Media as emerging Social Institution

“A social institution is an organization that is critical to the socialization process; it provides a support system for individuals as they struggle to become members of a larger social network”

(Art Silverblatt, American Behavioral Scientist, 2004)

Traditional social institutions such as church, government, school and family once served the role of providing individuals with the knowledge and communicative tools needed to successfully integrate into society. It was here we learned what was right or wrong in the world, and how to communicate to others through language, appearance or actions, if we were to become upstanding members of society. In church we learned through religious doctrine and beliefs. In school we were educated in the ways of the professional world, and how to be part of a collective of academics. Through government we learn of law and order, justice and criminality, the repercussions of violating societies written rules. As a member of a family we learn of love and care for others, close knit bonds, and the vital knowledge and ways of the world, passed down from a father or mother to a son or daughter during childhood and adolescence, becoming the scriptures guiding you for the rest of your life, and passed on again to your own sons and daughters. For most of modern history, these institutions have played these roles and educated us as a society, of how things should be and the reasons behind them, guiding our morality and sense of justice. With the emergence of mass media towards the end of the 20th century through televised programming, movies and radio, and accelerated further with the booming growth of the Internet in recent decades; mass media is now becoming the dominant social institution, catering for the needs of society and educating its citizens. In a fast-moving and mobile modern society, mass media provides a medium easily accessed through technology, making the traditional social institutions of family, church, government or school redundant in their former roles. Individuals are increasingly looking to the media for direction in rules of behavior and societal values, while being provided with a sense of membership through the programmes we watch or media trends we follow. Order and stability is provided by the media through scheduled programming, affecting how people arrange their daily routines and ultimately affecting cultural lifestyle through what we wear, listen to, say and do day to day. The Internet, a vast source of instantaneous information, now fulfills an educational role in society, catering an individuals personal preferences and ideals. 

Source: Open sources

Universalization and parochialisation (Little and great traditions)

Little and Great Tradition

Milton Singer and Robert Redfield developed the twin concept of Little Tradition and Great Tradition while studying the orthogenesis of Indian Civilization in Madras city, now known as Chennai. Tradition means handing down of information, beliefs and customs by word of mouth in way of examples from one generation to another. In other words, tradition is the inherited practices or opinion and conventions associated with a social group for a particular period. This also includes attitudes of the people, durable interactional patterns and socio-cultural institutions. Great tradition is associated with the elites, literate and reflective few who are capable of analysing, interpreting and reflecting cultural knowledge. Great tradition is a body of knowledge which functions as the beacon light of knowledge. In contradiction to this little tradition comprises the belief pattern, the institutions, knowledge including proverbs, riddles, anecdotes, folk tales, legends, myths and the whole body of folk-lore of the folk and /or the unlettered peasants who imbibe cultural knowledge from the great tradition. The unity of Indian civilization is reflected in the perpetuation of the unity of worldview of both the folk /peasant and the elites or the literati through cultural performance and their cultural products. Cultural performance are institutionalized around the structure of both great tradition and little traditions.

There are several centres of great tradition in India and there is a network of socio-cultural relationship. This relationship is based on cultural knowledge and ideology. There is a difference in cultural performances of great tradition and little traditions. The domain of great tradition represents the textual or the Shastriya nuances, whereas the universes of little traditions are folk/peasant and local versions of textual knowledge and cultural performance. Great tradition stands for persisting important arrangements of various roles and statuses appearing in such corporate bodies, like caste, sects, teachers, reciters, ritual leaders, priests, cultural performers, religions preachers etc. all of whom are engaged in inculcation and regular dissemination of cultural knowledge. The body of knowledge which they includes is from various religious texts, such as mythologies and epics.

The versions of the Ramayana and Mahabharat are two important religious texts which formed the basis of cultural performances. These two great epics have their local versions which have been written in simpler languages with local examples for the easy comprehension of folk/peasant people. As the main hinterland of cultural performance are countless villages and the spectators are the peasants, the epics and other mythologies have been written in local languages with simplers style.

The little tradition consists of its own role incumbents : folk artists, folk musicians, story-tellers, tellers of riddles, street singers, mendicant performers, interpreters of proverbs and puzzles, street dancers, astrologers, fortune-tellers and medicinemen. In a village, the primary school teacher is a key person as regards little tradition knowledge. He himself performs multiple cultural roles and with the help of village leaders organises various folk performances, mythological plays, dramas, recitation of sacred language, saying of prayers accompanied by folk music which serve two purposes : (1) singing of devotional songs and (2) providing entertainment. The former activity is a sacred duty and the latter act is secular one, meant for relieving stress and strain to which the peasants are sometimes subjected to.

The practice of great tradition and little traditions foster collaboration, cooperation and unequal interaction between the two. Custom is what people follow and do or practise collectively and transmit the same from one generation to another. Through the regularity of interaction between the two the Indian civilisation marches forward. Changes in the great tradition are initiated by the literate or reflected few keeping in view the necessities of time and space. As great traditions in India are bound up with certain cultural ties any innovation or change, which takes place at an important centre influences similar changes at other centres gradually and once the centre of great tradition assimilates change, it also influences some sort of changes in the little tradition of its hinterland. Thus, the process of change is top-down or from the apex to the ground in Indian civilisation.

This dichotomy of little and great tradition in a way stands for 'high-culture' and 'low-culture' or 'folk and classical culture' or 'popular and learnt traditions'. Milton Singer uses 'hierarchic and low -culture'. In a civilization, there is a great tradition of the reflective few, and there is a little tradition of largely unreflective many. The great tradition is cultivated in schools or temples. The little tradition works itself out and keeps itself going in the lives of the unlettered in their village communities. The tradition of the philosopher, theologia and literati man is a tradition consciously cultivated and handed down; that of the little people is for the most part taken for granted and not submitted to such scrutiny and considered refinement and improvement.

If we enter a village within a civilisation we see at once that the culture there has been flowing into it from teachers and exemplars who never saw that village, who did their work in intellectual circles for way from the village in space and time.

The two traditions are interdependent. Great tradition and little tradition have long affected each other and continued to do so. Great epics have arisen out of elements of traditional tale-telling by many people, and epics have returned again to the peasantry for modification and incorporation into local culture. Great and little tradition can be thought of as two currents of thought and action, distinguishable, yet ever flowing into and out of each other. A picture of their relationships would be something like those 'histo-maps' we sometimes see, those diagrams of the rise and change through the time of religions and civilisations. Teachings are invented and they are continually understood by peasants in ways not intended by the teachers. Therefore, great and little tradition can be thought of as two currents.

The two traditions are not distinguishable in very isolated tribes. Among the Andaman Islanders we find nothing at all about any esoteric aspect of religion or thought. An older person may be likely to know what there is to known as any other. There are differences between laymen and specialists in the understanding of the religion. In a primitive tribe this sort of dichotomy is similar to the difference between the great tradition and little tradition in respect of civilisation and peasant society, respectively. The folk or tribal society constitutes a proto-dimension of peasant society. As it has been discussed earlier, some tribal societies or sections thereof are under the influence of the process of Hinduisation.

Origin of Little and Great Traditions!

It was Redfield who talked about little community. For him little community was a village that had smaller size, self-sufficient and relatively isolated.

Redfield did not mention anything about traditions or great traditions. Singer and Marriott who were influenced by studies made by Redfield conducted their intensive study in Indian villages. They elaborated the original model of Redfield in the light of data generated from India villages. Yogendra Singh has commented upon the construction of lit­tle and great traditions in Indian villages by these two anthropologists.

According to him:

Influenced by this model (of Robert Redfield), Milton Singer and Mckim Marriott had conducted some studies on social change in In­dia utilising this conceptual framework. The basic ideas in this approach are ‘civilisation’, and ‘social organisation of tradition’.

