from the Research Programmes Committee
of the Planning Commission. At the same time the intellectual contacts
of independent India have widened considerably and Indian sociologists
have had better opportunities to become acquainted with recent work
in other countries, principally in the U.S.A. but also in the continental
European countries.
These changes have not proceeded without strain and difficulty. The
expansion of the Universities has given rise to grave problems of teaeh-
ing; the ratio of students to teaching staSis very high in most places, and
it is difficult to recruit suitably qualified teachers. The problem of
language is general and intractable. The continued use of English as
the medium of instruction presents many difficulties, but hardly more
than does the proposed changeover to Hindi and/or regional languages.
And sociological thought is peculiarly dependent upon the range and
sublety of language.
The advance which sociology has made in recent years may be seen,
from one aspect, in the activities of soeiological societies and conferences
and in the growth of sociological journals. The Indian Sociological
Society, which was founded in Bombay in I95I, has some 200 members
(drawn from business and administration as well as the Universities),
99

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 T. B. BOTTO MORE

publishes the Sociological Bulletin, and arranges an annual conference and

occasional lectures. The Indian Sociological Conference (established in
I955) meets annually, and the sessions now attract some IOO partici-
pants. The principal papers delivered at the meetings up to I959 have
recently been published3 and they provide a good view of the work
which is being done in the disciplines covered by the Conference:
sociology, social anthropology, social psychology and demography.
New sociological journals have appeared the ffournal of Social
Sciences (Agra) and the International iournal of Comparative Sociolog))
(Karnatak) but there is still no All-India journal which would bring
together contributions from different regions and provide a forum for
scientific controversy. At present, some of the most interesting researches
and discussions appear in the Economic Weekly, a lively review devoted
to current affairs, which is published in Bombay; others appear in
almost inaccessible University journals.
It will be apparent that, with limited resources, much has been done
for the expansion of sociology. I turn now to consider some of the
results of this activity.

PRESENT STATE AND PROSPECTS

The controversies about the proper aims and methods of sociology,

which eontinue everywhere, are in some respects more complex in
India beeause they overlap with disputes about ancient and modern
learning, and about traditional and modern society. Moreover, the
modern learning, so far as it relates to society, is itself variegated and
derived from several sources.
Three main trends of thought about soeiology as a theoretical science
can be discerned at the present time. The first may be called the social-
anthropological. Social anthropology, as I have already noted, devel-
oped more vigorously than sociology before I947, and it has been a
major intellectual influence in the recent expansion of sociology. There
are good reasons for this influence, quite apart from the standing of the
discipline itselE. Many of the social institutions and social problems of
India which call for sociological investigation can very usefully be
studied by anthropological methods and in terms of anthropological
concepts. Much can be discovered, for instance, about caste and joint-
family through single village studies4 and the findings of such studies
may contribute to a better understanding of the phenomena in a wider
eontext. A recent review of studies of caste in India, by M. N. Srinivas
and others,5 shows admirably how the thorough investigation of caste
in the village has led to revision of some earlier conceptions of the caste
system. Further, since the greater part (some 85 per eent) of the popula-
tion of India still lives in villages, it is evident that the study of institu-
tions and behaviour in the village has a eonsiderable theoretical and
IOO

