Chapter 1 : Development of Sociology in India

Development of Sociology in India

Origin and Colonial Roots

The origin of sociology and social anthropology in India is deeply tied to British colonial administration. British officials realized that smooth administration required a thorough understanding of native society and culture.

Integration vs. Compartmentalization

• Text and Context Synthesis: A major contribution of Indian sociology is the endeavor to synthesize the text and the context, providing valuable insights into the dialectic of continuity and change in contemporary Indian society (Momin, 1997).
• The Catalyst of 1857: The revolt of 1857 exposed the British rulers' ignorance of Indian folkways and customs. The British realized that had they understood Indian society, the rebellion could have been prevented. This necessitated a "new science" to understand the roots of Indian society, leading to the rise of ethnographic, anthropological, and sociological studies to provide empirical data for colonial rule.
• Pioneer of Ethnography: Herbert Risley (entered Indian Civil Services in 1857) pioneered ethnographic studies. In his book Caste and Tribes of Bengal (1891), he discussed Brahminical sociology and caste ethnography, arguing that to rule India effectively, caste should be discouraged.

Western Intellectual Interests in India Indian society became a testing ground for various western theories. Interests overlapped among administrators (customs/manners), Christian missionaries (local languages/folklore), and intellectuals.

Key Terms

📌 Exam Tidbits

• Herbert Risley (1891): Wrote Caste and Tribes of Bengal; argued caste should be discouraged to rule India.
• Nicholas Dirks (2004): Observed in Post Colonial Passages that: "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'."
• Western vs. Indian Sociology: Western sociology compartmentalized sociology and anthropology; Indian sociology integrated them.

---

Phases of Growth in Indian Sociology

Scholars have attempted to outline the historical development of the discipline through distinct phases.

3 Typologies of Sociological Development in India

📌 Exam Tidbits

• Srinivas and Panini (1973): Divided growth into 3 phases based on chronological professionalization (1773-1900; 1901-1950; Post-independence).
• Rege (1997): Divided growth into 3 phases based on theoretical introspection (Colonial/Nationalist → Indigenization/Marxist → Post-structural/Feminist).

---

Sociology in the Pre-Independence Period (1917–1946)

During this period, the development of the discipline was uneven, lacking a proper independent identity, and heavily influenced by British traditions.

• 1914 – Bombay University: Started teaching sociology via a Government of India grant.
• 1917 – Calcutta University: Formal beginning of sociology owing to B.N. Seal. Handled by Radhakamal Mukerjee and B.N. Sarkar. Sociology failed to make headway here, but anthropology flourished (establishment of a department and the Anthropological Survey of India).
• 1919 – Bombay University: Department of Sociology established with Patrick Geddes as head, joined by G.S. Ghurye and N.A. Toothi. Bombay became the main center of activity, attempting a synthesis between Indological and ethnological trends.
  • Key Bombay Scholars: K.M. Kapadia, Irawati Karve, S.V. Karandikar, M.N. Srinivas, A.R. Desai, I.P. Desai, M.S. Gore, Y.B. Damle.
• 1921 – Lucknow University: Introduced in the Department of Economics and Sociology with Radhakamal Mukerjee as head, assisted by D.P. Mukerji and D.N. Majumdar.
• 1928 – Mysore University: Introduced by B.N. Seal and A.F. Wadia (taught as part of social philosophy).
• 1928 – Osmania University: Introduced at the undergraduate level. Jafar Hasan joined after training in Germany.
• Late 1930s – Poona University: Started teaching sociology and social anthropology with Irawati Karve as head.

Characteristics of Pre-Independence Teaching:

• Taught alongside economics (Bombay, Lucknow), anthropology (Calcutta), or social philosophy (Mysore).
• No rigid distinction between sociology and social psychology, social philosophy, social work, economics, or history.
• Courses covered social biology, social problems (crime, prostitution, beggary), social psychology, civilization, pre-history, and tribal/rural/urban situations.
• Theoretical Influence: Dominated by British social anthropology (emphasis on diffusionism and functionalism). Indian institutions were taught with an Indological emphasis mixed with social pathology and ethnology. Strong empirical traditions had not yet emerged.

Key Terms

📌 Exam Tidbits

• First formal beginning: Calcutta University (1917) by B.N. Seal.
• First dedicated department: Bombay University (1919) under Patrick Geddes.
• Pre-independence theoretical dominance: British diffusionism and functionalism.

---

Sociology in the Post-Independence Period

According to Lakshmanna (1974), this phase spans from independence to the acceptance of regional languages as the medium of instruction. It saw the Central Government promote social science research through formal organizations.

