Development of Sociology in India

Phase I: Colonial Modernity and Anthropology (Roughly Pre-Independence)

The Split

• A key feature was the artificial distinction: Sociology was practiced in Europe (studying their own complex, modern society), while Anthropology was practiced in the colonies (studying 'other', supposedly static, traditional, 'primitive' societies).

Master Narratives

• This split was based on colonial ideologies:
  • Belief in Western superiority and progress.
  • The idea that the West represented history, reason, and science, while the East (like India) represented nature, religion, and timeless tradition.

Anthropology as 'Handmaiden of Colonialism'

• Colonial rulers needed knowledge about the people they ruled to govern effectively (taxation, control, resource extraction).
• Anthropologists (often colonial officers initially, later trained specialists) provided this knowledge.
• Their studies often portrayed colonial societies as static, traditional, unchanging, and fragmented (into castes, tribes, etc.), justifying colonial rule as a modernizing or stabilizing force.
• Categorization and Classification:
  • A major activity was classifying people into distinct groups (castes, tribes, religious communities)
  • Used methods like the Census, ethnographic surveys, and even pseudoscientific anthropometry
  • This often ignored the fluidity and interdependence between groups
  • The Gazetteer excerpts are examples of this colonial gaze – describing locals ('aborigines') as destructive, superstitious, and classifying their religious practices
• Spatial-Cultural Zones: Mapping regions and linking them to specific cultural groups helped in administration.
• The Village View: Villages were often depicted as isolated, self-sufficient units where castes lived in fixed harmony, ignoring wider connections and conflicts.

Impact of Theories

• The theory of evolution (misapplied to societies, suggesting some were less evolved) and the Aryan Invasion Theory were used to create hierarchies
• Distinguished 'castes' (often seen as descending from Aryan invaders) from 'tribes' (seen as original, primitive inhabitants)
• This cemented divisions

Indological Approach

• Studying Indian society primarily through ancient Hindu scriptures
• This privileged the knowledge of Brahmins, who controlled access to and interpretation of these texts
• It tended to present a Brahminical view of society as the norm, rationalizing the caste hierarchy (varna system) with Brahmins at the top
• It overlooked other sources of power and social organization (regional, kinship, political)
• It reinforced the idea that caste was the unchanging 'essence' of India

Early University Departments (Pre-1947)

• Sociology started formally in universities like Bombay (1919), Calcutta, and Lucknow
• Often combined with anthropology

The Bombay School (G.S. Ghurye)

• Led by Ghurye, heavily influenced by the Indological approach
• Focused on identifying a cohesive 'Indian' identity rooted in Hindu civilization
• Emphasized structures like caste, kinship, and family as central
• Strong on empirical description (often based on texts or observations confirming texts) but lacked strong theoretical development
• Criticized for promoting a Hindu-centric view (cultural nationalism) and using Eurocentric categories despite the Indian focus

The Lucknow School (R. Mukherjee, D.P. Mukherji)

• Distinguished sociology more clearly from anthropology
• Less reliant on colonial methods or purely historical/textual approaches
• More analytical, empirical (using diverse methods), and interdisciplinary
• More oriented towards understanding contemporary India and its future, rather than just the past (unlike the Bombay School's focus)

Phase II: Nation-State and the formation of a 'national' sociology (Post-Independence to ~1970s)

Context

• After independence (1947), the focus shifted to building a modern Indian nation-state
• Sociology was expected to contribute to this project

M.N. Srinivas

• A dominant figure, influenced by Ghurye but shifted the method
• Emphasized fieldwork (ethnography), particularly village studies, rather than relying solely on texts (Indology)
• This was the 'field view' vs. the 'book view'
• Studied the caste system in action within villages, examining inter-caste relations and occupations
• Often presented villages as relatively harmonious functional units, which became seen as representative of 'Indian society'

Criticisms of Srinivas' Approach

• Confused 'village' dynamics with the entirety of 'caste' dynamics across India
• Excluded or marginalized groups like tribes, religious minorities, urban populations, and emerging class interests
• Used functionalist social anthropology (seeing social structures as contributing to stability), which tended to downplay conflict and inequality
• Maintained a separation between the researcher (often upper-caste) and the researched, without fully analyzing the power dynamics in that relationship
• Introduced key concepts like Sanskritisation (lower castes adopting customs of upper castes to try and move up) and Westernisation (adoption of Western cultural traits), but these were seen as analyzing change within the existing traditional structure rather than fundamentally challenging it
• His work inadvertently helped naturalize the 'traditional' character of Indian society and reinforced a 'Savarna' (upper-caste) perspective on the nation

A.R. Desai and the Marxist Approach

• Offered a contrasting perspective
• Used a Marxist framework focusing on class, economic structures, and political economy
• Analyzed how capitalist development (even state-led planning) in post-independence India was creating new inequalities and benefiting specific ruling classes (bourgeoisie, landed elites)
• Critiqued mainstream 'nationalism' as often serving these dominant class interests
• Studied the emergence of social movements (peasant, worker movements) challenging these dominant classes
• Brought in historical methods and focused on change and conflict, rather than stability and harmony
• Crucially, his approach included marginalized groups and issues left out by the dominant village/caste-focused sociology
• Advocated an interdisciplinary approach, connecting sociology with history and political economy

Phase III: Post-1970s (Period of Multiple Challenges)

Context

• This period saw growing disillusionment and challenges to the post-independence consensus
• Crisis in Higher Education: Universities struggled to cope with expansion, regional diversity, and demands from new social groups entering education
• Social Movements: The 1970s (especially post-Emergency) and 1980s saw a rise in various movements (environmental, women's, Dalit, regional autonomy, farmers') challenging the state's development model and its authority (as noted by T.K. Oommen)
• The idea of state-led modernization came under fire
• Globalization and Communalization: The late 1980s onwards saw the impacts of economic globalization and the rise of religious communalism (especially Hindu nationalism) becoming major social and political forces

Impact on Sociology

• These challenges forced sociology to broaden its scope and theoretical perspectives

Emergence of New Perspectives

• Subaltern Studies: Focused on the history and agency of marginalized groups (peasants, workers, Dalits, Adivasis) previously ignored by elite historiography
• Post-colonial Studies: Critically examined the enduring legacies of colonialism in culture, knowledge production, and power structures
• Feminist Critiques: Highlighted gender inequalities and patriarchal structures within Indian society and within sociology itself
• Dalit and Adivasi Perspectives: Brought experiences and analyses of caste oppression and indigenous issues to the forefront, challenging dominant narratives

Growth of Interdisciplinary Research

• Fields like media studies and cultural studies gained prominence, reflecting the changing social landscape
• Sociology became more diverse, critical, and engaged with contemporary issues beyond the traditional village/caste framework