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SOCIOLOGY IN INDIA

praetieal importance,6 the latter enhanced by the needs of the Com-

munity Development Programme for fact-finding surveys and evalu-
ation studies.
The value of this social-anthropological approach is not in question.
But it is, by itself, insufficient. It neglects the study of easte, joint-family
and religion in urban and industrial settings. It overlooks (or sometimes
dismisses) the importance of comparative village studies, though it is
only by such means that theoretical generalizations ean be attained.
By eoneentrating attention upon the village community, where social
ehange is less rapid and less obvious than in urban areas, it may produce
a misleading picture of the extent and significance of the ehanges in
Indian society.
Fortunately, there are indications that social anthropology and
sociology are drawing closer together. In those universities, particularly
Delhi and Baroda, where the influence of social anthropology was
especially marked, there has been a distinet movement towards inte-
grating the two disciplines. So far as teaching is eoneerned, the theoreti-
eal ideas of Max Weber (with Marx in the background) find a plaee
alongside those deriving from Durkheim and RadclifEc-Brown; and the
theoretical writings of contemporary soeiologists and social anthro-
pologists are studied together. In researeh there has been a weleome
diversification of the types of inquiry undertaken, partieularly in the
University of Baroda, where I. P. Desai has studied the joint-family in
a small town of Saurashtra, using sampling methods,7 while other
members of the department have been engaged in studies of industrial
organization, trade unions, and educational seleetion.8 In Delhi the
department of sociology under M. N. Srinivas was only established in
I959, and research is still in the preliminary stages; but a broadening of
interests is suggested by the recommendations (at the end of the trend
report on caste, mentioned above) for studies of easte in relation to
class, education and bureaucraey, and of the part played by easte in
trade unions, political life and economic development.
The second trend of thought is more philosophical in style. A group of
sociologists at the University of Lucknow, influenced originally by the
work of the late D. P. Mukerji,9 have interested themselves direetly in
logical and methodological problems. They are highly eritical of
sociological positivism and scientism, and are attempting, aeeording to
their own account,l° to develop a sociological theory which would be
rooted in India's social history and elosely related with traditional
social thought. Their strong interest in traditional thinkers, such as
Coomaraswamy, does not, however, make them merely parochial in
outlook. They are well acquainted with western sociology and philo-
sophy; and Marxism, existentialism, linguistic philosophy and modern
philosophies of science are all seriously discussed. In some respects,
their views resemble those of the nineteenth-eentury German eritics of
IOI

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 T. B. BOTTOMORE

positivist soeiology, espeeially Dilthey, but they have not yet been
expressed in sueh substantial form, and they are more immediately
influenced by a profound attaehment to a particular traditional way of
life and thought. As expounded by A. K. Saran, in a number of essays, 11
they seem to involve a re-statement of moral or religious principles
whieh underly soeial order more than a revision of the logie and
methods of soeiology.
Sueh investigations raise a familiar difficulty; namely, that the philo-
sophy of soeial science (unlike the philosophy of natural seienee) often
seems to condemn some of the methods and results of seientiSe enquiry,
while it offers little in the way of alternative methods or superior
results. The prineipal value of the work whieh is being done in Lucknow
may be that it will eneourage new and better historieal studies, espeei-
ally in the almost untouched ISeld of soeial history. At all events, the
pre-oeeupation with the logie of soeiology does not seem to have
inhibited researeh, for studies of inter-easte relations, religious festivals,
crime, and ehanges in marriage eustoms are in progress. It remains to be
seen whether these studies have aetually been guided by the theoretical
conceptions whieh Savan and others have formulated.
The third trend in Indian soeiology is direetly attributable to the
influenee of reeent western (partieularly Ameriean) sociology. As yet,
it represents not so mueh a eoherent body of thought as a general atti-
tude of approval towards field researeh using quantitative methods, and
(less eommonly) towards seientiEc proeedures involving the formulation
and testing of hypotheses. The growing aequaintanee with modern
techniques of research has eoineided with the demands of public
bodies for faetual information in many areas of soeial life (popu-
lation, community development, soeial serviees, ete.) and mueh useful
survey material has been eolleeted as a result. Indian soeiologists are
now better equipped to eonduet the large-seale eomparative studies
whieh I mentioned earlier, and soeiologiea] methods of investigation
have attained a reeognized plaee alongside the anthropologieal methods.
The influenee of this outlook in the domain of theory is less elear. The
idea of testing hypotheses makes an appeal to some soeiologists, but it
is not easy to End any studies in whieh the operation aetually oecurs.
Some new eoneepts, sueh as 'role' and 'soeial aetion', have been intro-
duced into sociologieal discourse, but the borrowing of terms has been
ecleetic and no one body of theoretieal ideas guides research and
argument. In general, Indian soeiologists seem to be more influeneed
by the two sehools of thought whieh I have already diseussed than by
any recent sociologieal theories propounded in the west. This is, in
part, because they are aware of the theoretieal eontroversies among
western sociologists themselves.
To eonelude this brief survey I may mention some of the prineipal
fields of researeh. S;ngle village studies still aeeount for a large part of
I02

