Why study Indian sociologists?
Sociology means the study of society. It began in Europe. In India, at first, British officers wrote about Indian society, often to help them rule. Later, Indian scholars asked their own questions: What is caste? How does tradition change? What does the state really do? What is a village like from inside?
This chapter meets four of them. Each one looked at a different part of Indian life. Each one also used a different method: reading old texts, thinking about history, using Marxist ideas, or living in a village (fieldwork).
G.S. Ghurye on caste and race
G.S. Ghurye (1893–1983) headed the first sociology department in India, at Bombay University. He is often called the father of Indian sociology.
The race theory he questioned
A British officer, H. H. Risley, said caste grew out of race. His idea: higher castes came from one race and lower castes from another, and you could tell them apart by body measurements like nose shape. Ghurye checked this. He found it fits only a little in North India (mainly Punjab and the Gangetic plain). In other regions, people of different castes looked much the same. So race cannot explain caste all over India. Ghurye said the idea of endogamy (marrying inside the group) may have come in with some groups, but caste is mainly a social system.
Six features of caste
- Segmental division: society is split into closed groups; you are born into one.
- Hierarchy: groups are ranked from high to low.
- Restrictions on food and social contact: rules on who may eat with or touch whom.
- Civil and religious disabilities: some castes were denied use of wells, temples or roads.
- Lack of free choice of occupation: work was tied to birth.
- Restrictions on marriage: marriage only within the caste (endogamy).
Ghurye gave both a definition by features and a view of caste that changes over time.
D.P. Mukerji on tradition and change
D.P. Mukerji (1894–1961) taught at Lucknow University. He said that to understand India we must first understand Indian tradition. Tradition means ways of living handed down from the past.
Main ideas
- Indian society is group-based (family, caste, village), not built around the lone individual as in the West.
- A sociologist must know the local culture: its languages, customs, songs and ways of thinking.
- Change in India should grow out of tradition, not be copied blindly from outside. Tradition itself is not frozen: it adapts.
Three sources of change in tradition
- Shruti: what was heard (sacred texts).
- Smriti: what was remembered (law books and commentaries).
- Anubhava: lived experience, especially shared (collective) experience.
Mukerji said anubhava was the strongest source of change. Saints and bhakti movements questioned caste and rituals from their own experience, and society changed. He also warned that the English-educated middle class was often cut off from its own tradition, so it could not lead real change.
A.R. Desai on the state
A.R. Desai (1915–1994) used Marxist ideas. Marxism looks at society through class and who owns wealth. Desai studied Indian nationalism and the Indian state.
What is a welfare state?
A welfare state is a state that says it will look after the well-being of all citizens. Its main features:
- It is a positive state: it acts to help, not just keeps law and order.
- It is democratic: people choose the government.
- It runs a mixed economy: both private companies and government firms.
- It aims to reduce inequality and give basic needs such as jobs, food, health and education.
Desai's criticism
Desai tested these claims and found:
- Poverty was not removed; many people still lacked basic needs.
- Inequality of income and wealth stayed high.
- The mixed economy mostly helped capitalists (big business owners).
- Land reforms and jobs for all did not really happen; people even had to struggle for rights promised to them.
He concluded that the welfare state's promises were far bigger than its results, because the state still worked inside a capitalist system.
M.N. Srinivas on the village
M.N. Srinivas (1916–1999) is famous for fieldwork: living among people for a long time and watching daily life. He stayed in a Karnataka village he called Rampura.
Village as a social unit
Some scholars (such as Louis Dumont) said the village is only a place where people of different castes happen to live; caste is what really matters. Srinivas disagreed. He said the village is a real social unit with its own identity. People feel they belong to it, and it shapes their lives.
Not 'little republics'
British writers had called Indian villages 'little republics': self-sufficient and unchanging. Srinivas showed this is a myth. Villages had trade with towns, links with other villages, and always changed through wars, markets and migration.
Key ideas from his work
- Dominant caste: a caste that owns a lot of land, has many members and has political power in a village.
- Sanskritisation: a lower caste copying the customs of higher castes to rise in status.
- Westernisation: changes due to British rule and Western ideas.
He also said village studies help us see how India changes after independence.
Exam tips
- For 'six features of caste', write all six names first, then one line each.
- For Mukerji, always name shruti, smriti, anubhava and say anubhava is the key one.
- For Desai, list welfare state features, then his criticisms.
- For Srinivas, compare his view with the 'little republic' view and Dumont's view.
Try it at home
Ask an elder in your family: 'What custom has changed since you were young, and why?' Write the answer. Decide which source Mukerji would say caused it: shruti, smriti or anubhava. Then open the last 3D step, tap each thinker, and move Desai's slider to see how real effort changes results.
Key formulas and definitions
- Sociology: the study of society and social life.
- Caste: a birth-based group ranked in a hierarchy, with marriage inside the group.
- Endogamy: marrying only within one's own group.
- Shruti, smriti, anubhava: heard texts, remembered texts, lived experience (D.P. Mukerji).
- Welfare state: a state that promises to look after the well-being of all citizens.
- Mixed economy: both private and public (government) firms work together.
- Fieldwork: living among people to study them first-hand.
- Dominant caste: a caste with much land, large numbers and power in a village (M.N. Srinivas).
Worked examples
1. A village has a rule that a family of one caste may not draw water from the main well. Which feature of caste from Ghurye's list does this show?
Civil and religious disabilities: some castes were denied use of public places like wells, temples or roads.
2. A group of devotees starts eating together across caste lines after a saint teaches that all are equal before God. Which source of change would D.P. Mukerji point to?
Anubhava (collective lived experience). It is the strongest source of change in his view, as seen in bhakti movements.
3. A government promises free housing for all poor families, but after ten years only a few houses are built, mostly for well-connected people. How would A.R. Desai explain this?
He would say the welfare state makes big promises but works within a capitalist system that protects the rich, so poverty and inequality stay.
4. In a village, one caste owns most land and has many members; its leaders settle disputes and choose the village head. What did Srinivas call it?
A dominant caste: it has economic (land), numerical (numbers) and political power.
5. A student writes: 'Indian villages never changed until the British came.' Correct the statement using Srinivas.
Srinivas showed villages were never frozen 'little republics'. They had trade, links with towns and other villages, and changed through markets, wars and migration.
Common mistakes
- Saying Ghurye fully agreed with the race theory. He found it fits only a small part of North India.
- Mixing up shruti and smriti. Shruti = heard (sacred texts); smriti = remembered (law books).
- Thinking Desai praised the welfare state. He was a critic who showed its failures.
- Calling villages 'little republics' as Srinivas's idea. He rejected that as a colonial myth.