Professionalization and Institutionalization:

• Bombay School: Established the Indian Sociological Society and launched the official journal, Sociological Bulletin.
• Lucknow School: Started the All India Annual Sociological Conference for professional interaction.
• Lakshmanna's 3 Lines of Research Progress:
  1. Large-scale doctoral research in universities.
  2. Research projects driven by the growing needs of planners/administrators and the importance of sociological thinking in the planning process.
  3. Establishment of dedicated research institutes.

3 Marks of the Fifties (Rao, 1982):

1. Greater academic status: More universities taught it at graduate/postgraduate levels; the discipline became theoretically focused and highly diversified (e.g., rural, urban, kinship, religion, stratification, education, political, medical, demography, economic development).
2. Established identity: Separated itself from psychology, anthropology, social philosophy, and social work (though social pathology/psychology lingered in some places).
3. Extension to new areas: Sociologists became sensitive to development problems in tribal, rural, and urban contexts (rural development, industrialization, education expansion, population control, new political processes, social movements) and began conducting empirical research.

Shift in Intellectual Influences

📌 Exam Tidbits

• Lakshmanna (1974): Identified 3 lines of research progress (doctoral, planner-driven projects, research institutes).
• Rao (1982): Identified 3 marks of the 1950s (academic status, separate identity, extension to development areas).
• Theoretical Shift: Moved from British diffusionism/functionalism to American structural-functionalism (Parsons/Merton) post-independence.

---

Developments in the Seventies

Reviews of this period were conducted by Unnithan, Singh, ICSSR (1971, 1974, 1985), Rao, Mukherjee (1977, 1979), UGC (1978, 1979, 1982), Lele (1981), Oommen, Dhanagare, and Singhi. Ram Krishan Mukherjee's review was the most exhaustive for the discipline as a whole.

Rao (1982) reviewed the 1970s under 3 heads:

1. Crystallized Areas: Shifted from village community studies to agrarian relations, land reforms, peasants, agricultural labourers, and scheduled castes/tribes. Rural society problems were formulated using a Marxian framework (emphasizing conflicts and contradictions). Industrial sociology, urban sociology, and social stratification also crystallized.

2. Developing (but not crystallized) Areas (6 specific areas):

   • Sociology of profession
   • Sociology of organization
   • Medical sociology
   • Social demography
   • Studies on women
   • Studies on Muslims and Hindu-Muslim relations

3. New Approaches: Emerged in established areas like caste, kinship, religion, politics, and tribal studies.

Perspectives in the Eighties

• Crystallized: Social demography and medical sociology (which were only developing in the 70s).
• New Areas Introduced: Sociology of deviance, sociology of knowledge, sociology of science and technology (Uberoi, 1978; Vishwanathan, 1977), and historical sociology (Fox, 1977).
• Damle (1982) anticipated 3 tasks for sociology in the 80s:
  1. Analyse the transformation of Indian society.
  2. Analyse the limits of such transformation.
  3. Analyse the impact of these limits (reflected in frustrations or new ideologies and protest movements).
• Proposed 1990s Research Agenda: Sociology of planning/development, professions, organizations, social dimensions of poverty, law and social change, national integration.

Imperatives in the Nineties

The 1990s were marked by radical political, economic, and socio-cultural changes, notably the 1991 economic reforms (liberalization and globalization) shifting India from a mixed/welfare economy to a market-oriented one (Singh, 1997).

• New Research Areas: Civic society (Gupta, 1997), crisis and resilience in social change (Singh, 1993), secularism and national integration (Joshi, 1997). The specific social implications of the new economic policy remained under-analysed.
• New Global Courses Introduced: Ecology and society, issues of human rights, sociology of management, human resource development, media and society, action sociology.
• Courses Needed: Sociology of public order; peace, security and development; security management; information technology.

Key Terms

📌 Exam Tidbits

• Rao (1982): Reviewed the 70s under 3 heads (crystallized, developing, new approaches).
• Marxian Framework: Became dominant in the 1970s for analyzing rural society, agrarian relations, and peasant conflicts.
• Damle (1982): Outlined 3 tasks for the 80s focusing on societal transformation and its limits (protest movements).
• 1991 Economic Reforms: Triggered new sociological focus on globalization, civic society, and resilience.

---

Teaching of Sociology in India

Despite early beginnings, teaching remained more or less static during the 1920-47 periods. Parvathamma (1978) noted regarding Mysore University: "The undergraduate syllabi in sociology as framed by Wadia continued almost for a quarter of a century."