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SOCIOLOGY IN INDIA

the work of foreign, as well as Indian, seholars. But they are now less
frequently made in terms of a 'struetural-funetional' model, and are
mueh more coneerned with factors in soeial change. A number of
eomparative studies have been undertaken; for example, the projeet of
the Agra University Institute of Soeial Seienees to compare villages in
a Community Development Bloek with villages whieh have not yet
been affeeted by the C.D. programme. There have been many studies
of easte in particular villages (see the trend report by M. N. Srinivas
and others), but few attempts to make broad comparative studies or to
investigate caste sentiment and activities in the towns.
The joint-family has been much less studied and I. P. Desai's investi-
gation in Saurashtra (see above) marks a new beginning. Other studies
of the joint-family, on a eomparative basis, are those by Jyotimoyee
Sarma (Utkal University) in Calcutta, by R. K. Mukherjee (Indian
Statistical Institute) in villages around Calcutta, and by M. S. Gore
(Delhi Sehool of Social Work) in villages n-ear Delhi. None of these
studies has been published as yet.
There is, quite naturally, an inereasing interest in problems of
soeial change, but there are few studies of towns or of eeonomie growth,
and none of the ehanges in traditional culture, particularly in its
religious manifestations. The twenty-one soeio-economic surveys of
major towns, sponsored by the Researeh Programmes Committee of the
Planning Commission, are in faet almost entirely eeonomie surveys,
though that of Kanpur, which was direeted by an anthropologist (the
late D. N. Majumdar) ranges a little more widely. Two soeiological
studies of towns, by A. Bopegamagel2 and K. N. Venkatarayappa,l3
provide some interesting data but they are mainly descriptive in
eharaeter. In Bombay, a study of urban development in South Gujerat
is at present being eondueted by K. M. Kapadia.
The soeial faetors in eeonomie growth have hardly begun to be
investigated direetly, although studies of easte sometimes refer, in a
tantalizing rather than illuminating way, to the effeets of easte tradi-
tions upon labour mobility and the organization of work. A volume of
papers on industrial labour in Indialo does not mention the question.
However, soeiologieal researeh in this Seld may reeeive a stimulus
from the work of the new Institute of Eeonomie Growth in Delhi.
It will be seen that the range of soeiologieal investigation is limited,
and that even in the fields which are best cultivated there is need for
mueh more researeh. This situation should not surprise us, when we
consider that so mueh eXort has at present to be devoted (by a very
small number of soeiologists) to building up new departments and
teaching increasing numbers of students. There is every reason to
suppose that sociological researeh will, in its turn, grow and improve in
quality.

IOX

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 T. B. BOTTOMORE

A BRITISH CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES IN INDIA?