It is based on the evolutionary view that civilisation or the structure of tradition (which consists of both cultural and social structures) grows in two stages: first, through orthogenetic or indigenous evolution, and second, through heterogenetic encounters or contacts with other cultures or civilisations.

The Indian social structure, in a broader way, is stratified into two divisions:

(1) the folks or the unlettered peasantry, and

(2) the elites.

The folks and peasantry follow the little tradition, i.e., the village tra­dition. The second division of elites follows the great tradition. The great tradition consists of the traditions contained in epics, Puranas, Brahmanas and other classical sanskritic works. The roles and statuses of Sita and Draupadi constitute the parts of great tradition. The little tradition, on the other hand, is local tradition of great tradition tai­lored according to the regional and village conditions.

The great tradition is found clearly in twice-born castes, specially, priests, and ritual leaders of one kind or other. Some of these corporate groups follow the traits of civilisation and the great tradition. The car­riers of little tradition include folk artists, medicine men, tellers of riddles, proverbs and stories, poets and dancers, etc.

Little and great traditions help to analyse social change in rural In­dia. The nature of this change is basically cultural. There is a constant interaction between great tradition and little tradition. The interac­tion between the two traditions brings about change in rural society.

Yogendra Singh explains this interaction as below:

Changes in the cultural system follow through the interaction be­tween the two traditions in the orthogenetic or heterogenetic process of individual growth. The pattern of change, however, is generally from orthogenetic to heterogenetic forms of differentiation or change in the cultural structure of traditions.

Both Singer and Marriott argue on the strength of data generated from the villages of their study that the cultural content of social structure at the level of little tradition in a village witnesses changes. First, there is change in village culture due to the internal growth of village.

In other words, the little tradition witnesses changes due to its own internal growth. Second, the little tradition also undergoes change due to its contact with great tradition and other parts of the wider civilisation. “The direction of this change presumably is from folk or peasant to urban cultural structure and social organisation.” The great tradition, i.e., the epic tradition also witnesses universalised pattern of culture resulting from its interaction with the village or lit­tle tradition.

Singer has made certain statements about cultural change in rural India. His observations are as under:

1. The Indian civilisation has evolved out of pre-existing folk and re­gional cultures. This aspect of civilisation constructed the great tradition—Ramayana, Mahabharata and other religious scriptures. This great tradition maintained its continuity in India’s diverse re­gions, villages, castes and tribes.

2. The cultural continuity of great tradition is based on the idea that people share common cultural consciousness throughout the country.

3. The common cultural consciousness is formed through the con­sensus held in common about sacred books and sacred objects.

4. In India cultural continuity with the past is so great that even the acceptance of modernising and progress ideologies does not result in linear form of social and cultural change but may result in the traditionalising of apparently modern innovations.

To conclude it could be safely said that there is one cultural ap­proach out of several to explain rural social change in India. In simple words, one could say that a villager borrows norms and values from the great traditions of country’s civilisation.

In this borrowing he makes changes according to his village’s local conditions and history. The villages vary from region to region and, therefore, the little tradi­tion also continues to remain diverse. On the other hand, the great tradition, i.e., the sacred books, also receives a uniform pattern. The concepts, therefore, explain the cultural change both at regional and national levels.

Parochialisation and Universalisation!

Parochialisation and universalisation are supplementary to the con­cepts of little and great traditions. These are processes of cultural change. When the great tradition, i.e., the tradition of epics and sacred books undergoes change at the local or village level, it is parochialisa­tion or localisation of great tradition or civilisation. Parochialisation, therefore, is the cultural change made at the village level.

Universalisation, on the other hand, is a cultural change from lit­tle tradition to great tradition. Both these processes are related to the interaction between little tradition and great tradition. Interpreting the process of universalisation, Yogendra Singh observes that when the little tradition moves upward to the great tradition, it is the proc­ess of universalisation. And, when the great tradition moves downward to the local or village level, it is parochialisation.

His inter­pretation runs as below:

Elements of the little tradition, indigenous customs, duties and rites circulate upward to the level of the great tradition and are identified with its legitimate forms. This process Marriott calls ‘universalisa­tion’. Likewise, some elements of the great tradition also circulate downward to become organic past of the little tradition, and lose much of their original form in the process. He (McKim Marriott) used the term ‘parochialisation’ to denote this kind of transaction be­tween the two traditions.

In the process of parochialisation, obviously, there is some loss of the elements of great tradition. Whatever is laid down as elements of great tradition is reduced at village level or interpreted differently by local leaders of priestly castes. In this process there is de-sanskritisation.

INDIAN RURAL SOCIETY

Important characteristics of Indian Rural Society

Reddy (1985) has stated the following as the characteristic of Indian Rural Society.

1. The village is the unit of the rural society. Its people carry on the business of living

together within a distinctive framework of caste and social custom. Caste is a

dominant social institution permeating social and economic relations. Traditional

caste occupation mostly prevails. Co-operative labour of different castes is required

not only for agro-economic activities but also for socio-religious life. The large

villages have within its population all the occupational castes, have a comparatively

more integrated and self sufficient economic as well as socio-religious life than

smaller villages.

2. The village as a social and cultural unit possesses a basically uniform organisation

and structure of values all over India. Many problems are common to the entire Indian

country side.

3. The ethnic, linguistic, religious and caste composition of a village largely determine

its character and structure. Some villages of hamlets are inhabited almost exclusively

by certain castes as in the case of Agraharams for Brahmins. Even in a village with

mixed population the different castes usually live in different sections of the same

village. Inter caste rivalries are present.

4. Women do not have full equality with men in several aspects of life.

5. Indian rural society is predominantly based on agriculture. Possession of land carries

with it social and prestige value, besides being considered as an economic asset. In

many villages, the land is mostly distributed between two or more castes, or among a

few families, or between one big land owner and the rest of the community. Landless

labourers and tenants constitute a considerable part of the population depending on

agriculture.

6. Every village has its own organisational set up, authority and sanctions. It has its

growing body, the panchayat, based on local tradition since long, but now constituted

on a regular basis according to provisions of Panchayat Raj.

7. Social distance or isolation has a bearing on the nature of the organisation of a village

and of its view on the world. Availability of or nearness to modern means of transport

or communications also modifies the setting and fabric of a village.

8. Village settlements are generally governed by certain regional and local traditions.

The layout of the village, construction of the house, the dress, the speech, and

manners follow the set pattern of the cultural area. Each village possesses an

individual of its own. Some have a reputation for generosity, hospitality and fair play,

while others are notorious for their meanness and corruption. Some villages are kown

for their co-operatives, while some are noted for their litigations and factions.

The important characteristics of the Indian villager was summarised by Reddy (1985)

as hospitality, feminist traditionalism, fatalism, religiousness often combined with

superstitious beliefs, leisure attitude to life, and low standard of living. Nevertheless most

villagers are capable to change and will respond to the teachers whom they trust even though

their past sad experiences make them conservation and hopelessness about the future. They

are eager to learn how to help themselves and they represent paternalism.

Source: open sources

Basic Institutions of Indian Society: Religion

Religion

The variety of religious beliefs and organizations is so immense that scholars have found great difficulty in reaching a generally accepted definition of religion. In the West, most people identify religion with Christianity – a belief in a supreme begin, who commends us to behave in a moral fashion on this earth and promise an afterlife to in general terms. First, religion should not be identified with monotheism (belief in one God). Most religions involve many deities. Even in some versions of Christianity there are several figures with sacred qualities: God, Jesus, Mary, the Holy Ghost, angles and saints. In certain religions that are no gods at all. 

