Examination Roll Number – 19105008

Registration Number – 19105110008

1. Critically write a short essay on G.S. Ghurye’s Indological approach in studying the
Indian society?
G. S. Ghurye’s indological method has been relevant in studying India’s social and cultural life.
Ghurye incorporated the use of literature, especially Sanskrit literature, when he decided to go on
with his sociological inquiry. In most of his works, he extensively used ideas and quotes from
Vedas and Shastras to reflect on the Indian social and cultural life. While studying the concept of
post-colonialism in Sociology, Ghurye took cues from both Orientalism and Empiricism;
methods that were prominent among the British ethnologists. Nevertheless, Ghurye’s approach
to study the Indian society still rejects certain premises of colonial knowledge.
This nationalistic approach of Ghurye, however, remains dogmatic in the sense that it does not
narrate many accounts of the freedom struggle. His approach further remains apathetic towards
the indigenous struggles pre and post-independence period. In fact, he was so engrossed in the
Orientalist mode of working that he failed to recognize the exploitation and conflict that were
being carried out in the society.
Since Ghurye’s basic college education was in Sanskrit, therefore, he kept on referring back to
the Sanskrit ancient texts. Possibly, this could also be because of his general theoretical
perspective. But, his theoretical perspective further strengthened during his stay and study at
Cambridge. This made him take on diffusionism as another compatible theoretical framework.
While studying the caste system in India, Ghurye does not make any effort to either glorify or
condemn caste. In this regard, he has taken on a diffusionist approach to study caste and thereby
believes that caste came to India along with the Aryans. According to him, it was due to the
racial difference that the whole caste system developed in the country. Caste was more of a
centralized form of division of labour. He understood caste in terms of the Brahmanic
domination that was prevalent in the society. As a result, caste came to prominence due to the
segmental division of the society and the civil and religious privileges of the people.
However, while doing so, he even insisted on performing extensive fieldwork even when he was
a type of armchair scholar. In fact, his anthropological fieldwork was in itself a craft of his
indological approach. As a result, he was not quite averse to traditions of fieldwork in cultural
anthropology as well as sociology. For instance, his work on the Sex Habits of Middle Class
People in Bombay that was published in 1938 very much demonstrates that Ghurye was not at all
promoting a text-based scholarship. On the other hand, his indological approach could also be
read in the sense that Ghurye was a follower of theoretical pluralism. His ability to read the
social reality of the country using any material is also considered the appropriate use of empirical
practices. Although his approach was primarily indological, the way he ventured into the field
was more empirical. This flexible or mixed-method approach to study theory and methodology
in the fields of sociology and social anthropology came about due to his intellectual freedom.
This, further, can be seen in most of his theoretical and methodological approaches. As a result,
most of his students and research scholars ended up following his footsteps.
However, Ghurye’s most significant feature that can be conspicuously seen is how he annulled
economic or material content. If one takes a look at the plethora of work that he did throughout
his lifetime, they will see that there is almost zero reference to agriculture or trade, other than
some of his works in caste-based specialization. His ideas about civilization and culture are quite
complex and narrow in the sense that they don’t address the questions of resources or ecological
adaptation that are quite pertinent to understanding human history and civilization as studied in
modern anthropological understanding.
Ghurye’s indological approach, while studying civilizational unity, was very much Brahmanical.
He believed Brahmanism to be at the centre of the Indian society. This could possibly be because
of his prolonged exposure to Sanskrit texts. His underlying theme of work is somewhat like an
idealized version of Hinduism that can only judge every social phenomenon. Moreover, he could
also be considered an Islamophobiac because he believed that the Muslims hold a culture that is
entirely different from that of the Hindus. Ghurye further held a belief that the Indian culture was
an amalgamation of Vedic- Aryan and pre-Aryan culture and thereby the Muslims rooted for a
separatist movement. As a result, secularism had to fail due to the continuing riots and the
demand for separate states.
Nevertheless, Ghurye’s indological approach failed to understand the contribution of the Islamic
rulers for making India a modern state. He never tried to identify the nuances of town planning,
administration or technology by comparing them with the Vedic and non-Vedic periods. His
approach relies more on ideology rather than facts. At times, his ideology even sounds like a
tragedy for the Indian society. If one wants to understand the real Indian image, then they must
never rely on Ghurye’s sociology. His approach aims to romanticize a utopian India that can
never be possible.
It was primarily Ghurye’s Orientalism that made him look upon the Aryan past to glorify the
authenticity of the Indian civilization. In this regard, he made sincere efforts to interpret the
ancient texts in order to revive the Indian civilization and idolize the concept of an Indian
‘nation’. Thus, his indological enquiry goes much back to the past only to understand the Hindu
civilization. Lastly, Indian Sociology is a very complex discourse. If Ghurye should have made a
valid critique of the Indian sociology, he must have delved deeper into the complexities rather
than deconstructing and reconstructing the same discourse.
4. Discuss the reasons for the rise of new peasant movements in independent India.
Critically analyse the role played by peasant based union leaders and political leaders in
the context of these movements.
The new peasant-based movements in India were not only a tussle between the wage-earners and
the state-based exploiters. Rather, they turned out to be a collective effort of village communities
against the State. These movements were more like the peasant-tenant class against the landlords
and sometimes, the agricultural labourers against the capitalist farmers. Most of these
movements have centered on Delhi. Although the Indian Constitution defines agriculture as a
State subject, it was the Central government who was the main force behind determining the
prices of commercial crops and various other agricultural policies.
The aspects of contradiction between the peasantry, state and capital got revealed after the
magnitude of the farmers’ upsurge and the policy that the representatives of the movement put
ahead. The chief reasons behind these movements are discussed below.
1. Revoking Freedom
When the apparatus of the ‘licence-permit raj’ was introduced, it took away the freedoms that the
peasant communities had on the production process. As a result, the industries and the
bureaucratic agencies took control over them. Farmers had to take permission for certain types of
primary processing. For instance, in Maharashtra, the cotton producers were no longer able to
separate the seeds from the lint. They had to sell the produced cotton to the Cotton Monopoly
Purchase Scheme. Moreover, the cane producers had to obtain permission in order to produce
jaggery using the traditional low-technology process. Furthermore, farmers were no longer
permitted to continue with their paddy milling or milk processing. This whole structure of
pricing and permits favoured only the white sugar that was produced in the factories. As a result,
there are a lot of rules and regulations surrounding rural production.
2. High Exchange Rate
A new developmental policy emerged that gave more consideration to the high exchange rate for
rupee. This, as a result, helped heavy industry and imports to flourish. In economic terms, this
commercial production resulted in a lower price for all agricultural products. This is because the
lower price in rupee did not lead international prices to exert an upward pressure on the Indian
prices. This was further accompanied by the ideological onslaught by the upper-caste left
intellectuals against the peasants.
3. Socio-economic segregation
During the time of Congress, there developed a new theme of segregating the peasants. The ‘rich
and the middle peasants’ appropriated the gains of the development and on the other hand, the
‘poor peasants and the agricultural labourers’ suffered greatly. This particular reference to the
weaker sections and rural poor peasants was actually propounded by the Congress. Then there
were the Marxist intellectuals who put forward terminologies like ‘capitalist farmers’ and
‘kulaks’. However, when this caste issue started emerging, the Brahmanic elite groups argued
that the ‘affluent OBCs’ were the real oppressors and thus, the caste distinction was just an
ideological cloak to contradict the capitalist farmers and the agricultural labourers. This tactic by
the Congress is sometimes referred to as the ‘divide and rule’ policy between the peasants and
the agricultural labourers.
Role Played by the Leaders
When India’s new oppressive policies towards the peasants started going out of hand, several
movements started emerging at various parts of the country. These movements incorporate
everyone right from the wealthy farmers to the peasants. With time, these movements started
getting leaders who played a crucial role in determining the demands and agendas. The peasant-
based Union leaders and political leaders had a mixed approach in their contestation. They used
both ideological and agitational methods to create a revolution.
A very prominent name in this regard is Sharad Joshi of the Shetkari Sangathan. His main
argument was that due to the intervention of the state and the power holders, the process of
extracting agricultural surplus continued to be the central affair. He demanded that the state
should stop exploiting the peasants and provide subsidies, new schemes of investment to the
peasants. However, he also criticized the government by saying that all types of planning were
meant for the politicians and bureaucrats to only create profits at the cost of the peasants. In
addition to demanding for the increase in wages of the agricultural labourers, he always spoke
for their rights.
BKU leader Tikait as well as Devi Lal who were very well known for their liberal thoughts
fought for higher wages and subsidies of the peasants. Their main claim was that if peasants are
well-paid for their labour, then there would be a good agricultural production. Nevertheless, all
these movements, especially their leaders, maintained non-violence and secularism throughout.
However, Narayanswamy Naidu wanted to create a political party of the peasant movements as
he saw a political gain in the ongoing movements. In this regard, Sharad Joshi dreamt of getting
a political sphere, although he failed in his endeavor. The only person who was quite successful
in this regard is V P Singh. Under his leadership, his movement almost gained a political control
that could run for a certain time after the Congress. However, the movements were also criticized
for the fact that Devi Lal’s agenda of gaining subsidies for the peasants was not actually their
demands. His movement ended up being a rival and autonomous.