In the present circumstanees should we envisage a greater contribu-

tion by 13ritish soeiologists? Our expeetations should, I think, be modest.
British soeial anthropologists sueh as F. G. Bailey and A. C. Mayer, as
well as politieal seientists sueh as W. H. Morris-Jones, have already
made important eontributions to knowledge of modern Indian
soeiety;l5 and in many respeets their studies are drawing eloser to the
kind of work whieh soeiologists might be expeeted to earry out, as
regards both method and substaneev The journal Contributions to Indian
Sociolog)", which is edited in Oxford (D. Poeoek) and Paris (L. Dumont),
expresses in its title the aspiration to broaden the seope of anthropo-
logical studies, even though it has not yet sueeeeded in doing so in its
eontentsv Social anthropologists have, it is clear, an established pattern
of field work in India and elose intelleetual contaets with their Indian
colleagues.
By eontrast, 13ritish sociologists seem to have mueh less to offer at the
present time. Very few of them have any first-hand acquaintanee with
India, and none, so far as I am aware, possesses the detailed knowledge
which is a neeessary pre-requisite of serious field research. Nor ean it
reasonably be held that the progress of British soeiology in the elariEea-
tion of theories, or in the design of bold and interesting researeh pro-
jeets, is so outstanding that it could at once communieate fresh and
illuminating ideas. British soeiologists themselves live, to a great
extent, from foreign resourees.
Nevertheless, I believe it would be beneSeial for both Indian and
British soeiology if a number of British soeiologists were to devote them-
selves to Indian studies. In the Erst plaee, the British Universities eould
make a useful eontribution in the teaehing of soeiology, espeeially at the
graduate level; for what is required here is not neeessarily any great
originality of thought so much as a wide and eritieal knowledge of the
existing body of sociologieal thought, a stable organization of teaching
and well-established standards of aeademie work. Seeondly, there are
the general advantages applied to the Indian ease-of seeing our-
selves as others see us. Studies of a society made by people who are not
themselves members of that soeiety ean be exeeptionally revea]ing. The
work of social anthropologists has shown for a long time the valuable
insights to be gained by partieipation, but non-membership, in the
soeieties whieh they study; and by the attempt to express the soeial
experienees and aetions of one milieu in the terms of another.
From the other aspeet, British soeielogists would also be likely to
gain. They would have the opportunity to study at Erst hand social
ehanges whieh resemble, and yet differ in important ways from, those
in the recent history of their own society; they would have direct
experienee of the diffieulties and rewards of eomparative study (instead
IO4

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SOCIOLOGY IN INDIA Io5

of just talking about them); and they would surely be stimulated by

their involvement in a society in which tremendous social problems
really do seem to require sociological understanding for their solution.
I cannot here discuss at length the ways in which such studies might
be promoted, but I should like to make one general observation. It is
obvious that any sociologists who began to work in Indian studies would
have a great deal to learn, and they would need opportunities for
regular contacts both with Indian colleagues and with scholars in this
country who have specialized in this field. Thus, there is a strong
case to be made (aside from more general considerations) for the
organization of Indian studies in the form of an 'area study', in
which different disciplines would co-operate, along the lines suggested
in the Hayter Committee Report. I would add that since sociologists
have most to learn, in this field, from the social anthropologists, the
association between these two disciplines ought to be particularly close.
And quite apart from the general desirability of such a move, it would
powerfully support the convergence of sociology and social anthropology
in India itself, which is likely to prove so fruitful.

NOTES
1 This is a revised version of the paper 7 For a preliminary account see I. P.
which I read at the Conference. Desai, 'Effects of changes in occupations
2 Other recent accounts of Indian on social relationships with special refer-
sociology which sllpplement, and per- ence to family', Journal of the M.S.
haps qualify in certain respects, what I University of Baroda, X (2), July I96I.
have to say here, are: A. K. Saran, A filll report of the study will be pub-
'India', in J. S. Roucek (ed.) Contempor- lished shortly llnder the title Some Aspects
ary Sociology (New York, I 959), and R. N. of Family in Mahava and Earning one's
Saksena, 'Sociology in India', in Trans- Livelihood in Mahava.
actions of the Fourth World Congress of 8 N. R. Sheth, 'An Indian factory:
Sociology (London, I 959) . aspects of its social framework', Journal
3 R. N. Saksena (ed.), Sociology, of the M.S. University of Baroda, IX (I),
Social Research and Social Problems March
in India I960, and 'Trade Union in an
(Bombay, I 96 I ) . Indian Factory', Economic Weekly, July 23
4 Social anthropologists have follnd it I960; B. V. Shah, 'Inequality of educa-
relatively easy, and natllral, to move ional opportllnities', Economic Weekly,
from the study of tribes to the study of Allgust 20 I960.
villages. Mllch the same methods of 9 See especially his collected essays,
inquiry can be employed, while new Diversities (Delhi, I958).
concepts ('folk society', 'Great and Little 10 In the brochure, The Beaching of
tradition') have been introduced in Social Sciences at the University of Lucknow
order to deal with the specific features (Lllcknow, I 960), p. I 0.
of village society. India is an obvious 11 See especially, The F4ith of a
area for such extensions of anthropologi-Modern Intellectual (Lllcknow, I 959);
'Theoretical Anthropology and the
. * .

