Sujata Patel- Srinivas & AR Desai.

Sujata Patel in her article draws a comparison between the Sociological

contributions made by structural- functionalist, M.N. Srinivas and Marxist, A.R.
Desai. Both studied at University of Bombay, and were students of G.S. Ghurye,
known as the “father of Indian Sociology”. She points out that while Srinivas
“changed the face of Sociology of India”, Desai on the other hand, In presenting
an interdisciplinary approach to social science, challenged the conservative
positions of mainstream sociology.
The foundation of sociology in India can be traced to G.S. Ghurye, who for a long
time headed the first Department of Sociology in India, at Bombay. Throughout
colonial modernity, Ghurye's sociology was adapted to the existing consciousness
of the age. However, M.N. Srinivas and A.R. Desai followed different paths. While
Srnivas’s ideas and methods were a compilation of Ghurye, Radcliffe Brown and
Evans- Pritchard, A.R. Desai on the other hand, drew its inspiration from the
Marxist tradition and had very little engagement with Ghuryian perspective. In
short, both Sriniavs and Desai made departures from the traditional knowledge
built into colonial modernity and “elaborated” by Ghurye. (Sujata Patel, P. 80)
Both formulated new ideas and concepts in order to understand the Indian
society.
To begin with, M.N. Srinivas in order to understand the Indian society developed
a new method know as “field view” as opposed to “book view” followed by
Ghurye. According to Srinivas, the field view is rooted in Radcliffe- Brown's
structural-functional theory and the Malinowski method of ethnography, which
put theory and methodology into practice.
The major point that Srinivas stresses is the need to use social anthropological
theory and method into sociology because for him there was no difference
between sociology and social anthropology. For instance, while looking at the
caste system in India, Srinivas suggests replacing 'varna' with 'jati' in order to
understand the nature of the caste system. And As Srinivas explains about the
caste system in The Social System of the Mysore Village, he does so by evaluating
it within the limits of the village. (Sujata Patel, p. 82) This is in line with Srinivas's
perspective that valued space as a forum to examine 'tradition' and strengthened
nationalist consciousness. Thus, while Ghurye’s definition of caste remains
formulated from the Indological point of view Srinivas on the other hand, using
field view looks at caste system from a new perspective.
Srinivas points out that caste system seems to show flexibility when all the parts
are integrated as a whole. Further he states that caste is best understood by
focusing not only on the middle ranks, but also in context of the internal ranking
of each jati with the other. (Sujata Patel, p. 83) Such a differentiation based on
ranking then allows for the mobility of groups and it is in this context that Srinivas
terms a new concept of dominant caste.
Sujata Patel however says, there are ambiguities in the methodology aopted by
Srinivas in order to study the linkages between caste and village as it seems
unclear the system that he is studying; that of village or of caste. Secondly,
Despite his disagreement with the notion that villages were autonomous and
isolated units, Srinivas' emphasis on them as a basis for ethnographic study was at
odds with his described intentions. Such an ambiguity can also be seen in his
study of social change where he talks about the mobility of caste groups in terms
of ‘sanskritisation” and “westernization”. For him, such changes make caste
“adaptive” to modern ways or living by modifying its characteristics but do not
lead it to transform or completely “vanish”. In short, Srinivas has only studied a
constructed traditional framework and not its modernity and thus fails to present
concepts and theories that would help in understanding the processes of change
and conflict in contemporary society.
Having looked at M.N. Srinivas, A.R. Desai on the other hand, follows a completely
different path. Desai was a Marxist and unlike Srinivas he did not focus on social
system rather his focus was mainly on the “contemporary social change” in order
to analyze how it benefitted the few, that is the ruling class and their constant
efforts in order to maintain their control of the state institutions. Desai in “Social
Background of Indian Nationalism (1948)” presented the view that nation and
classes are contradictory to each other. (Sujata Patel, p. 86). He pointed out that
although nationalism was the fusion of different classes, groups, and interests
into one nation, but it remained internally divided, as classes competed to mark
the nation with their interests. Thus, Desai attempted to question the mainstream
sociology by analyzing the relationship between nation, class and power through
a” historical and interdisciplinary perspective”.
Such an analysis of the relationship between nation, class and power led Desai to
shift his attention to various programmes undertaken such as the land reforms,
community development, panchayati raj etc. Desai believed that state’s focus on
agrarian policy was a way to create agricultural classes of rich farmers and middle
peasantry directly associated with the state. However, from the 1970s onwards,
significant changes in the Indian class structure began to take place such as the
working class turned into a revolutionary force, politics was changing and political
parties were using caste and religious issues in mobilizing the populace. For Desai,
the key to an assessment of all these processes laid in the analysis of the modern
Indian state.
In doing so, he undertook four projects. First, he attempted to document the
struggles and agitations occurring in contemporary agrarian India. Second, he
documented the the history of the working clas movement in India. This work is
significant not only because it made visible a series of struggles and agitations of
the working class, not known nor documented before, but also because of the
definition of the worker and the working class across all oppressed sections in the
society. Third, Desai wrote a series of articles on the relationship between state
and society in India that assessed the programmes policies and institutions of the
state and simultaneously captured the social and political processes that they
promoted. Fourth, he documented the ways in which the state restricted and
curtailed the rights of the oppressed. (Sujata Patel, p. 89) Thus, In making the
argument that sociology is an interdisciplinary social science with historical roots
and a political economy approach, he challenged mainstream sociology's
culturalist assumptions. In addition, he stressed the importance of studying
power from different angles such as through policies, social movements etc.
However, many sociologists criticized Desai’s work on the grounds that his ideas
were “overtly ideological and political” and oriented to debates on the question
of ushering capitalism. Secondly, he lacked theoretical perspective in order to find
the linkages between class and caste with gender, ethnicity and language.
Thus like Srinivas there remained slippages between state, nation, and territory.
Srinivas followed via Ghurye, the colonial anthropological traditions and wherein
sociology/anthropology valorized tradition, nation, and savarna identity. In
Desai's case, it emerges with his personal and political involvement with Indian
nationalist and later Marxist movements. (Sujata Patel, p. 90) nevertheless, He
helped to bring to light the colonial and postcolonial experiences of exploitation
through his work as an archivist but it failed to introduce any new ideas to the
discipline.