Input Template for

Content
Writers

(e-Text and Learn More)

1. Details of Module and its Structure

Module Detail
Subject Name

Sociology

Paper Name

Sociology of India

Module
Name/Title

Approaches to the study of Indian society

Module Id

Indological approach of G.S. Ghurye

Basic knowledge of Indian history. An idea about what is
the caste system and how it operates.

Pre-requisites

Objectives

To understand what is the Indological perspective in

understanding Indian society and in shaping the
discipline of Sociology of India.

Keywords

Indological, Ghurye, caste, race, nationalist.

Structure of Module / Syllabus of a module (Define Topic / Sub-topic of

module )

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

1. Cultural and
historical
sociology

1.1 caste and kinship, 1.2 Tribes, 1.3 religion, 1.4 Indian
culture and civilization.

2. Institution
builder and
teacher
3. Critical
overview
2. Development Team:

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

Role

Name

Affiliation

Subject Coordinator

Sujata Patel

Professor,
Department
of Sociology,
University
of
Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator

Anurekha Chari-Wagh

Assistant
Professor,
Department
of Sociology,
Savitribai
Phule Pune
Univiersity

Content Writer/Author
(CW)

Poulomi Ghosh

M.Phil Scholar,
Department
of Sociology,
Savitribai
Phule Pune
University

Content Reviewer (CR)

Anurekha Chari-Wagh

Assistant
Professor,
Departmen
t of
Sociology,
Savitribai
Phule Pune
Univiersity

Language Editor (LE)

Erika Mascarenas

National Coordinator

Library Science

Senior English
Teacher,
Kendriya
Management of Library and Information Network
Vidyalaya,
Network
Pune

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
1. As a scholar and researcher
2. As an institution builder and teacher
3. A critical overview of the Indological approach
Conclusion
Did you know?
Points to ponder about

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

INTRODUCTION:
In this module, we look at the INDOLOGICAL Perspective which has been the hallmark approach
to the discipline of sociology as followed by G.S. Ghurye. Professor Ghuryes body of work was
greatly influenced by liberal philosophy and rationality, at the same time; he was imbued with the
spirit of nationalism and had a good deal of pride in Hinduism. He was concerned a great deal about
democracy, social justice and nation building though he never used these words. The paper tries to
bring out these nuances in detail by dividing it into three broad sections:
Professor Ghuryes works as a Scholar and researcher which will look at the way he has
helped to make an Indological sociology and what it encompassed. It will look at the areas
which were of interest to Ghurye and how his Indological approach is implicated in these.
This section will try to trace the influences on Ghuryes research and methodological
practices and move to his works.
G.S. Ghuryes role as an institution builder and thus his directing the course of the discipline
of sociology in the country. Under his direction, research was carried out in diverse fields of
the Indian Society and led to most of our first generation Sociologists.
A critical look at Ghuryes works in order to have a holistic picture of the Indological
approach.
1.

As a Scholar and Researcher: A Cultural and Historical Sociology

Ghurye was broadly interested in the process of evolution of culture in different civilizations in
general, and in the Indian civilization in particular. The Indian civilization, for him was in general a
Hindu civilization. Despite his training under W.H.R. Rivers and his broad acceptance of the
structural-functional approach, Ghurye did not strictly conform to the functionalist tradition when
interpreting the complex aspects of Indian society and culture. Ghurye was basically interested in
inductive empirical exercises and depicting Indian social reality using any sources, primarily
Indological, that is literature. Ghurye did not conform to accepted methodological patterns even
when he conducted survey-type research involving primary data collection. It is likely that his
flexible approach to theory and methodology in Sociology was born of his faith in intellectual
freedom, which is expressed in the diverse theoretical and methodological approaches that his
research students pursued in their works (Nagla, 2008).
The first major influence on Ghuryes work was that of British Orientalism that developed in the
18th century. The major theme that was propounded by this school of thought and the one that can be
found in most of Ghuryes works is the antiquity and unity of Indian civilization (Nagla, 2008).
Early British Orientalists thought to reconstruct Indian civilization through the study of ancient
Sanskrit texts. Theorists have argued that this oriental view of Indian civilization was not produced
in isolation but was produced via dialogues with Brahmin Pundits therefore it is not surprising that
Brahmins are posited as the dominant and superior groups in most of their writings. Through this
scholarship, Brahmanical knowledge received new legitimacy and religion became the established
guiding principle for organizing society.
The Orientalist theory of Indian history was absorbed into the Nationalist discourse of the 19 th and
20th century, in various forms. Nationalist reformers such as Rammohun Roy adopted the Orientalist