Second, religion should not be identified with moral prescriptions controlling the behavior of believers-like the commandments that Moses was said to have received from. The idea that the gods are interested in how behave on this earth is alien to many religions. To the ancient Greeks, for example, the gods were largely indifferent to the activities of Humanity, 

Third, religion is not necessarily concerned with explaining how the world come to be as it is. In Christianity, the myth of Adam and Eve purports to explain the origin of human existence. And many religions have myths of origin of this sort; but equally, many do not. 

Fourth, religion cannot be identified with the supernatural, as intrinsically involving belief in a universe ‘beyond the realm of the sense’. Confucianism, for example, is considered with accepting the natural harmony of ht e world, not with finding truths that ‘lie behind’ it. 

What is religion? 

Characteristics that all religions do seem to share are as follows. Religion involves a set of symbols, involving feelings of reverence or awe, and arte linked to rituals or ceremonials (such as church services) engaged in by a community of believers. Each of these elements needs some elaboration. Whether singing, eating certain kinds of food - or refraining from doing so - fasting on certain days and so on. Since ritual acts are oriented towards religious symbols, they are usually seen as quite distinct from the habits and procedures of ordinary life. Lighting a candle to honour or placate a god differs completely in its significance from doing so to light a room. Religions rituals are often carried on by involve ceremonials practiced collectively by believers. Regular ceremonials normally occur in special places- churches, temples or the shrines where the ‘miracle’ of the gods drinking milk happened in India. The existence of collective ceremonial is usually regarded by sociologists as one of the main factors distinguishing religion from magic, although the borderlines are by no means clear- cut. Magic is the influencing of events by the use of potions, chanting or rituals practices. It is generally practice by individuals, not by a community of believers. People often choose to resort to magic in situation of misfortune or danger. Thus Brownislaw Malinowski’s classic study of the Trobraind islanders of the Pacific describes a variety if magical rites performed before any hazardous voyage by canoe (1982). The islanders omit such rites when they are simply going fishing in the safe placid waters of a local lagoon.

Although magical practices have mostly disappeared from modern societies, in situations of danger magic- like superstitions are still common. Many who work in occupation that are dangerous or where chance factors can drastically affect performances- such as miners, deep- sea fishermen or sports players- indulge in small superstitious rituals or carry particular items in times of stress. An example might be a tennis player who insists on wearing a particular ring during big matches. Fortune telling by star signs, based on astrological beliefs which have been inherited from magical ideas in pre modern sciences, still commands a following, although most people do not take it too seriously. 

Varieties of Religions

In traditional societies, religion usually plays a central part in social life. Religious symbols and ritual are often integrated with material and artistic culture of the society- music, painting or carving, dance, story-telling and literature. In small cultures, there is no professional priesthood, but there are always certain individuals who specialize in knowledge of religious (and often magical) practices. Although, there are various sorts of such specialists, one common type is the shaman (a word originating among North American Indian). A shaman is an individual believed to be able to direct sprites or non- natural forces though ritual means. Shamans are sometimes essentially magicians rather than religious leaders, however, and are often consulted by individuals dissatisfied with what is offered in the religious rituals of the community.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam 

The three most influential monotheistic religions in world history are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All originated in the Middle East and each has influenced the others. Judaism Judaism is the oldest of the three religions, dating from 1,000 BCE. The early Hebrews were nomads, living in and around ancient Egypt. Their, prophets, or religious leaders, partly drew their ideas from existing religious beliefs in the single, but differed in their commitment to a single, almighty God. Most of their neighbors were polytheistic. The Hebrews believed that God demands obedience to strict moral codes, and insisted in their claim to a monopoly of truth, seeing their beliefs as the only true religion ( Zeitlin 1984, 1988). Until the creation of Israel, not long after the end of World War Two, there was no state og which Judaism was the official religion. Jewish communities survived in Europe, North Africa and Asia, although they were frequently persecuted- culminating in the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis in concentration camps during the war. Christianity Many Judaic views were taken over and incorporated as part of the Christianity. Jesus was an orthodox Jew, and Christianity began as a sect of Judaism; it is not clear that Jesus wished to found a distinctive religion. His disciples came to think of him as the Messiah- a Hebrew word meaning ‘the anoinred’, the Greek term for which was ‘Christ’- awaited by the Jews. Paul, a Greek speaking Roman citizen, was a major initiator of the spread if Christianity, preaching extensively in Asia Minor and Greece. Although the Christians were at first savagely persecuted, the Emperor Constantine eventually adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity spread to become a dominant force in Western culture for the next thousands years. Christianity today commands a greater number of adherents, and is more generally spread across the world, than any other religion. Over a thousand million individuals regards themselves as of theology and church organization, the main branches being Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodox. Islam The origins of Islam, today the second largest religion in the world, overlap with those of Christianity. Islam derives from the teachings of the prophet Muhammad in the seventh century CE. The single God of Islam, Allah, is believed to hold sway over all human and natural life. The Pillars of Islam are the five essential religious duties of Muslims (as believers in Islam are called). The first is the recitation of the Islamic creed, ‘There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. The second is the saying of formal prayers five times each day, preceded by ceremonial washing. The worshiper at these prayers must always face towards the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, no matter how far away that is.

The third pillar is the observance of Ramadan, a month of fasting during which no food or drink may be taken during daylight. The fourth is the giving of alms (money to the poor). Set out in Islamic law, which has often been used as a source of taxation by the state. Finally, there is the expectation that every believer will attempt, at least once, to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. Muslims believe that Allah spoke through earlier – before Muhammad, whose teachings most directly express his will. Islam has come to be very widespread, havinf some 1,000 million adherents throughout the world. The majority are concentrated in North and East Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan. 

The Religions of the Far East

Hinduism 

There are major contrasts between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and the religions of the Far East. The oldest of all the great religions still prominent in the world today is Hinduism, the core beliefs of which date back some six thousand years. Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. It is so internally diverse that some scholars have suggested that it should be regarded as a cluster of related religions rather than a single religious orientation; many local cults and religious practices are linked by a few generally held beliefs. Most Hindus accept the doctrine cycle of reincarnation – the belief that all living beings are part of an eternal process of birth, death and rebirth. 

A second key feature is the caste system, based on the beliefs that individuals are borne into a particular position in a social ritual hierarchy, according to the nature of their activities in previous incarnations. A different set of duties and rituals exists for each caste, and one’s fate in the next life is governed mainly by how well these duties are performed in this one. Hinduism accepts the possibility of numerous different religious standpoints, not drawing a clear line between believers and non-believers. There are over 750 million Hindus, virtually all living on the Indian subcontinent. Hinduism does not seek to convert others into ‘true believers’, unlike Christianity and Islam. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism 

The ethical religions of the East encompass Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism. These religions have no gods. Rather, they emphasize ethical ideals that relate the believer to the natural cohesion and unity of the universe.

Buddhism derives from the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha (enlightened one), who was a Hindu prince in a small kingdom in south Nepal in the sixth century BCE. According to the Buddha, human beings can escape the reincarnation cycle by the renunciation of desire. The path of salvation lies in a life of self-discipline and meditation, separated from the tasks of mundane world. The overall objective of Buddhism is the attainment of Nirvana, complete spiritual fulfillment. The Buddha rejected Hindu ritual and the authority of the castes. Like Hinduism, Buddhism tolerates many local variations, including belief in local deities, not insisting on a single view. Buddhism today is a major influence in several states in the Far East, including Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, China, Japan and Korea. 

Confucianism was the basis of the culture of the ruling groups in traditional China. ‘Confucius’ (the Latinized form of the name K’ung Fu-tzu), lived in the sixth century BCE, the same period as Buddha. Like Lao-tzu, the founder of Taoism, Confucius was a teacher, not a religious prophet in the manner of the Middle Eastern religious leaders. Confucius is not seen by his followers as a god, but as ‘the wisest of wise men’. Confucianism seeks to adjust human life to the inner harmony of nature, emphasizing the veneration of ancestors. Taoism shares similar principles, stressing meditation non-violence as means to the higher life. Although some elements survive in the beliefs and practices of many Chinese, Confucianism and Taoism have lost much of their influence in China as a result of determined opposition from the government.

