[L56 starts]

Sociological Imagination
Sociological imagination is a concept propounded by CW Mills. Sociological
imagination is a state of mind/thought/thinking that enables us (social
researchers/sociologists) to understand relationship between history
(historical, social events and structural developments) and biography
(individual experiences). According to Mills, sociological imagination helps us
understand how individual personal facts (personal issues & troubles) is
related to social structural facts (public issues).

[L57 starts]
Indology – Science/Study of Indian
Society
What is Indology? - Indology refers to systematic study of Indian
society and culture. It is refereed to as science of Indian society that deals
with interpretation of cultural religious texts, inscriptions, literary work,
travelogs, architecture, archeological evidences, historical texts etc..

Origin of Indology – Origin of Indology in Indian society is contributed

to ‘Asiatic society’ of William Jones. Apart from Jones, Max Mueller, Henry
Maine, Louis Demont, Baden Powell also contributed to rise of Indology.
William jones founded ‘Asiatic society of Bengal’ to translate ‘Manu Smriti’
and other religious texts. After that, ‘society for acquisition of general
knowledge about India’ was also founded. Herbert Risley contributed to
Indology through his ethnographic studies and publications of book ‘Caste &
Tribe in Bengal’.
In south India, ’Bethune Society’ was founded in Madras which organized
regular debates and discussions on various aspects of Indian social sciences.
In central Indian Provinces, ‘Oudh (Awadh) scientific society’ was founded for
ethnographic collection of the folk cultural traditions. This society too
contributed in Indological research in India. Many travelers, time to time,
compiled their travel accounts/travelogs of Indian Society. For example,
Marco Polo, Faxian , Megasthenes etc. These travelers also contributed to
popularity of Indology. Apart from these, many nationalist leaders like BG
Tilak, RN Tagore, MM Malviya, MK Gandhi and philosophers like Vivekanand
also popularized Indological ideas in Indian society. All the above-mentioned
personalities and organizations popularized the studies of rich Indian social
cultural traditions characterized by continuity. They contributed to rise of
Indology in the discipline of Sociology.

Dimensions of Indology –
1. Indology is based on study and interpretation of text related to Indian
culture and traditions. It is referred as ‘book view’ of Indian Society.
Indologists highlighted and glorified social relations looking into social
cultural religious rights and rituals, ways & methods etc.
2. Indologists interpreted ancient socio cultural and legal documents like
Manu Smriti, mythological texts like Ramayana, Mahabharata, ancient
historical texts like Arth Shastra, different travelogs, ancient
inscriptions as well as archeological evidence. Indologists interpreted
all such texts and inscriptions in a broad review of Indian society and
culture, social relations and institutions, social interactions and social
phenomena.
3. Indologists believed that Indian society and culture, social interactions
and phenomena, social relations & institutions are unique and different
from European society and therefore, the sociological principles that
emerged in Europe after modernity cannot explain continuous and
complex reality of Indian society and therefore sociologists must
analyze Indian society from Indian perspective.
4. Indologists in India, although advocated for understanding Indian
society from the perspective of Indo-specific texts or documents,
however, they are not apathetic to inter-disciplinary approach.
However, they believed Indology is essential to understand continuity
in Indian society.
5. More than the dynamics of change, Indian society, according to
sociologist, should be analyzed and understood in the context of
continuity.

Classification of Indology
Broadly, Indology is classified into 2 categories – Indic Indology and
Orientalist Indology.
Orientalists presented an unsympathetic and negative picture of Indian
society and culture. They highlighted divisive aspect of Indian culture and
society and considered Indian social cultural traditions as primordial. They
emphasized too much on religious cultural aspect of Indian society
(witchcraft) and ignored materialistic evolution.
Indic Indologists were sympathetic, positive and respectful to Indian
culture, traditions. They highlighted and glorified the rich Indian social,
cultural, economic, political, educational, cultural traditions that continued
from past to present and contributed to socio-economic and cultural
developments in Indian society.

G.S. Ghurye’s Indological perspective

GS Ghurye is founding father of Indian sociology. He established first dept of
sociology in University of Bombay. He single-handedly trained first
generation of Indian sociologists like AR Desai, MN Srinivas etc. For his
contributions, he is also considered as ‘Commander in Chief of sociological
frontiers in India’. By establishing Indology as a distinct perspective to study
Indian society, he also distinguished study of society from history, philosophy
etc.
Initially, he was influenced by WHR Rivers and his cultural diffusionist
approach in social anthropology. However, in his studies of Indian society, he
relied more on Indology. GS Ghurye’s sociology revolves more around study
of Indian society and culture drawing references from Indian Sanskritic and
mythological texts. Ghurye as more influenced by Indic Indologists of
Bhandarkar institute of Bombay than Orientalist Indologists. In his sociology,
we can see a judicious blend of Indology as well as cultural diffusionist
approach ( therefore at times, Ghurye is refereed as sociologist with multi-
disciplinary approach)
Through his sociological writings applying Indological perspectives, Ghurye
tried to reconstruct the orthodox traditional institution of caste. Starting with
the book view, he also applied cultural diffusionist view to understand caste.
In his book ‘Caste & Race in India’, Ghurye argued that social cultural
aspects of caste can only be studied in its totality if sociologists consider the
variable dimensions of continuity and change. He believed that
contemporary social fact of caste should be studied based on 3 concepts –
1. Transition
2. Transplantation
3. Transformation

Indological perspective of Ghurye on Caste in India

GS Ghurye’s understanding of caste in India is Indological, historical,
comparative and diffusionist in nature. Different from other sociologists, like
MN Srinivas who glorified the caste system or sociologists like AR Desai who
critically analyzed the caste system or the sociologists like Dumont who
presented caste as an ideological system of purity and pollution, Ghurye
considered caste as a product of culture – cultural diffusion , which had
changed over the period. In his work ‘Caste & Race in India’, Ghurye argued
that caste is product of race and racial culture which transited, transplanted
and transformed with the advent of Aryans and interaction between Aryans
and Non-Aryans. Indian society consisted of Number of non-Aryan social
groups who were segmented and organized in hierarchies. Aryans added one
more race in a multi-racial and ethnic non-Aryan society.
Aryans were different from non-Aryans not only in their color, rather they
were superior and different because of their social organization into caste.
Caste was a system of social organization which disciplined Aryan race into
one integrated community. Different members of Aryan community practiced
different occupations. Caste names were also based on occupations. So
Aryan community had caste of peasants, craftsmen, artisans, warriors,
businessmen etc. who were highly disciplined and organized. No occupation
was considered as superior or inferior. Change in caste was possible with
change in occupation. Caste was not a rigid social organization.
Because of their superior social organization of caste, Aryans were politically
superior too, and they were fast defeating non-Aryan rulers. Non-Aryans lost
their territories and political authority because of Aryans’ superior social
organization of caste. In this context, non-Aryans also started referring to
Aryans (reference group behavior) for improvement in their social
organization and started imbibing the values and virtues of caste in their
social organization.
In the beginning, non-Aryan rulers were socialized in the virtues and values,
attributes of the caste by the selfless saintly wandering priests called
Brahmins. Brahmins were first to understand the virtues & values of caste
system of Aryans and they socialized non-Aryans into those virtues, values of
caste. Brahmins went to different regions of India socializing and educating
the non-Aryans into the values, norms of the caste system and thus, caste
transited (diffused) into Indian society.
Ghurye disagreed with contemporary sociologists who believed caste system
as a Brahminic superiority or domination. Aryans never introduced
themselves as brahmins. At the time of advent of Aryans, Brahmins were
wandering saints propagating religion and spirituality. Brahmins attained
superior position and respectability because of the role of education and
socialization of non-Aryans into virtues and values of caste system. Brahmins
travelled, settled monasteries to educate people about virtues of caste and
later, religion. Therefore, caste diffused, transited and transplanted in
different regions of India, but with some transformation. New virtues and
values, new ideologies emerged in caste system over the period in course of
transplantation, interaction between Aryans and non-Aryans.

[L58 starts]
Features of caste system in India
1. Segmental division of society into caste : - according to Ghurye,
Indian society or population are compartmentalized into different
castes in the society. Segmental division of society into caste can be
found in horizontal compartmentalized habitations of caste in Indian
society.
2. Hierarchy – Hierarchy refers to rank ordering of social/caste groups in
vertical order, one above the other. Hierarchy refers to the fact that, in
Indian society, people are hierarchy organized as superior/inferior.
Hierarchy is based on the notions of binary opposition or opposition of
purity & pollution. The caste groups in higher hierarchies are
considered as pure castes and that of lower hierarchies are considered
polluted. Hierarchy determined one’s occupation and was the basis of
Division of labor in Indian society. It also determined privileges and
preventions, in other words, hierarchy defined life chances (education,
occupation, mobility etc.) and life resources (property, land etc.) .
3. Civil and religious disabilities- According to Ghurye, caste hierarchy
reflects social cultural values, ethics, moralities of the wider society
characterized by the notion of sacred and profane. Based on such
ideology, civil and religious disabilities have been institutionalized in
Indian society. Social, cultural, religious resources have been accessible
to some caste groups, others belonging to lower hierarchies were
disabled.
4. Lack of unrestricted choice of occupation – in Indian society,
members of different caste practiced different occupations, some were
considered superior to others. There was limited freedom to caste
members to deviate from their caste occupation. In case of deviation,
the individuals were punished ranging from mild social humiliation to
severe punishments like outlasting.
5. Commensal restrictions - In Indian caste system, there are
institutionalized guidelines for exchange of food and water. Caste
groups are expected to follow some rules regarding exchange and
acceptance of food or commensality. For example, for a brahmin caste,
there are rules regarding which caste is allowed to give cooked food,
uncooked food, water to brahmins.
6. Endogamy – Restrictions on marriage and social intercourse is
ensured by the practice of endogamous marriage. According to
 Ghurye, endogamy is central element of the caste system. In Indian
society, population/people are polarized into endogamous groups. To
prevent violation of this rule of endogamy, caste assemblies set severe
guidelines/punishment for disobeyance of endogamous rule, the
breaking of which is considered a sin. Caste panchayats have authority
to punish the person(s) violating endogamous rule.

GS Ghurye’s views on Religion & Indian

Sadhus
According to GS Ghurye, Indian society cannot holistically be comprehended
from the lens of materialism or power & authority, rather, religion. Ghurye
considered religion, religious organizations & culture as integral factor. For
him, Indian society has been integrated/united and maintained, surviving as
a nation state because of common values, culture, traditions and consensus,
not based on central authority or centralized economic structure, rather,
religion. Indian nation has been united, integrated into one community
through religion. The consciousness of common kind that is the basis of
nation state emanates from religion and culture. Therefore, according to
Ghurye, Indian society can’t be understood without understanding the
religion.
The social order, stability and solidarity in Indian society is base don religious
ideologies, rights & rituals and practices. He believed that Indian secularism
is a product of tolerant spirit of Hinduism. According to Ghurye, the rise of
deities like Shiva, Vishnu, Durga etc. in Hindu religion and culture played an
important role in integrating local & subregional belief into a macro level
system of worshipping and thus contributed to integration of local
subregional into national religious culture and contributed to unity and
solidarity.
According to Ghurye, in Indian religion and culture, the role of Sadhus is most
prominent. Indian sadhus, for Ghurye, are the selfless, saintly mobile priests
who have contributed to maintenance of unity, integration and solidarity in
Indian society through their religious, spiritual services. Since time
immemorial, the Indian sadhus have contributed not only to religious sphere,
but also in social sphere, as arbitrators in social economic political disputes.
Indian sadhus have also contributed to maintaining the traditional knowledge
and spread of knowledge and education. They patronized learning of
scriptures and contributed social, cultural continuity of knowledge. Lastly,
Indian sadhus have promoted in spread of spirituality, tolerance and
secularism in Indian society.
 GS Ghurye’s views on Organization
GS Ghurye has explained indigenous sources of organization in Indian
society. According to Ghurye, urban settlements provided an outlet to surplus
produce in agriculture, products of artisans, craftsmen etc. Taking references
from historical texts and references, Ghurye argued that growth in
agriculture led to emergence of marketplaces in a corner of villages. These
markets were places for exchange of surplus agricultural products.
Over the years, these markets have developed into towns. Development of
towns needed administrative organizations and judicial organizations for
administration, regulation & dispute resolution in the towns. Many other
institutions also emerged for organization of the Market and maintenance of
townships. These towns, over the years, have developed into administrative
cities and have become important part of the state. These cities enjoyed the
patronage of the ruling class elites.
Under the patronage of the ruling class, these cities developed as economic
production hubs too. The production of jewelry, art & artifacts and other
luxurious items as well as weapons consumed by urban classes and the
ruling class started in these towns/cities.
This led to growth of self-sustaining urban settlements in urban society. Rural
and urban were inter-dependent on each other. However, such self-sustaining
pattern of urban development was destroyed by Britishers. British adopted
new mercantile policy as well as agrarian policies which initiated a new
process of import of finished goods and export of raw materials. Many new
urban settlements developed during British period to facilitate export and
import. Urban areas didn’t remain an outlet for rural agricultural surplus or
place for trade of handicrafts, artisan work, indigenous metal/wooden work
etc.
Many cities, which were popular world over for their products, like Banaras,
Kanchipuram etc. lost their social economic significance. Many urban
problems related to slums, over-i=urbanization, lack of civic amenities etc.
emerged during British period with migration of rural population to urban
centers in search of gainful employment opportunities. Those problems are
persisting. Lastly, according to Ghurye, urban areas are cradles of innovation
and change. Therefore, the policy makers must implement the policies to
resolve the urban problems that emerged during colonial rule and continuing
in Indian society. Urban centers have not only social economic significance,
but cultural significance too. Diversity of cultures amalgamate and evolve in
urban settlements.