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

appreciation of Hindu scriptures and promoted ancient texts like the Gita as the symbols of Hindu
civilization. These efforts fed into the growth of cultural nationalism in the 1830s. To summarize it,
the colonial discourse on Hinduism fueled a growing cultural nationalism as well as revivalist
movements focused on the need for Hindu unity (Upadhya, 2002). This nationalist strand of
thought forms another major influence on the works of G.S. Ghurye. He emphasized on Indological
approach in the study of social and cultural life in India and elsewhere. This helps in understanding
of society through literature. Ghurye used his knowledge in the Sanskrit language extensively, often
quoting from the Vedas, Shastras, epics and poetry of Kalidasa, etc, to shed light on the social and
cultural life of India. Ghurye also used historical and comparative methods in his studies which
have been followed by many of his students.
Ghuryes method was primarily textual, given the nature of most of his subject matters, but he was
also an empiricist who advocated field work even though he rarely carried out any for his own
research. Ghurye never adopted the naturalism and empiricism that became established in British
social anthropology after Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski, which rejected historical and broad
comparisons in favor of small-scale and intensive studies. Instead, he attempted to combine older
humanistic approaches to the study of human society, through history, language, and literature with
the newer more scientific or empirical approach of modern anthropology. Ghuryes multiple
interactions with American and European scholars through correspondence, exchange of papers and
books, and also his participation in the International Sociological Association scarcely affected his
own practice of Sociology. This was not because he was impervious to new theories and practices
but because he did not appreciate the functionalist approach promoted by British social
anthropology since it neglected history. For Ghurye, he had already discovered an appropriate
framework for the study of Indian society and culture and that an indigenous knowledge of such
(including Sanskrit) was a necessity for the making and growth of an Indian sociology which should
not be dependent on imported theories.
Ghurye was not the first intellectual to attempt to trace the formation of Indian society and
understand its structure. Rather, he drew from an older tradition of social thought. From the 19 th
century onwards, English educated scholars had been interested in the question about Indian society
and its history. Much of this intellectual interest was channeled into the social and religious reform
movements of the period, and later into the nationalist movement. Ghuryes sociology drew heavily
from the traditions of British and German Orientalism that emerged out of the 18 th century
European debates on the nature and origin of civilization. The Oriental discourse saw Indian
civilization as Brahmanical Hinduism as embodied in Sanskrit texts. This can be seen in Ghuryes
work on caste, where his notion of caste belongs to traditional society and would disappear of its
own accord after the achievement of self-rule. There is a recurring seamless movement from
liberalism and rationalism to a conservative religious understanding of Indian society that is visible
in Ghuryes Sociology. While Ghuryes Sociology contains elements of Orientalism and
Diffusionism, its basic orientation can be characterized as cultural nationalism (Upadhya, 2007).
Ghuryes sociology of Indian civilization is clearly outlined in his first book, Caste and Race in
India (1932), which essentially represents a refinement of the Aryan invasion theory. In brief, he
argues that the Indo-Aryans were a branch of the Indo-European stock who entered India around
2500BC, bringing with them the Vedic religion and the Brahmanic variety of the Aryan civilization.
The caste system then, according to Ghurye, originated in the attempt by the Indo-Aryan Brahmins
to maintain their purity by keeping themselves apart from the local population by practicing
endogamy and ritual restrictions. In subsequent work, such as Family and Kin in Indo-European

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

culture (1955), Two Brahmanical institutions: Gotra and charana (1972), and Vedic India (1979), he
extends this thesis by tracing the origins of several institutions and cultural practices to the Vedic
age. Ghuryes usual strategy in these works has been to examine traditional knowledge systems,
religious practices, social organization, and law as represented in Sanskrit sources along with
contemporary practices, suggesting continuities between the present and the distant past. These
indicate towards the reconstitution of tradition within modernity in his sociology. For example, in
Gotra and charana (1972), he investigates the origin, history, and spread of these Brahmanical
institutions of exogamy through an exhaustive study of Sanskrit literature and inscriptions from
different periods, ending with contemporary information on exogamous practices in several
communities.
A central concern of Ghuryes Sociology was to demonstrate the unity and antiquity of Indian
civilization. He believed that Hinduism is at the centre of Indias civilizational unity and that at the
core of Hinduism are Brahmanical ideas and values that are essential for the integration of society.
In short, following the orientalist view and some amount of nationalist discourse, Ghurye defined
Indian society as essentially Hindu society and its cultural and religious unity as the basis of the
nation. The influence of nationalism and Ghuryes direction of locating national unity in his
Sociology is reflected best in his the aborigines, so-called and their future (1943) republished as
The scheduled tribes (1959), in which he attacks the colonial tribal policy of protectionism which
he saw as the colonial strategy of divide and rule. In the book, he viewed Indian tribes as culturally
distinct from caste Hindus and that their way of life should be preserved through state-enforced
isolation from the Hindu society. He also regarded tribes as imperfectly integrated classes of Hindu
society or Backward Hindus, unlike other anthropologists. Ghurye chalked up tribes to be
imperfectly integrated classes, to his thesis of Aryan invasion argument developed in Caste and
race- that Indian civilization has been constituted by the slow incorporation of non-Aryan or nonHindu groups into Brahmanical Hinduism or the caste system. In Ghuryes view, the natural process
of assimilation of smaller groups of different cultures into larger ones was disrupted due to
colonialism and these were mistakenly named tribes by colonial rulers (Dhanagare,2004).
Apart from His historical orientation, Ghurye also identified the fundamental social institutionsfamily, kinship, and religion- because he regarded these to be of central importance to social and
cultural integration. In his paper titled the social process which he delivered at the Gokhale
institute in Pune in 1938, he argued that family is the only institution that can create a smooth and
harmonious relation between the individual and society. He also believed that kinship terms help in
identifying the social obligations and customs that individuals have towards one another in a
society. This emphasis on family, kinship, caste and religion, usually in their Brahmanical forms
(derived from texts such as the Dharmashatras) echoed the discourse of social reform which became
one of the hallmarks of mainstream Sociology in India.
Ghuryes writings range diversely in their themes and perspectives and concurrently he gathered
data from various sources literary, historical, archaeological, sculptural, paintings, etc. Ghuryes
works can be classified under several broad themes:
1.1 Caste and Kinship, Family and marriage
G.S. Ghuryes Caste and Race in India (1932) combined historical, anthropological and
sociological perspectives in understanding caste in India. He mainly analyzed caste through
textual evidences like ancient texts, given his profound knowledge of Sanskrit. He also did a
comparative study of caste and kinship in Indo-European cultures. In his study of Caste and
culture, Ghurye emphasizes two main points:
a) The Kin and caste networks in India had parallels in some other societies as well.

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

b) The kinship and caste in India served as integrative frameworks in the past, which shows
his interaction with the structural-functional approach. According to Ghurye, the evolution
of society was based on the integration of diverse racial or ethnic groups through these
networks of kinship and caste.
Ghurye also highlights 6 structural features of the caste system:
i)
Segmental Division: In a segmental division of society based on caste, the status or
position of an individual is recognized by his birth in a particular segment rather than
his ability or wants. The basis of this segmentation can be derived from religion,
occupation, race, etc. the caste system as understood in India derives its roots from
religious texts and mythical ordains.
ii)
Hierarchy among the segments: The segments are not only divided but they are
divided hierarchically which pre-supposes an upper group and following lower
groups. This hierarchy is derived from the religious notion of purity and pollution,
meaning the upper castes are designated as pure or at least purer than the lower
classes.
iii)
Purity and pollution: Notions which helped in deciding the hierarchical division of
the segments. For example, Brahmins as the purest caste since they performed
religious duties.
iv)
Civil and religious disabilities and privileges of different sections: Privileges and
restrictions are determined depending on the segment or caste of the person. For
example, Dalits (untouchables), even now, in some places are not considered pure
enough to take water from common wells in villages.
v)
Lack of choice of occupation: Any individual belonging to a caste cannot choose the
profession of another caste. The caste system describes and predefines occupation by
birth. It restricts the mobility of individuals in the field of occupation. For example, a
person from the caste of chamars (tanners) cannot be involved in officiating religious
ceremonies as they are to be carried out by Brahmins.
vi)
Restrictions on marriage: People from upper castes are not allowed to marry people
from lower castes and vice-versa. Such actions are regarded as threatening to the
integrity of the caste system and our object to sanctions and punishments. For
example, Honor Killings are examples of punishments meted out for infractions on
the restriction to marriage between different castes.
Besides the above mentioned characteristics, Ghurye also laid particular stress on Endogamy
as one of the most important features of the caste system in India. In his view, every caste is
divided into sub-castes which practice endogamy. Another important feature is that of
exogamy. Exogamy is practiced by Gotras (or clans), whose basic notion is that all
members of the Gotra trace descent from a common ancestor and therefore have blood ties.
This makes a marriage relationship between two people from the same Gotra as incestuous.
The relationship between Caste and kinship is very close because- exogamy in Indian
society is largely based on kinship, either real or imaginary, and the effective unit of caste
and sub-castes, is largely constituted of kinsmen.
1.2 Tribes
Ghurye wrote a general book on tribes Scheduled Tribes (1943, 1959, 1963) in which he
dealt with the historical, administrative and social aspects of Indian tribes. In this book he
challenged the stance of Verrier Elwin for his advocacy of the preservation of the tribal way

