Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INDOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Indology (G.S. Ghurye)
Sociology as a discipline developed in Europe. Sociological perspectives like
functionalism, positivism, conflictism etc. developed out of the experience and
observation of European society.
As over the period other societies of Asia, America, Africa became the colony of the
West, its uniqueness attracted the intellectuals of Europe.
Indian society was unique in many ways for the European scholars. Caste system, joint
family, jajmani system, polytheism were some of the distinguished features of Indian
society. Over the period, it was realized that the western perspective cannot be applied on
Indian society because it is unique of its own kind.
Indology : Meaning/Definition
Indology is known as the science of Indian Society. The Indological perspective claims to
understand Indian society through the concepts, theories, frameworks that are closely
associated with Indian Civilization. It made a claim that Indian society is unique in
structure, function and dynamics and cannot be associated with the European Society.
Indology relies on book view and culture and denounces rigorous empirical investigation.
Indology is both an approach to study the Indian Society and also an independent
discipline with Indian Society as a subject matter. Indology demands inter-disciplinary,
multi-disciplinary, and cross disciplinary approach. Indology is also older than
Sociology. It is antique in its origin owing to 1784 by Sir William Jones of Calcutta.
Jones in 1784 established Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal to understand Indian society
through Indian perspective. It is beginning of Indology in India, which has been followed
by several other scholars. They gave more importance to the culture of Indian society
than to the empirical structure. Indology is a perspective which believes that the ancient
text and mythologies present the real account or picture of Indian society. More ancient
the text more original the account. In both European and Indian versions Indological
studies comprise investigations of language, ideas, beliefs, customs, taboos, codes,
institutions, tools, techniques, rituals, ceremonies and other related components of the
Indian culture and civilization. (The mainstream of Indology, however, has been the
1
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
Indological Approach
Within Indological studies, there are broadly two types of Indological approach.
(a) Indology or Indic studies
(b) Oriental studies or Orientalism
There are both commonalities and differences between Indology and Oriental studies.
Indology is said to be the westerners labour of love for the Indian wisdom. And
Orientalism emerged as the ideological need of the British Empire. Indology seems to
offer a sympathetic and positive account of the Indian society and culture. This type of
Indological writings have been enriched by William Jones, Wilkins, Colebrooke and
Wilson in British India, Louis Renou and Bougle in France, and Anand K.
Coomaraswamy, Joseph Campbell and Mirea Elliade in USA. Prominent Indian
Indologists are G.S. Ghurye, B.K. Sarkar, Radhakamal Mukherjee, K.M. Kapadia, P.H.
Prabha and Iravati Karve.
On the other hand, Orientalism presents a rather unsympathetic and negative account of
the Indian society and culture. Oriental studies emerged to serve the need of the British
Empire and other colonial powers of the West. Important exponent of this school
(Orientalist writing about India) were Max Mueller, James Mill and William Archer, Max
Weber, Karl Marx.
The Indological studies have sought to develop an empathic understanding of Indian
culture. There is, however, a general tendency, among the Indologists, to exaggerate
either the virtues of Indian culture or weakness of Indian culture.
The Orientalists see primarily the negative elements in Indian tradition and rationalizes
the missionary activities as well as the British rule in India. These Indologists
overemphasized Indian spiritualism and underemphasized the achievements in the realm
of material culture and the practical wisdom of the common people of India.
The Western Indologists tried to malign the image of Indian society with the help of
Indian text. They presented as if inequality, untouchability, low status of women, caste
2
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
segregation, isolation were prevalent in India from its very beginning and western values
and institutions can correct the wrongs of Indian Society.
Against this orientalist approach, a National School of Indology developed, popularly
known as Bombay School led by G.S. Ghurye, B.D. Sankar, Irawati Karve etc. The
nationalist Indologists with the help of ancient text tried to portray the social structure
and culture of Indian society which was being maligned by western Indologists.
the example of Rishi Dadhichi who had sacrificed his backbone to make the bow to kill
demons. He said that sadhus have always backed out Indian society in the period of
crisis.