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM IN INDIA

Indian society is composed of diverse cultures, and peoples, languages and religions. To examine the nature of diversity of the religious faiths in our country we must look at the historical antecedents of various religious groups found in our society. Diversity of religious faiths has existed over a very long period of time as India has been a country of not only very ancient history but also a place where communities from outside continually kept on coming and settling down. Together with diverse cultural groups in various religions in India pursuing their faiths, these immigrant communities also brought their own religious faiths, customs and cultures. This resulted in bringing together people following different religions and gradually laid the basis of religious pluralism in India. Religions pluralism means diversity among people based on their varied kinds of religious beliefs. Pluralism of religion has thus two connotations:

i) it refers to the fact that India has been a land of not one but many religions since ancient times; and

ii) that each religion contains, besides its primary features which define its essence

many cultural, social and ritualistic elements which cut across boundaries of different religions faiths. These cultural and social similarities are a product of interaction and accommodation established over a long period of time by regional, linguistic, ritual and social proximity of various religious groups. Religious pluralism in India is, thus not only a fact but it also permeates through beliefs, values and social character of individual religions in India.

Geographical Spread

Yet another important feature of religious pluralism can be seen in the geographical

spread of religions in India. The Hindus, who constitute the majority religion, are i spread all over, but have large concentration in the central and southern states of India with high , density pocket in a few northern states and far eastern Assam,

The Muslims, the second largest religious group have relatively greater concentration

in South-western states such as Kerala, Karnataka, the northern and eastern states in U.P., Bihar, Assam and pockets of Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, They are also spread throughout the country like the Hindus.

The Christians have density concentration in the southern states of Kerala, parts of

Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and the north-eastern states of Mizoram, Nagaland, Meghalaya. They are also spread across Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and some parts of other northern states in small pockets. One important feature of geographical settlement of Christians is that they may be found in larger numbers in states with higher tribal population due to the impact of conversion.

Religion and Sect

An important element of pluralism among religions in India is their sub-division into sects. Max Weber has given a technical measuring to a sect and distinguishes it from church, especially in the context of Christianity. He says that membership of Church (the main religion) is compulsory. It is governed by collective norms or rules and is run by religious functionaries. But the membership to a sect is voluntary. It is individualistic and lends freedom to the followers of the sects from the compulsory obedience to the functionaries of the Church.

Weber has used the term sect in a relatively definitive sense which may not apply to all religions. Sects are however, common to all religions, such as Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Sub-divisions and Sects in a more general sense refer to internal diversities of interpretation of sacred principles, ritual practices and religious practices in a religion. Sects may also evoke historical cleavages within a religion either due to new interpretation of the religious canons or due to fictionalisation of the religious leadership. Sects, however, operate within the boundary of the specific religion to which they belong. Yet, the process of differentiation makes it possible that inter-religious proximities of customs, rituals and practices of religion and proximity or religious beliefs across religions is made possible due to this process.

Religion and Caste

You cannot fully understand the nature of religion in India without analysing the pervasive role of the caste institution among various religious groups. Caste is based on the Hindu religious view of birth-rebirth and Karma. In Hinduism caste groups ‘are placed into a hierarchical order of pure and impure ritual status within the four Varna wherein the Brahman are at the top, followed by the Kshatriya, the Vaisya and the Sudra and the out-caste. In actual life, caste exists in society as Jatis. There are thousands of Jatis among the Hindus each contributing to vertical differentiation and horizontal solidarity among the castes.

Therefore, Hindu religion does not constitute a community in a solidary sense. It remained a tolerant adaptive and liberal religion in India. It recognises and is tolerant of differences essentially on communication principle, at least in ideal terms. By communitarian we mean that these religions give importance to the community of its followers. None of these religions recognise inequalities or hierarchy based on caste discrimination. However, in real life none of these religions are free from the existence of caste or caste-like groups which are hierarchically arranged in terms of social status and prestige. These groups are also endogamous and observe social restrictions in marital and social relationships outside their caste-group. The Muslims have caste like divisions in India in all parts of the country. The main castes among them as listed in the census of 1931 for the northern state of United Provinces are: Shaikh, Pathan, Saiyid, Rajpur (Muslim) and Mughal among the upper category, and Julaha, Manihar, Dhunia, Teli, Faquir, Nai (Hajjam), Darzi, Dhobi, Qassab among the lower caste hierarchy. The upper Muslim castes belonged to ruling or landlord families or they were in the profession of learning. The lower castes had occupations families or they were in the profession of learning. The lower castes had occupations carrying lesser social prestige in the society. Each of these castes was endogamous and also observed social and cultural distance from each other based on hierarchy. Contemporary studies have re-confirmed these observations. There has been some social mobility among the Muslim castes based on changes in occupation, but the caste-like social inequality even today continues to exist. 

Christianity in India has not been able to get itself free from the caste system. Even after conversion most caste disabilities of the former (pre-conversion) time continue to persist. Depending upon the caste from which members converted they continue to have the social status in the Christian community commensurate with their earlier caste status. Similar caste recognitions exist for Muslim converts also. As Christianity has expanded through conversion in India it has incorporated more and more castelike groups obeying the rules of hierarchy and endogamy within each caste. The exception in this regard are possibly the tribal communities from the north-east which never had the caste institution in their social organisation. Caste prejudices are reported to be all pervasive among most Indian Christian communities. Similar caste distinctions can be found among the Sikhs also. The conversion to Buddhism, a religion which rejects caste system and social discrimination as its basis, has not been able to eradicate the existence of caste disabilities of the members. As in Islam and Christianity, in Sikhism too, the caste system prevails.

 In terms of inter-religious contacts or commonalities of values and beliefs caste differentiation in each religions in India demonstrates pluralism and has in large measure also contributed to tolerance and brotherliness across the religious divide.

Language and Religious Pluralism

India is a land of diverse cultural patterns which have existed within the framework of religious, linguistic, geographical and local traditions.  Language gives people new identities. There are several

hundred languages and thousands of dialects belonging to various linguistic families. India thus presents a formidable mosaic of linguistic distribution each with individual cultural overtones. Religious differentiation exists within the setting of this linguistic divisions. As a result of this most major religions in India; Hinduism, Islam and Christianity have their members coming from different linguistic communities. Just as caste divides and also unites in some respects, the members coming from different religions belonging to the linguistic communities in India perform the same As Fact and Value function. This is because people for a linguistic community share many common values, cultural style and way of life. Language not only gives identity to people but also serves as the potent vehicle of cultural expression. Linguistic variations within the followers of the same religions made it possible for most people in India to take a broader and more liberal view of the relationship between religion and social and cultural life. There was continual sharing of folkways, styles of life, dietary preferences etc. across religions. This reinforced religious tolerance leading to peaceful co-existence.

Development of Sociology in India

Development of Sociology in India

The origin of sociology and social anthropology in India can be traced to the days when the British officials realized the need to understand the native society and its culture in the interest of smooth administration. However, it was only during the twenties of the last century that steps were taken to introduce sociology and social anthropology as academic disciplines in Indian universities.

The popularity that these subjects enjoy today and their professionalization is, however, a post-independence phenomenon. Attempts have been made by scholars from time to time to outline the historical developments, to highlight the salient trends and to identify the crucial problems of these subjects.

Sociology and social/cultural anthropology are cognate disciplines and are in fact indissoluble. However, the two disciplines have existed and functioned in a compartmentalized manner in the European continent as well as in the United States. This separation bears the indelible impress of western colonialism and Euro-centrism.

However, Indian sociologists and anthropologists have made an attempt to integrate sociology and anthropology in research, teaching and recruitment. They have made a prominent contribution to the development of indigenous studies of Indian society and have set an enviable example before the Asian and African scholars.

Another significant contribution of Indian sociology and social/cultural anthropology lies in their endeavor to synthesize the text and the context. This synthesis between the text and the context has provided valuable insights into the dialectic of continuity and change to contemporary Indian society (Momin, 1997).

It is difficult to understand the origin and development of sociology in India without reference to its colonial history. By the second half of the 19th century, the colonial state in India was about to undergo several major transformations.

Land, and the revenue and authority that accrued from the relationship between it and the state, had been fundamental to the formation of the early colonial state, eclipsing the formation of Company rule in that combination of formal and private trade that itself marked the formidable state-like functions of the country.

The important event that took place was the revolt of 1857, which showed that the British did not have any idea about folkways and customs of the large masses of people. If they had knowledge about Indian society, the rebellion of 1857 would not have taken place. This meant that a new science had to come to understand the roots of Indian society. The aftermath of 1857 gave rise to ethnographic studies. It was with the rise of ethnography, anthropology and sociology which began to provide empirical data of the colonial rule.

Herbert Risley was the pioneer of ethnographic studies in India. He entered the Indian Civil Services in 1857 with a posting in Bengal. It was in his book Caste and Tribes of Bengal (1891) that Risley discussed Brahminical sociology, talked about ethnography of the castes along with others that the importance of caste was brought to colonial rulers. Nicholas Dirks {In Post Colonial Passages, Sourabh Dube, Oxford, 2004) observes:

Risley’s final ethnographic contribution to colonial knowledge thus ritualed the divineness of caste, as well as its fundamental compati­bility with politics only in the two registers of ancient Indian monarchy or modern Britain’s ‘benevolent despotism’.

Thus, the ethnographic studies came into prominence under the influence of Risley. He argued that to rule India caste should be discouraged. This whole period of 19th century gave rise to ethnographic studies, i.e., studies of caste, religion, rituals, customs, which provided a foundation to colonial rule for establishing dominance over India. It is in this context that the development of sociology in India has to be analysed.

Sociology and social anthropology developed in India in the colonial interests and intellectual curiosity of the western scholars on the one hand, and the reactions of the Indian scholars on the other. British administrators had to acquire the knowledge of customs, manners and institutions of their subjects.

Christian missionaries were interested in understanding local languages, folklore and culture to carry out their activities. These overlapping interests led to a series of tribal, caste, village and religious community studies and ethnological and linguistic surveys. Another source of interest in Indian studies was more intellectual.

While some western scholars were attracted by the Sanskrit language, Vedic and Aryan civilization, others were attracted by the nature of its ancient political economy, law and religion. Beginning from William Jones, Max Muller and others, there was a growth of Indo logical studies. Karl Marx and Frederic Engels were attracted by the nature of oriental disposition in India to build their theory of evolution of capitalism.

Similarly, Henry Maine was interested in the Hindu legal system and village communities to formulate the theory of status to contract. Again, Max Weber got interested in Hinduism and other oriental religions in the context of developing the theory, namely, the spirit of capitalism and the principle of rationality developed only in the West.

Thus, Indian society and culture became the testing ground of various theories, and a field to study such problems as growth of town, poverty, religion, land tenure, village social organization and other native social institutions. All these diverse interests – academic, missionary, administrative and political – are reflected in teaching of sociology.

According to Srinivas and Panini (1973: 181), the growth of the two disciplines in India falls into three phases:

The first, covering the period between 1773-1900 AD, when their foundations were laid;

The second, 1901-1950 AD, when they become profession­alized;

and finally, the post-independence years, when a complex of forces, including the undertaking of planned development by the government, the increased exposure of Indian scholars to the work of their foreign colleagues, and the availability of funds, resulted in considerable research activity.

Here, three major phases in the introspection in sociology, which have been discussed by Rege (1997) in her thematic paper on ‘Sociology in Post-Independent India’, may also be mentioned. Phase one is characterized by the interrogations of the colonial impact on the discipline and nationalist responses to the same, phase second is marked by explo­rations into the initiative nature of the theoretical paradigms of the discipline and debates on strategies of indigenization.

This phase also saw critical reflections on the deductive positivistic base of sociology and the need for Marxist paradigms and the more recent phase of post-structuralism, feminist and post-modern explorations of the discipline and the field. Lakshmanna also (1974: 1) tries to trace the development of sociology in three distinctive phases. The first phase corresponds to the period 1917-1946, while the second and the third to 1947-1966 and 1967 onwards respectively.

Sociology in the Pre-Independence Period:

As is clear by now that sociology had its formal beginning in 1917 at Calcutta University owing to the active interest and efforts of B.N. Seal. Later on, the subject was handled by Radhakamal Mukerjee and B.N. Sarkar. However, sociology could not make any headway in its birthplace at Calcutta.

On the other hand, anthropology flourished in Calcutta with the establishment of a department and later on the Anthropological Survey of India (ASI). Thus, sociology drew a blank in the eastern parts of the country. But, the story had been different in Bombay. Bombay University started teaching of sociology by a grant of Government of India in 1914.

The Department of Sociology was established in 1919 with Patrick Geddes at the helm of affair. He was joined by G.S. Ghurye and N.A. Toothi. This was indeed a concrete step in the growth of sociology in India. Another centre of influence in sociological theory and research was at Lucknow that it introduced sociology in the Department of Economics and Sociology in 1921 with Radhakamal Mukerjee as its head.

Later, he was ably assisted by D.P. Mukerji and D.N. Majumdar. In South India, sociology made its appearance at Mysore University by the efforts of B.N. Seal and A.F. Wadia in 1928. In the same year sociology was introduced in Osmania University at the undergraduate level. Jafar Hasan joined the department after he completed his training in Germany.

Another university that started teaching of sociology and social anthropology before 1947 was Poona in the late 1930s with Irawati Karve as the head. Between 1917 and 1946, the development of the discipline was uneven and in any case not very encouraging. During this period, Bombay alone was the main centre of activity in sociology. Bombay attempted a synthesis between the Indo-logical and ethnological trends and thus initiated a distinctive line of departments.

During this period, Bombay produced many scholars who richly contributed to the promotion of sociological studies and research in the country. K.M. Kapadia, Irawati Karve, S.V. Karandikar, M.N. Srinivas, A.R. Desai, I.P. Desai, M.S. Gore and Y.B. Damle are some of the outstanding scholars who shaped the destiny of the discipline. The products of this university slowly diffused during this period in the hinterland universities and helped in the establishment of the departments of sociology.

Certain trends of development of sociology may be identified in the pre-independence period. Sociology was taught along with economics, both in Bombay and Lucknow. However, in Calcutta, it was taught along with anthropology, and in Mysore it was part of social philosophy.

Teachers had freedom to design the course according to their interests. No rigid distinction was made between sociology on the one hand and social psychology, social philosophy, social anthropology, social work, and other social sciences such as economics and history, on the other. The courses included such topics as social biology, social problems (such as crime, prostitution and beggary), social psychology, civilization and pre-history. They covered tribal, rural and urban situations.

At the general theoretical level, one could discern the influence of the British social anthropological traditions with emphasis on diffusionism and functionalism. In the case of teaching of Indian social institutions the orientation showed more Indo-logical emphasis on the one hand and a concern for the social pathological problems and ethnological description on the other. Strong scien­tific empirical traditions had not emerged before independence. Sociology was considered a mixed bag without a proper identity of its own.

Sociology in the Post-Independence Period:

The next phase, as mentioned by Lakshmanna (1974: 45), in the growth of the subject, corresponds to the period between the attainment of independence and the acceptance of the regional language as the medium of instruction in most states of the country. Towards the end of this period, we also witnessed the interest on the part of the Central Government to promote social science research through a formal organization established for the purpose.

This phase alone experienced tremendous amount of interaction within the profession as two parallel organizations started functioning for the promotion of the profession. In Bombay, Indian Sociological Society was established and Sociological Bulletin was issued as the official organ of the society. This helped to a large extent in creating a forum for publication of sociological literature.

Lucknow school, on the other hand, started the All India Annual Sociological Conference for professional interaction. Lakshmanna identifies that the research efforts mainly progress on three lines. First, there was large-scale doctoral research in the university. Second, the growing needs of the planners and adminis­trators on the one hand and the realization of increasing importance of sociological thinking and research in the planning process on the other, opened up opportunities for research projects.

Third, during this period, the growing importance of social science research also resulted in the establishment of research institutes. The development of research activity also meant the enlargement of the employment opportunities at all levels.

Correspondingly, there was also an increase in the number of universities and college departments. This period also noticed considerable vertical and horizontal mobility in the profession. Teaching of sociology got well established in the fifties. This period reflected three things as marked by Rao (1982).

First, sociology achieved greater academic status. Not only many more universities and colleges began to teach at the postgraduate and graduate levels but the discipline itself became more focused in theoretical orien­tation and highly diversified in its specialization. Secondly, sociology established its identity as discipline by separating itself from psychology, anthropology, social philosophy and social work.

Although, in some universities, still social pathology and social psychology are taught as a part of sociology courses. In many others, a highly diversified curriculum structure in proper sociology exists including such specialization as rural and urban sociology, sociology of kinship, sociology of religion, sociology of stratification, sociology of education, political sociology, medical sociology, social demography and sociology of economic devel­opment.

Thirdly, diversification followed the lines of extension of sociological approach to different areas of social life. It was related to the growing needs of development in independent India. Colonial legacy became a thing of the past and democratic processes were introduced at all levels.

Sociologists soon become sensitive to problems of development in the contexts of tribal, rural and urban situations. Problems of rural development, industrialization, and expansion of education, control of population, new political processes and institutions, social and political movements attracted their areas of social life. They started conducting empirical research with a view to understand the structure, dynamics and problems of development. All these concerns had a feedback on the teaching of sociology at various levels.

Another important change in the teaching of sociology, which came after independence, has been in regard to the external intel­lectual influences. Before independence the teaching of sociology and social anthropology was mainly, if not wholly, influenced by the then current theoretical concerns in Great Britain.

We have already mentioned the influence of diffusionism and functionalism (of Malinowski). The syllabi also reflected traditions of ethnology, evolutionism and Indology. After independence, however, American sociological traditions had a major impact on the teaching of sociology in India. This is evident from such topics in the syllabi as structural-functional theory (Parsons and Merton) and research methodology.

Besides the American, the French, German and Marxian intellectual influences also had an impact. In the midst of such diverse intellectual stimuli, Indian sociologists began to criticize, modify and develop diverse sociological approaches in the study of Indian society and culture, and these are reflected in the course of study of different universities.

Developments in the Seventies:

There have been a few reviews of developments in sociology and social anthropology since earlier times till 1970s and onwards (see, for example, the collection of essays in Unnithan, Singh et al., 1965; ICSSR, 1971, 1974, 1985; Rao, 1974; Mukherjee, 1977; Mukherjee, 1979; Singh, 1986; UGC, 1978, 1979, 1982; Lele, 1981; Oommen and Mukherjee, 1986; Dhanagare, 1993; Singhi, 1996). Of these, Ram Krishan Mukherjee’s review has been more exhaustive and substantial for the discipline as a whole.

The ICSSR trend reports covered in detail the developments in each of specializations. Rao (1982: 16-23) reviewed the developments in the seventies under three heads:

(i) areas of the interests and specialization which got crystallized;

(ii) areas of interest which has developed but not got crystallized; and

(iii) emergence of new approaches in the estab­lished areas.

The seventies of the last century saw a further continued diver­sification of interests and specialization in substantive areas of research and teaching in the sixties. While, earlier, village community studies dominated researches, but the interests in the areas of agrarian relations, land reforms, peasants, agricultural labourers, and scheduled castes and tribes began to attract greater attention of sociologists and social anthropologists in the seventies.

The problems of rural society were formulated in the Marxian framework of analysis emphasizing conflicts and contradictions. The other areas of interests that were crystallized in the seventies were industrial sociology, urban sociology and social stratification. Secondly, there were six areas of interest that started getting some attention in the seventies but have not really got off the mark.

These were: sociology of profession, sociology of organization, medical sociology, social demography and studies on women, Muslims and Hindu-Muslim relations. Thirdly, it is significant to note that the seventies saw new approaches and foci in the large areas of research and teaching such as caste, kinship, religion, politics and tribal studies.

Perspectives in the Eighties:

Many of the areas of specialization mentioned in the foregoing account, no doubt, gained strength in the eighties of the last century. Some areas of enquiry, such as social demography and medical sociology, were crystallized. A few other areas of investigation opened up and more research in the established areas was undertaken on new lines. Some of the new areas have been introduced.

These were: sociology of deviance, sociology of knowledge, sociology of science and technology, and historical sociology. Rao (1982) anticipated these areas for research in the eighties. There was an indication that interest in sociology of science and technology might get more widespread (Uberoi, 1978; Vishwanathan, 1977). The growing interest in historical sociology was reflected in Fox (1977).

Damle (1982: 57-58) anticipated the task of sociology for the eighties in India, which was to analyse (1) the transformation of Indian society, (2) the limits of such transfor­mation, and (3) the impact of these limits to such transformation, which was reflected either in the frustrations of the efforts to surmount the obstacles. In this context, new ideologies and protest movements acquired a special significance.

In many of the newly developing branches of sociology, scholars have made notable but isolated contributions. There has been thinking that research should be promoted in the nineties in the areas of sociology of planning and development, sociology of professions, sociology of organizations, social dimensions of poverty, law and social change, sociology of national integration etc.

Imperatives in the Nineties:

The country during the nineties of the last century was passing through radical political, economical and socio-cultural changes as a result of which the scope and focus of Indian sociology has expanded. Under the influence of such developments, the Indian government that adored the policy of mixed economy ever since independence and cherished the ideals of welfarism proceeded to allow the market-oriented policy to prevail.

To achieve this goal, the government adopted a new policy of economic reforms in the year 1991 with a view to globalize its economy (Singh, 1997). Globalization is a move prompted by the leaders of the developed world. Liberalization policy, including the freedom accorded to the foreign companies and capital to enter into Indian market, is the two major steps of the government in this direction.

The impact of globalization on Indian cultural heritage and general life situation of the people of the country has generated new areas that deserve the attention of Indian sociologists who do seem to be attentive to such relevant areas as civic society (Gupta, 1997), crisis and resil­ience in the process of social change (Singh, 1993) and secularism and national integration 0oshi, 1997) but specific social impli­cation of the new economic policy is yet to be analysed.

A few courses have been introduced recently on global themes in some of the universities. They are as follows: ecology and society, issues of human rights, sociology of management, human resource devel­opment, media and society, action sociology etc. There is also need to start some more new courses like sociology of public order; peace, security and development; security management and infor­mation technology etc. These courses are not only important for teaching but also for research in the construction of society and useful for the modern occupation and profession.

Teaching of Sociology in India:

The origin of sociology in India as a distinct discipline can be traced back to the period around 1920s. Teaching of sociology started in Bombay University as early as 1914 but the birth of current academic sociology took place only with the establishment of departments of sociology in Bombay and Lucknow.

As for teaching and research, nothing such happened except nominal teaching of the discipline wherever it was introduced for almost a quarter of a century. What Parvathamma states about Mysore University remains true for the entire country and for the discipline of sociology as a whole. “The undergraduate syllabi in sociology as framed by Wadia continued almost for a quarter of a century.