Quantitative Expansion (University Data):

• 1920 to 1945: Universities increased from 11 to 16, but only 2 had sociology departments (only 1 offered an independent degree) (Unnithan, 1982).
• 1960: 23.8% of universities had sociology departments.
• 1965: 29.6% of universities had sociology departments.
• Current Status (Total 95 Universities/Deemed):
  • 51 universities (54%) have sociology departments.
  • 44 universities (46.3%) do not teach sociology at all.
  • Of the 51: 32 have separate departments; 14 conduct UG/PG/PhD; 16 combine it with other social sciences but award an independent degree; 3 teach it but award no degree.
  • Besides these, 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.
• Traditional Universities: Out of 133, about 85 have sociology departments.
• Rank: Sociology ranks 5th in the number of universities offering social sciences. At the PG level, it attracts the largest number of students after economics, history, and political science.

Enrolment and Faculty Statistics:

• 1969–70 PG Enrolment: 4,918 students (4,442 in sociology + 476 in anthropology), constituting 11.57% of total PG social science enrolment (42,479).
• 1969–70 PhD Enrolment: 352 in sociology out of 2,153 in social sciences (16.34%).
• Faculty (UGC Report): Out of 2,582 PG social science faculty, 243 were sociologists and 119 were anthropologists.
• PhD Production:
  • Total up to 1971: 485 PhDs (includes sociology, social anthropology, criminology, social work).
  • 1931–1940: 34 PhDs.
  • 1941–1960: 79 PhDs.
  • Since 1968: Average rate of 46 PhDs per year.
• State-wise PhDs (up to 1970):
  • Uttar Pradesh & Maharashtra: >100 each
  • Bihar: 43
  • Delhi: 42
  • Madhya Pradesh: 23
  • Gujarat: 15
  • West Bengal: 14
  • Rajasthan: 12
  • Punjab: 9
  • Karnataka: 7
  • Others: 13

Syllabi Deficiencies and Quality Crisis:

• Core MA Courses: Principles of Sociology, Indian Social Institutions, Social Change, Research Methods, Rural and Urban Sociology, Social Anthropology, Social Psychology. 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.
• Deficiencies (Unnithan, 1982): Lack of integration across levels, reliance on old courses, and use of textbooks written by foreign scholars that are irrelevant to Indian students.
• Quality Slump: While quantitative expansion is high, quality is appalling except in a few prestigious universities.

📌 Exam Tidbits

• Parvathamma (1978): "The undergraduate syllabi in sociology as framed by Wadia continued almost for a quarter of a century."
• Singh (1997): "Professional anxiety, achievement, motivation, entrepreneurial aspiration and changing mode of consumption have immensely affected the standard of sociology."
• Rank: Sociology is the 5th most offered social science in Indian universities.

---

Sociological Research in India

Research received a major boost post-independence, supported by agencies like the ICSSR and UGC, and the introduction of research methodology in MA syllabi (emphasized by the UGC Review Committee on Sociology, 1960).

• Previous Surveys of Research: Conducted by Becker and Barnes (1961), Saran (1958), Bottomore (1962), Clinard and Elder (1965), Vidhyarthi (1972), and 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.
• Structural Limitations: 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 a lack of sabbatical leave for teachers to conduct essential fieldwork (requires 9-12 months off). While ICSSR/UGC provide funds, the challenge is controlling spurious research.
• Personnel vs. Output: Despite having fewer teachers (243) and departments (51) compared to economics (72 depts) and political science (59 depts), sociology scholars undertook 50 research projects—constituting 25.5% (the highest share) of ICSSR grants. A total of 19 theses were published. Over 20% of projects were accepted because problem formulations were realistic and sound. However, when matching the spread of the discipline and its manpower requirements, there has been some defect in the recruitment pattern as revealed by the existence of a large number of unfilled professorial posts in several universities.
• Doctoral Research: In the field of doctoral research, sociology and other allied fields granted as many as 438 doctoral degrees up to 1970.

Methodological Debate in the Early Seventies

Both realized that the two could be complementary. Today, statistical surveys, computer programming, historical analysis, case studies, and participant observation are all utilized.

📌 Exam Tidbits

• UGC Review Committee (1960): Emphasized the introduction of research methodology in MA syllabi.
• ICSSR Grants: Sociology secured the highest share (25.5% / 50 projects) despite having fewer faculty than economics or political science.
• 1970s Debate: Surveyors vs. Participant Observers (resolved as complementary).