Western Indologists / Orientalists believed that the status of women has always been
lower due to patriarchy. In Manusmriti, women are compared with animals and it is
believed that more they are beaten it is better. Ghurye gave example of Rigveda in
which women have participated in public domain and the intellectuals like Maitreyi,
Ghosha, Apala are some of the main women intellectuals.
Ghurye through his nationalist Indology tried to neutralize western Indologists who were
portraying wrong picture of Indian society.
Recently, under the influence of Louis Dumont and Mackim Marriott, culturological
writings on India have fruitfully utilized the insight of Indological approaches. All the
major sociologists before independence were influenced by Indological approach. Even
Srinivas had at times used Indological data to supplement his fieldwork.
Criticism
- M.N. Srinivas criticized Indology by calling it a text view. He proposed field
view to understand Indian society.
- Yogendra Singh believed that though Indologists have taken the examples from
the ancient texts but it is based on non-observable and non-empirical evidences.
Empirical verification is important for establishment of any theory.
- Sociology seeks objectivity which lacks in Indology. It is more subjective
interpretation than objective reality.
- As A.R. Desai said the ancient texts are literature that represents Brahminical
view and cannot give real account of Indian society. He adds that, studying India
from the lens of culture provides us no space to understand the real India that
lives within inequality, diversity, dialectic and exploitation.
Conclusion
Indian society is considered as cultural particularistic society which has attracted large
number of scholars but Max Muller, Sir William Jones, Louis Dumont and other scholars
realized that Indian society cannot be understood from the western perspective. But as
Ghurye believed the western scholars have their hidden agenda of making a ground for
missionaries, hence it is important to unmask their agenda. He proposed nationalist view
which became very popular followed by B.G. Bhandarkar, Thakkar Bapa, etc. A.K. Saran
said that though Ghuryes explanation is compromise on the issue of objectivity but he
gave befitting reply to the western Indologists.
4
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
5
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
integrated and collectively contribute towards the maintenance of the order and stability
of the system.
Functionalists believe in consensus, order and stability of the system. Unlike the
evolutionists, the functionalists search for the origin of institutions in terms of the
essential functions they perform.
In 1948, the total population of Rampura was 1523 in which there were 19 Hindu
castes and Muslims were living together. Most of the castes were attached with
their traditional occupations and there was clear cut hierarchy within the caste.
There were very clear rules of endogamy, Commensal relation, and social
interaction. All castes used to follow the taboos and prohibitions attached with
them.
The economy of Rampura was agriculture based in which there were two classes
landlords generally upper castes and do not participate in agricultural
activities. Peasants/agricultural workers who were either share croppers or daily
wage earners who generally belonged to lower caste.
The relations between different castes were based on mutual interdependence and
Brahmins and landlords used to provide their patronage and direction to the
religious and community activities of village.
In Rampura there were many castes like barbers, washerman, toddy trappers, oil
pressers, etc. who used to follow their caste occupations and under the jajmani
system they used to provide their goods and services to other castes.
In Rampura, Brahmins and Vokkaliga were the upper caste who used to maintain
law and order and justice.
The festivals and cultural fairs in the village was a ground of meeting and
revitalizing we feeling in Rampura.
In Rampura, initiation ceremonies, marriage, death, upnayan ceremonies were
basis of consideration of solidarity of the community.
All the castes exchanged their goods and services though jajmani system which
kept them interdependent.
Lower castes imitated upper caste oftenly (sanskritization) and in this process
they gave up alcohol, polluted profession, non-vegetarianism, etc. to acquire
social mobility.
The festivals in the village helps to maintain the bonding otherwise society may
degenerate.
With the above mentioned explanation, M.N. Srinivas tried to explain how different
institutions practice and units of the society contribute in the maintenance of social
structure of Rampura. M.N. Srinivas perception is based on cooperation, mutual
dependence and harmony as the basis of Indian society and all the institutions perform
their respective roles in this context.
Criticism
- M.N. Srinivas presented ideal rosy picture of society. He totally ignored crime
and deviance in society. He also ignored the suppression of lower castes by upper
caste.