cal lnqulry.
6 M. N. Srinivas, Y. B. Damle, S. cult of man'; Ethics, LXVI (3) April
Shahani, A. Beteille, 'Caste', Current I 956; 'The natllral sciences and the
Sociolog)J, VIIt (3), I959. stlldy of man: the problem of their syn-
thesis in contemporary culture', Eastern
6 As examples of the work in this field,
see S. C. Dube, Indian Village (London, Anthropologist, XI V (2), May-August
I 955) and India's Chdnging Villages I 96 I .

(London, I958; M. N. Srinivas (ed.), 12 Delhi: A Study in Urban Sociolop

Indi4's Villages (2nd edn., I96I). (Bombay, I957).

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 MAURICE FREEDMAN

13 Bangalore: A Socio-Ecological Study tions of British social anthropologists in

(Bombay, I 957) . tllis field are considerable and well
14 V. B. Singh and A. K. Saran (eds.), known. Nor am I able to discuss the ex-
lndustrial Labour in India (Bombay, I960). tensive contributions by American social
15 I am not here concerned with anthropologists in the study of modern
studies of tribal peoples; the contribu- India.

London School of Economics and Political Science

SOCIOLOGY IN AND OF CHINA

Maurice Freedman

T N THE GENERAL HISTORY of the social sciences we assume

| that the marriage between sociology and anthropology comes late,
Shaving been preceded by a lorlg courtship. China does not fit this
pattern. Almost as soon as the social sciences were established there
anthropology and sociology were intertwined -to be disentangled in
a strange way when the Communists arrived. To avoid a tedious
recitation of evidence let me call just one witness, a scholar whose later
career in the United States makes his testimony underline the Chinese
paradox. Writing in China in I944 Francis 1,. K. Hsu says: 'In this
paper the word sociology is used synonymously with the term social
anthropology. Few serious Chinese scholars today maintain the dis-
tinction between the once separate disciplines. Sociologists teach
anthropology in our universities as a matter of course, just as scholars
with distinctively anthropological background lecture on sociology.' 2
It is customary to date the beginning of sociology in China by the
publication of Yen Fu's translation of two chapters of Spencer's rhe
Study of Sociolov in I898, but although from then on Chinese were able
to read many European and American sociologists in translation, a few
original works were produced in Chinese, and courses of instruction
were introduced in the universities, it was not until about the 'twenties
that sociological investigations of any great weight began to be made.
We realize how foreshortened is the history of Chinese sociology when
we recognize that the names that have meaning for us belong to men
working mainly in the two decades before the Communist regime: Wu
Wen-tsao, Ch'en Ta, Fei Hsiao-t'ung, Francis L. K. Hsu, Li Ching-han,
Li An-che, Lin Yueh-hwa, Feng Han-yi, C. K. Yang, and T'ien
Ju-k'ang.
What emerged from the labours of such men consisted partly of
ethnographic stlldies of non-Han groups; these represent the purely
Io6

This content downloaded from

210.212.249.233 on Thu, 04 Aug 2022 04:08:11 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms