Indology (G S Ghurye)

Indology:-

"Indology is basically the use of ancient texts and scriptures of India by the sociologists to understand the social and cultural life in India".

Indology is known as the science of Indian Society. The Indological perspective claims to  understand Indian Society through the concepts, theories and frameworks that are closely associated with Indian Civilization.

It made a claim that Indian Society is unique in structure, function and dynamics and cannot be associated with the European Society. 

• Indology relies on book view and culture and denounces rigorous empirical investigation.

Indology is both an approach to study the Indian Society and also an independent discipline with  Indian Society as subject matter. 

In both the form "Indology consists of studying language,  beliefs, ideas, customs, taboos, codes, institutions, rituals, ceremonies and other related  components of culture. Indology demands inter-disciplinary, multi- disciplinary and cross disciplinary approach". 

Indology is also older than Sociology. It is antique in its origin owing its origin to 1784 by Sir William Jones of Calcutta. It was in the year 1987 that Sir William Jones founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal where he introduced the two departments of Sanskrit and Indology. It is the beginning of Indology in India, which has been followed by several other scholars.

Indological Perspective owes its origin to the contribution of the Orientalists like William Jones, Henery Maine, Max Muller etc. 

They have contributed tremendously for the development of the society and from their contribution there was the evolving of Indological Perspective. All of them have based their studies on rich cultural tradition of India and the principle that govern India and out laws of Hindu. Therefore they were also called as the Indologist.

G S Ghurye:-

G S Ghurye was an Indian sociologist and had profound knowledge of Sanskrit Literature and he quoted from Vedas, Shashtras , epics and poetry of Kalidasa and Bhavbhuti  to shed light on the socio-cultural life in India.

The various writings of Ghurye include:

• Caste and Race in India (1932)
• Indian Sadhus (1953)
• Bharatnatyam and it’s costume (1958)
• Family and Kinship in Indo-European culture (1955)
• Social tensions in India (1968)

Ghurye on Caste:-

Ghurye’s understanding of caste is comparative, historical and Indological as well. Unlike his contemporaries he doesn't glorify or condemn caste, rather he considers caste as a product of Indian culture, changing with the passage of time. Hence, it is a subject of sociological interest. 

In his book "Caste and Race in India", he agrees with Sir Herbert Risley that caste is a product of race that comes to India along with Aryans. 

Ghurye considers it as unfortunate that caste system is mostly understood in terms of Brahminic domination. Caste has gone through the process of fusion and fission in different ways in Indian history.  During Vedic period caste was a product of race. Ghurye points out that caste was considered as central to organized form of division of labour in Aryan society. 

Ghurye explains caste in India on the basis of six distinctive characteristics: 

1. Segmental division of society; 
2. Hierarchy; 
3. Civil and religious disabilities and privileges; 
4. Lack of unrestricted choice of occupation; 
5. Restriction on food, drinks and social intercourse; 
6. Endogamy. 

Segmental division of the society:

Segment is the compartmentalization of the population into groups. It is basically horizontal in character. It generates social grouping but not labelling. The membership is ascribed in character, i.e. it is based on birth and flows from generation to generation.  

Based on the membership every member has fixed status, roles and tasks. According to the roles assigned they have to perform it. There are moral ethics, obligations and justification value behind these roles.

Hierarchy:

It is the second major characteristic of caste through which Hindu social organization and Indian Society penetrates.  After the segmental divisions  of the  society, they are  put in a pyramidal structure then it is called as hierarchy. 

Certain cultural principles  like purity and pollution, prioritization of certain group, preferences of the society, determine the positioning of  the social segments in the hierarchy in layer.  The  layering of  the segments is basically vertical in nature. 

This caste hierarchy is responsible for spelling out the access and prevention of caste and it becomes the primary consideration for role allocation,  responsibility sharing and the  imposition of restrictive rules. 

Hierarchy determines caste norms. According to Ghurye hierarchy becomes the major consideration for deciding all these aforesaid variables. It basically implies the Division of Labour. 

The entire gamut of activities in the society is divided into four types like 

• Religious, 
• Governance,
• Maintenance and 
• Menial. 

Among all these activities the religious activities  are  given the highest position in society. Therefore Brahmin are given this responsibility. The second major activity  is governance, which  implies for managing the state craft and defending the populee from external aggression. So it is accorded to Khatriyas. The managerial activities are fixed on Vaishyas, who have to generate sustenance for the society. And the menial activities  though an integral part of the society, are given the least priority and accorded to the Shudras.

Civil and religious disabilities:

Civil and religious disabilities expressed the rigidity of the caste system. To Ghurye the general reflection of Hindu social life was observed and felt through such disabilities. The disabilities were common to caste in different parts of the country but the caste  groups included in it were not common,  rather  there are variations.  Civil and religious disabilities basically  came from the concept of purity and pollution. Disabilities were for impure and polluted caste and  privileges were for is for pure/higher castes. 

Lack of unrestricted choice of occupation:

The occupations have been fixed by heredity. Generally they  have not been allowed to change their traditional occupations.  Members of a caste  maintain their supremacy  and secrecy in their jobs and do not allow the other caste group to join in. 

The upper caste people like Brahmins are free to opt for study of religious books, while this cannot be done by other classes. 

The  lower ranking activities  like sweeping bathrooms, washing clothes, scavenging etc have been kept in 

untouchable category.

Restriction on food, drinks and social intercourse:

Some rules have been imposed upon all caste people.  Restriction on feeding and social intercourse are still prevalent in Indian society. There are two types of  food i.e. Kachha (cooked) food and Pakka (raw) food upon which certain restrictions are imposed with  regard to sharing, for example:

• Caste groups from whom twice born caste people can accept Kachha food;
• Caste group from whom twice born caste people can accept Pakka food;
• Caste groups from whom twice born caste people can accept water but no food;
• Caste groups from whom twice born caste people do not accept water or food and maintain distance. 

Endogamy:

Indian caste system is also polarized due to endogamy being determined primarily by Caste. People can marry within caste only. To disobey the caste rule is not only treated as a crime but is also  condemned as a sin. The caste panchayat not only denounces  inter-caste marriages but also imposes severe punishment upon those who break these rules.

Ghurye on Tribes:-

Ghurye considers that multiple ethnic groups were present in India prior  to the entry of Aryans. Hindu  culture was not imposed on tribal  communities;  rather  an interaction with Aryan culture that was mystical,  magical and  spiritual got entangled with Tantric culture, magical culture and materialistic culture of different  ethnic groups  gave  way to evolution of Hinduism. Therefore considering Hindu culture as Aryan culture is  nonsensical.  

The tribal deities like Ganesh, Kali, and Shiva were getting equal space in Hinduism with Aryan dieties like  Indira, Vishnu, Brahma. Animism, totemism, naturalism for establishing synthesis between multiple culture  present in Indian society. As a result the tribes of India consider  the Hindu society and its cultural  tradition a new home for them. Therefore voluntarily they assimilate themselves within the folds of Hindu society.  

Many tribal leaders like Tana Bhagat, Vishnu Bhagwat, Kabir Panthi  and  others successfully carried Hindu  cultural attributes to tribal life. As a result,  the tribes of the heartland of the country sharing Hindu  values have Hinduised themselves. Hence their assimilation within 

Indian society is almost complete.  

Ghurye writes "Tribalism always contribute towards the construction of Hindu temple that is yet to be  completed", meaning Hindu culture is evolving through a series of dialectics addressing to the demand of  people in time and space. 

Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism largely embodied Hindu values with new ideas and  doctrines contributing for decline of Hindu culture and tradition. He considers that Hindu cultural values  were shared  by tribal communities in mitigating the tribe  –  caste differences. Therefore tribes of India arebackward Hindus. Backward’ because of epistemology of Hinduism like Sanskar, distinction between Buddhi,  Mana, Ahankar are yet  to reach them even though they have already gone for Hindu life, ritual and way of  life.  

Ghurye was critical to Elvin's approach of  ‘isolationism’, indicating that forced isolation of the tribes  from the larger society will accelerate suspicion  leading to secessionist movement. 

He further indicated  that separatist movement in North East India is a product of the cultural distinction between tribes  located there and the larger Hindu society.  

In conclusion one can advocate that  Ghurye understanding of tribes and their problems largely manifest his nationalist appeal as he considers cultural unity between tribes and caste can only promote integration in Indian society.

Ghurye on Rural-Urbanization (Rurbanization):-

Ghurye says that urbanization in India was not just due to the industrial  growth;  rather it started within  the rural areas itself.  He  took the references from Sanskrit texts and documents  to illustrate the growth of urban centres from the need for market felt in a rural hinterland. 

Development of agriculture needed more and more markets to exchange the surplus  in food 

grains. So in many rural areas, one part of a village started functioning into a market. This led to a township, which in turn developed administrative, judicial and other institutions. In the past, urban centres were based on feudal patronage, which had demands for silk cloths, jewellery, metal artifacts, weapons etc. this led to the growth of urban centres such as Banaras, Kanchipuram, Jaipur, Moradabad etc. 

In brief, it may be said that Ghurye’s approach to ‘rural-urbanization’ reflects the indigenous source of urbanism. 

During colonial times, the growth of metropolitan centres altered the Indian life. The towns and cities were no longer the outlets for agricultural produce and handicrafts but they became the major manufacturing centres. These centres used rural areas for producing raw materials  and turned into a market for selling industrial products. Thus, the metropolitan economy emerged to dominate the village economy. Therefore, the urbanization started making inroads into the rural hinterland  in contrast to previous pattern. A large city or metropolis also functioned as the centre of culture of the territory encompassing it.

For Ghurye, the large city with its big complexes of higher education, research, judiciary, health services, print and  entertainment media is a cradle innovation that ultimately serves 

cultural growth. The functions of the city are to perform a culturally integrative role, to act as a point of focus and the centre of radiation of the major tenets of the age. Not any city,  but large city or metropolis having an organic link with the life of the people of its region can do this work well. 

Ghurye views an urban planner must tackle the problems of sufficient supply of drinking water, human congestion, traffic congestion, regulation of public vehicles, insufficiency of railway transport in cities, erosion of trees, sound pollution, indiscriminate tree felling and plight of the pedestrians.

Critical Appraisal of Ghurye:-

He fails to recognize  the rise of modern India and the contribution of  Islamic and British rulers. Town planning, architecture, new administration and technology by both  made India altogether different  from  what it was during Vedic and non-Vedic period. 

If sociology is  a  science then sociologists must have to  honour  the fact rather than ideology. In Ghurye’s sociology  ideology predominates over the fact and that is a tragedy for Indian sociology. 

A.R. Desai writes that, "studying India from the lens of culture provides us  no space to 

understand the real India that lives within  inequality, diversity, dialectic and exploitation". 

Therefore one has to come out of the bondage of Ghurye’s sociology to understand real India and the challenges and problems associated. In a nutshell, one can advocate that Ghurye’s sociology is  romanticizing  India what it is not. Therefore there is a need for Indian sociology to change its goalpost from book view to Field Approach.