Only in the late 1950′s, it was changed (Parvathamma, 1978). Though one finds a nominal beginning, nothing of any consequence happened in the realm of sociology. It remained more or less static during the 1920-47 periods. This was the last phase of the colonial rule in India when the national leaders were preoccupied with the liberation movement.

Pre-independence scholars have contributed to the foundation of sociology by providing a tradition in which sociology in India could grow and evolve (Unnithan et al., 1967). Their contributions, however, began to make an impact only after independence, though the number of universities increased from 11 in 1920 to 16 in 1945. However, the number of sociology depart­ments remained just two and of these, only one was concerned for independent degree in sociology (Unnithan, 1982).

The percentage of universities, having sociology department, had been falling during 1920-50. It began to show a trend towards regular increase after 1950. By 1960, 23.8 per cent of universities in India had sociology departments. By 1965, this number rose to 29.6 per cent. Now, there are 95 universities including institutions that are deemed to be universities. Fifty-one of them or about 54 per cent accommodate departments of sociology.

In spite of their relatively greater growth in sociology departments, it is interesting that 44 (46.3%) out of 95 universities do not have any sociology teaching at all. Of the 51 universities that teach sociology, only 32 have separate departments, whereas 14 conduct undergraduate and postgraduate programmes including PhD.

There are 16 universities where sociology is combined with other social science departments but an independent degree is awarded; in three departments no degree is awarded though the subject is taught (Unnithan, 1982: 64). Besides these, according to the Universities Handbook of India, 1973, the 16 Agricultural Universities, the five All India Institutes of Technology, the three Institutes of Technology, the three Institutes of Management, the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and the Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Ahmedabad also offered sociology as a subject of study and/or research.

Sociology is very popular subject in the universities and colleges of India today. Currently, out of 133 traditional univer­sities, about 85 have departments of sociology apart from other departments of social sciences related to sociology like population studies and women studies.

A majority of students opt for sociology as one of their subjects at graduation level. It is considered as an easy subject to get through in examination. It is usually preferred by girls particularly those who are not much career conscious. Similarly, at the postgraduate level too, sociology receives a large number of students.

The rank of sociology comes fifth in terms of the number of the universities offering social sciences and allied subjects. This shows that from the quantitative point of view, the position of sociology as an academic discipline is not very low in spite of the fact that it entered the university curriculum only very recently.

It is also seen that at the postgraduate level, sociology has established itself as a subject of major importance, attracting the largest number of students next only to economics, history and political science. Postgraduate enrolment in the year 1969-70 was alone 4,918 – taking sociology (4,442) and anthropology (476) together which contributed 11.57 per cent of the total enrolment (42,479) for postgraduate education in social sciences.

However, the percentage was a little higher for PhD (16.34%). Of the 2,153 students enrolled for PhD in social sciences, 352 were in the field of sociology alone. According to the UGC report, out of total 2,582 faculty members of the postgraduate departments in social sciences in the universities and colleges, 243 were sociologists and 119 anthropologists. Until 1971, the country has produced a total of 485 PhD scholars in the fields of sociology, social anthropology, criminology and social work.

Since 1968, the average rate of PhDs in sociology was 46 per year. This is an impressive figure, indeed, compared to the figures for previous periods. Thus, 34 PhDs were submitted during the decade 1931-40 and 79 in the subsequent two decades of 1941-60.

There were more than a hundred PhDs from the universities of Uttar Pradesh and of Maharashtra up to 1970 whereas the position in other states was as follows: Bihar (43), Delhi (42), Madhya Pradesh (23), Gujarat (15), West Bengal (14), Rajasthan (12), Punjab (9), Karnataka (7) and others (13).

The courses and the syllabi in sociology of the various univer­sities reveal yet another dimension of development of the discipline in India. Sociology is being taught at all levels in the universities – from graduation to MPhil/MLitt level. Some courses give special emphasis to research methodology.

As regards the subject matter taught at the graduate and postgraduate levels, there seems to be some rough similarity between universities in the course. Principles of Sociology, Indian Social Institutions and Social Change are offered at both the BA and MA levels in most universities while Research Methods, Rural and Urban Sociology, Social Anthro­pology and Social Psychology are among the other subjects included in the core courses at MA level.

The rest of the subjects cover a wide range of special areas in the discipline, namely, political sociology, educational sociology, industrial sociology, sociology of kinship, religion, marriage and family, and so on. It seems that from the national point of view, there is a wider choice of optional subjects for the students of sociology than is available to students of other disciplines.

An analysis of the courses reveals several deficiencies. At present, there is a lack of integration of syllabi at all levels that could ensure a standard of uniform minimal knowledge in sociology along with possibilities for specialization and advance training in sociology. Hardly any effort is noticed to introduce new courses on the basis of rationale societal consider­ations.

Largely, the old courses continue. The gravity of problem is accentuated by the contents of the courses and the textbooks prescribed. The contents of the courses are often irrelevant to the students of sociology in India as instruction is based mostly on books written by foreign scholars for students elsewhere. All these points reflect to the overall underdeveloped nature of sociology in India (Unnithan, 1982: 68).

Overall, the quantitative expansion of sociology is increasing but the quality aspect of the development of sociology as an academic discipline in colleges and universities is appalling. Except a few prestigious universities, the status of sociology in most of the universities in the country is really degraded.

Hence, the quality research and teaching in sociology has considerably slumped. Singh (1997) writes: “Professional anxiety, achievement, motivation, entrepreneurial aspiration and changing mode of consumption have immensely affected the standard of sociology.”

Therefore, the teachers and other scholars of sociology will have to take care and pains for its revival. Importantly, and specifically, we need to be academically and politically active to influence the development of a ‘new’ sociological curriculum.

Sociological Research in India:

Since independence, with the rapid development of the teaching of sociology in Indian universities and colleges, there has been a concomitant increase in the number of research studies on different aspects of sociology, resulting in doctoral dissertations and in the publication of many volumes and articles in various professional journals. Several previous surveys of the development of sociology in India present the process in different phases and trends, notably those by Becker and Barnes (1961), Saran (1958), Bottomore (1962), Clinard and Elder (1965), Vidhyarthi (1972), and the Indian Council of Social Sciences Research (ICSSR) (1972).

Despite these attempts, little attention has so far been paid in the direction of proper research taking steps of methods of data collection, techniques, degree of quantity and quality, arial unit of study, and theoretical orientations in specific substantive areas of sociology.

Usually, it is seen that while at the university department level, there are facilities of doing research which do not exist at the college level. Even at the department level there is no system of sabbatical leave where the teacher can take time off for the research. Fieldwork is an essential aspect of research in sociology and unless a teacher has a year or nine months off, he cannot conduct research.

The ICSSR and the UGC have suitable schemes for providing these facilities. There is thus now no dearth of money to conduct research. The problem is to control spurious research. The ICSSR, which is the main agency for promoting research in sociology and social anthropology, has laid down priorities in keeping with social goals. It is necessary to initiate research to teach new courses as research and teaching are intimately related in the development of the discipline.

Research in sociology got a considerable boost in the country since independence. Several studies conducted by sociologists were financed, sponsored and supported by several agencies. There was another welcome trend in the introduction of the courses on methods of social research as part of the MA syllabus. In fact, this was also emphasized by the UGC Review Committee on Sociology (1960).

Significant sophistication in research methodology is an urgent desideratum for present assessment of the rapidly changing and complex social organization to which we belong. In the field of doctoral research, the progress in sociology has been remarkable.

In spite of the fact that almost till the middle of the fifties, a much less number of recognized supervisors were available for the guidance of the doctoral research students in the departments of the univer­sities. Besides these limitations, sociology and other allied fields granted as many as 438 doctoral degrees up to 1970 and economics and political science exceeded these figures.