7
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
8
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
perspective and believed that economy is the infrastructure which determines all others
aspects of the society.
Hence, economic deterministic perspective is more practical than other perspective. He
said that the total traditions, customs, values and ideals of Indian rural society develops
around agriculture or economic. Hence, without understanding Indian economy the
nature of Indian society cannot be understood. He is also known as the secular interpreter
of Indian society.
A.R. Desai has applied Marxist perspective to understand the diverse aspects of Indian
social reality. In his books Social Background of Indian Nationalism, Peasant Struggle
in India, Indias Path of Development, he presented his perspective towards Indian
society.
Desai in his book Social Background of Indian Nationalism identified the economic
reason of emergence of Indian nationalism. According to him, before British rule,
Indian agriculture was a community affair. Ownership over land was based on
community, ownership.
During British rule, capitalist economy in the form of colonialism was introduced in
Indian society in the form of Ryotwari, Zamindari, Mahalwari, industrialization,
urbanization etc. which gave birth to two economic classes:
(a)
Exploiters British industrialists, investors, officials and their Indian allies like
Zamindars etc.
(b)
Exploited Outcome of new economy like Ryots, landless labourers, industrial
workers, etc.
The similar economic condition of the exploited gave birth to similar kind of
consciousness as in Europe against the exploiters which emerged in the form of
nationalism.
Desai believes that the economic exploitation gave birth to a new form of awareness
which led to the organization of exploited like peasants, workers, labourers, etc. who
organized themselves in the form of freedom struggle.
In his another book Peasant Struggle in India, he tried to understand the reason of
peasant movement during colonial rule. According to him, during British rule, two
economic classes emerged out of British economic policies.
1) Who were benefitted by the British policies and programmes Industrialists,
landlords and other allies.
2) Who were the losers due to the progress and policies of colonial rules Ryots,
cottage industrialists, artisans, etc.
10
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
He believes that those who were the losers due to the British economic policy formed a
class (class-for-itself) against the benefiters, which ultimately overthrew the British
regime which was nothing more than abolition of capitalism.
In other book Indian Path of Development he explained that even after the
independence, state remained in favour of the capitalists. He gave following examples
in the favour of his logic:
- Why not all the property of the industrialists was confiscated or nationalized just
after the freedom?
- Zamindari was abolished in 1951 whereas independence was achieved in 1947.
Why the gap of four years?
- Why India opted for, mixed economy?
- Why right to property was made a fundamental right initially?
On the basis of above mentioned facts he accused national government for being soft
towards the capitalist interest after independence, though government claimed to be a
socialist. On the basis of above mentioned explanation it can be said that A.R. Desais
perspective towards Indian society was largely Marxist, which was mainly economic
interpretation of past, present and future of Indian society.
He applied Marxian perspective on Indian society in same manner the way Marx applied
it on western society.
Criticism
- Except A.R. Desai, economic determinism perspective was not used by any other
prominent sociologists because they believed that Indian society was never guided
by the economic forces. The factors like caste and religion were the core of Indian
society, hence economic determinism view cannot be accepted as a dominant
perspective of Indian society.
- Yogendra singh said that though A.R. Desai tried to give proper logic in the
favour of his perspective but his perspective was not properly backed up by
proper facts.
- M.N. Sirnivas rejected this perspective who believed that though the importance
of economy cannot be denied but Indian society was always governed by
tradition, caste and religion than economy. He questioned Desai that why always
Vaishya Varna had control over economy but why not they controlled the religion
and caste system.
Conclusion
A.R. Desai is one of the most prominent sociologist who applied Marxist perspective on
Indian society. Though this perspective was not very much supported by other eminent
sociologists because economic forces have never been dominant force in Indian society
but the way A.R. Desai introduced economic perspective in Indian society, it was new of
11
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com
its kind and later influenced many other sociologists and historians like Yogendra Singh,
T.K. Oommen, Sumit Sarkar, etc.
12
Call: 09540865705, Email: info@sociologyias.com, Visit: www.sociologyias.com