---

The State of Crisis in Indian Sociology

In the 1990s, intense debate emerged in the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW) regarding the lackluster state of Indian 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.

Key Voices in the 1990s Debate:

• Deshpande (1995): Assessed the 'tiredness of the discipline'.
• Murthy (1993): Warned against the dangers of 'uncritical metropolitanism'.
• Rege (1994) & Uberoi (1994): Advocated for gender and feminist pedagogues as strategies to confront the crisis.
• Gender Studies & Women's Movement: Brought new dimensions to the debate (Dube, Desai, Bhagwat, Patel, Uberoi, Niranjana, John).
• Discipline Construction & Teaching: Discussed by Thappan (1991), Hegde (1992), Uberoi (1989-90), and Deb (1997).

Veena Das (1993) – 3 Institutional Structures Causing the Crisis:

1. The Universities (4 specific failures):

   • Proliferation of the subject without ensuring teaching/research competence (e.g., still teaching 50-year-old texts like MacIver and Page).
   • Poor regional language infrastructure: Students lack English proficiency, yet there are insufficient competent translations or original works in regional languages.
   • Recruitment and promotion policies sacrifice academic competence for political expediency.
   • PhD dissertation examinations are managed within a small coterie of scholars.

2. The UGC: Decision-making bodies hold completely misguided notions about the state of social science research.

3. Professional Bodies (e.g., Indian Sociological Society): Have done little to salvage the situation or maintain ethical practices, focusing only on producing jobs.

📌 Exam Tidbits

• Veena Das (1993): Located the crisis of sociology in 3 institutions: Universities, UGC, and Professional bodies.
• Deshpande (1995): Coined the phrase "tiredness of the discipline".
• Murthy (1993): Warned against "uncritical metropolitanism".

---

Possible Sociological Discourses

To develop sociology in India and overcome its crisis, four essential discourses must be concentrated on:

1. Historicity of Social Conditions: Theoretical systems are socially conditioned (Singh, 1986). Sociology must recover key Indian socio-cultural realities and textual traditions excluded by hegemonic western sociology (Nadarajah, 1996). It must recognize context and culture to shed its "solely western" identity.
2. Curriculum and Methodology Reform: The production of knowledge must change qualitatively to contest western sociological knowledge. This requires changing both the content of education and the methodology used to produce it (Nadarajah, 1996).
3. Institutionalization of Research: There must be a proper fit between theoretical needs and societal demands. Public funds (UGC, ICSSR) must set priorities based on the relevance of research.
4. Support for Innovation: While following priorities, the needs of individual scholars pursuing promising, out-of-the-way, interdisciplinary, or boldly innovative methodological enquiries must not be neglected (as recommended by the ICSSR standing committee in the 80s).

---

Critical Evaluation of Indian Sociology

The history of Indian sociology contains severe blind spots and failures regarding national events and societal development.

• Complicity with Colonialism/Feudalism: Early anthropology and ethnology helped establish colonial rule and were partly responsible for the survival of feudalism in princely states. The feudal mentality of Indian people is thus due to sociology, anthropology and ethnology.
• Failure to Analyze the Freedom Struggle: While the masses participated in India's massive, pluralistic freedom struggle, sociologists completely ignored it. Instead, scholars like N.K. Bose and G.S. Ghurye were busy writing on caste and ethnicity. The text labels this record "ungrateful to the nation."
• Silence on Partition: The mass exodus, refugee crisis, and violence during the division of India and Pakistan were entirely ignored by sociologists claiming to analyze Indian society.
• Ignoring Nation-Building: Sociologists turned a blind eye to the era of modern nation-building and Five-Year Plans initiated by Nehru.
• Utopian Village Studies: Instead of analyzing national development, sociologists produced a flood of village studies. Concepts generated from these—such as dominant caste, sanskritization, westernization, parochialization, and universalization—had false theoretical claims, proved Utopian, and offered no help for actual village development.
• Armchair Sociology: Sociologists are criticized for relaxing in comfortable armchairs enjoying academic status rather than providing solutions to India's multi-ethnic, multi-caste, multi-religious, multi-regional, multi-linguistic, and economic/unemployment disasters.

Key Terms

📌 Exam Tidbits

• N.K. Bose & G.S. Ghurye: Criticized for writing about caste and ethnicity while ignoring the Indian freedom struggle.
• Major Blind Spots: Indian sociology failed to study the Freedom Struggle, the Partition of India, and the Five-Year Plans/Nation-building era.

---

Quick-Recall Box

Thinkers, Studies, and Reports

Statistical Data Mentioned in Text