The personnel position in sociology is still on the lower side. There are only 243 sociology teachers as compared to larger number in economics and political science, psychology and geography. This has to be further viewed in the light of the numbers of the university and college departments.

In terms of the number of departments at the university level, sociology (51) is behind only from economics (72), political science (59) and commerce (56). The position at the college level is roughly the same. When we try to match the spread of the discipline and its manpower requirements, it becomes clear that there had been some defect in the recruitment pattern as revealed by the existence of a large number of unfilled professorial posts in several universities.

Senior members of the profession should take note of this unsatis­factory situation. In spite of the limitation of personnel, a very large number of research projects (50), constituting the highest share (25.5%) of the ICSSR grants, were undertaken by the scholars belonging to the sociology discipline.

A total of 19 theses were published in sociology. The position is still brighter if we add in it social anthropology. In fact, the acceptance of the largest number of projects (above 20%) in sociology was a matter of satisfaction because the formulations of the problems were realistic and sound.

There has been a realization that diverse research methods were complimentary rather than conflicting. The early seventies saw a bitter debate between the surveyors and participant observers. But, both realized that the two could be complementary. There has been more researches using statistical surveys methods.

There were a number of training courses in quantitative methods including computer programming. Besides quantitative techniques, other techniques such as historical analysis, case studies and partic­ipant observation are also increasingly used by sociologists and social anthropologists depending on the nature of the problem of investigation and its aim.

Sociological Research in India: The State of Crisis:

The recent years have seen the publications in EPW of a number of articles discussing and for the most part deploring the current state of research and teaching in sociology. Speaking especially of the situation in western India, they support the view that sociology in India has become a rather lacklustre disci­pline, its leading concepts presented through outdated mass-market American texts, and notably devoid of engagement with the social world outside the classroom.

The 1990s have seen engaged debate on the crisis in the discipline. This debate saw a series of responses from the scholars in the field assessing the ‘tiredness of the disci­pline’ (Deshpande, 1995), the possibilities of ‘a community of discourse’ , the dangers of ‘uncritical metropolitanism’ (Murthy, 1993) and the relevance of gender and feminist pedagogues as strategies to confront the crisis (Rege, 1994; Uberoi, 1994).

The discussion has been made on the construction of socio­logical discipline (Thappan, 1991; Hegde, 1992) and teaching of sociology in Indian universities (Uberoi, 1989-90; Deb 1997). In the recent years, a new dimension has been reflected in the debate taking the issue of gender studies (Dube, 1986, 1996, 1997; Desai, 1997; Bhagwat and Rege, 1991; Patel 1994; Uberoi, 1994) and women’s movement (Niranjana, 1992; John, 1996).

Veena Das (1993) tries to locate the crisis in sociological research in India in three institutional structures – the universities, the UGC and the professional bodies such as the Indian Socio­logical Society. At the level of the universities, the proliferation of the subject has simply not been matched by the will to ensure competence in teaching and research. In several universities, textbooks such as that of MacIver and Page, written almost 50 years ago, continue to be taught.

Second, where teaching and research are conducted in regional languages, students do not acquire profi­ciency even in reading in the English language. This is in fact that rhetorical statements about national self-respect notwithstanding, neither the translations of competent sociological works in the regional languages nor original contributions add up to a sufficient body of literature that may be available in these languages.

Thus, a student fails to acquire competence in his subject on the basis of this literature. Third, the policies for recruitment and promotion of teachers increasingly sacrifice academic competence for political expediency. Fourth, the examination of PhD dissertations is managed within small coterie of scholars.

If the universities are to take a share of the blame for the falling standards for research, the UGC cannot escape its major responsi­bility either. The decision-making bodies in the UGC seem to have completely misguided notions about the state of social science research in the country. Finally, the professional bodies have done little to salvage the situations. The interests of the profession lie not only in producing greater number of jobs for sociologists but in ensuring that ethical practices in the discipline are maintained.

Possible Sociological Discourses:

We need to concentrate on some of the essentials of sociological discourses to develop sociology in India. They are:

(1) The development of sociology in India may be viewed in terms of the historicity of social conditions that have shaped the sociological perspectives from time to time. The theoretical and cognitive systems of sociology are socially conditioned (Singh, 1986).

It is to be hoped that thinking in this direction will result in the concentration of contested themes and in the recovery of key Indian socio-cultural realities and textual tradi­tions, traditions that have remained or continue to remain as an excluded part of hegemonic sociology or its margin (Nadarajah, 1996). Perhaps, this is the right time to resume the ‘Indian sociology’ by recognizing context and culture of the society and to overcome from the identification of sociology as solely a western.

(2) The production of sociological knowledge can be qualitatively changed with a sociological curriculum helping the multi- faceted contestation of western sociological knowledge. There is a need to consider not only the content of social science education in our universities but also the methodology used in the production of such knowledge (Nadarajah, 1996).

(3) Institutionalization of research requires a proper fit between the growing needs of theory and the increasing demands of society. Generally, public funds are made available by the government, UGC, ICSSR and other agencies in terms of the criteria set out for priorities. The question of priorities has to be answered in the context of the relevance of research.

(4) While paying attention to research priorities, the needs of individual scholars pursuing a promising but out-of-the- way enquiry should not be neglected. Research efforts involving interdisciplinary approach or bold methodological innovation should, on principle, be encouraged. The ICSSR standing committee has also recommended these suggestions in the eighties.

To conclude, the history of the development of sociology has not been much encouraging. At its beginning anthropology and ethnology helped the colonial rule to establish its foundation. In other words, the discipline of sociology was partly responsible for the survival of colonialism and feudalism in princely states. The feudal mentality of Indian people is thus due to sociology, anthro­pology and ethnology. It must be said that this discipline has not been worth its salt in India.

If we make a survey of the sociological literature which has cropped up during the last about 100 years does not take into account any massive event which took place in India. India’s freedom struggle was a long struggle and it sought the participation of the masses. All the people participated in the movement notwithstanding the plural character of the Indian society.

It was a great event in the history of India. The sociologists did nothing to analyse the freedom struggle. It is difficult to find any book on sociology written by our so-called sociologists. When the masses were busy fighting for their freedom, our sociologists such as N.K. Bose and G.S. Ghurye were writing on caste and ethnicity. Such a record of sociology can easily be called ungrateful to the nation. How can we be proud of such sociologists?

Another memorable event in India’s history has been the mass exodus of people from Pakistan after the division of country between India and Pakistan. Burning trains from Pakistan were coming to India and the blood-stained trains were leaving India for Pakistan. Lakhs of refugees crossed the borders. It never happened earlier but the sociologists who claimed to be the analysts of Indian society did not mention anything about this tragic event.

Besides, an event, which is a remarkable in the building of our nation-state, is the era of building modern India. Nehruji and his generation of national leaders started Five-Year Plans for the devel­opment of industry and village agriculture. The sociologists again turned their eyes to this era of development.

It is discouraging to learn that the sociologists observed silence on this process of devel­opment. However, the sociologists made some village studies. Actually, there was a flood of such studies. These studies made some contributions. But, these contributions have false theoretical claims. Dominant caste, sanskritization, westernization, parochialization and universalization are some of the contributions which have not proved to be of any help for the development of villages. They have proved to be Utopian for the nation.

There are several problems for the country. The problems are multi-ethnic, multi-caste, multi-religion, multi-region and multi-linguistic. Economic problems coupled with unemployment are disasters. It is expected of sociology to analyse the social ills and bring out some solutions. In the present work, we are discussing social thinkers of contemporary India. They are also responsible to relax-in comfortable armchairs and enjoy the academic status.

 Source: Open Sources(YourArticleLibrary.com)

Some more information can be availed from  http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/cna/download/proceedings/36.Modi.India.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23618408?uid=3738256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104467881527