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

of life through state-enforced isolation from Hindu society. He saw this protectionist policy
as another attempt by the government to divide and rule. Ghurye presented a contrary view
of tribes to the majority of anthropologists and administrators who were of the opinion that
tribes should be able to maintain their separate identities. In Ghuryes view, most of the
tribes were hinduized after a long period of contact with Hindus. He contested the tribe/caste
distinction strongly and held the view that to search for separate identities of tribes was a
futile attempt as they were nothing but backward Hindus. Their backwardness derived
from their imperfect integration into the Hindu Society (Nagla, 2008).
The incorporation of Hindu values and norms was regarded as a positive step in the process
of development by Ghurye. This gave different tribes the opportunity to enter the economic
milieu of the society by giving up tribal crafts and adopting specialized occupations
determined by the Hindu caste system which were in demand. It also improved the social
conditions of the tribes by bringing to them amenities like education, improved agriculture,
and curbing their free lifestyles like liquor drinking and sexual permissiveness.
As a sociologist, Ghurye was concerned with the concept of integration in society, the
process of Indian national unity and contemporary challenges to this situation. His view on
the assimilation of tribes into the larger Hindu society can be seen from his concerns about
the Integration of the Indian society as a whole. He recognizes five major sources of danger
for national unity in the modern society- The Scheduled Castes, The Scheduled Tribes, The
Backward Classes, The Muslims as a religious minority group, the linguistic minorities.
1.3 Religion
For Ghurye, religion is at the centre; the total cultural heritage of man. Religious
consciousness moulds and directs the behavior of man in society. Ghurye made several
original contributions to the study of Indian religious practices and beliefs. In his Indian
Sadhus (1953 and 1964), Ghurye considers the genesis, development and organization of
asceticism in Hindu religion and the role ascetics have played in the maintenance if Hindu
society.
Ghuryes major focus has been culture in his writings; He credits the building of cultural
unity in India largely to the Brahmanical endeavor. For him, all major institutions of Hindu
society originated among the Brahmins and were gradually accepted by other sections of the
community. His concept of cultural unity is not a secular one; rather hes concerned with
India of Hindu Culture and uses the terms Indian Culture and Hindu culture
synonymously. According to him, Hinduism has brought within its fold widely different
groups in India, which for him is a step for progress in the process of development. He has
analyzed the normative structure of Hinduism through the study of sacred religious texts
such as the Vedas, the Upanishads, etc to show how they provide the common cultural
foundations.
1.4 Indian Culture and Civilization:
For G.S Ghurye, Culture relates to the realm of values and it is a matter of individual
attainment of excellence and creativity. He was more concerned with the civilization or
rather the process of evolution of the Hindu civilization which he termed as a complex
civilization. He gave importance to the process of acculturation in this context and believed
that sociologists in India need to analyze the acculturation processes to understand Indian
society. For example, in his analyses of caste, He refers to how the caste system was

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

developed by the Brahmins and was later on spread to other sections of the population
through the process of Hinduization.
He held the view that behind the rise and fall of civilizations, there occurred a steady growth
of culture and this is based on certain foundations of culture which cut across the
vicissitudes of civilizational growth:
a) Religious Consciousness
b) Conscience
c) Justice
d) Free pursuit of knowledge and free expression
e) Toleration
According to Ghurye, Civilization is the sum total of social heritage projected on the social
plane. Therefore different societies can be differentiated with reference to their
civilizational attainment. He makes four general conclusions with regard to the nature of
civilization:
- Firstly, there has not yet been any society which has been highly civilized or completely
civilized.
- Secondly, Ghurye believes in the law of continuous progress
- Thirdly, gradation of civilization is also correlated with the distribution of values. In
high civilization then, the humanitarian and cultural values will be accepted by a wide
cross-section of the population.
- Fourthly, every civilization, high or low, possesses some distinctive qualities.
2. As an Institution Builder and Teacher
Ghuryes brand of Indological sociology was mostly disseminated through the medium of syllabus,
research guidance, and department publications at Bombay University, but the discipline became
professionalized largely through the establishment of the Indian Sociological Society.
Generally, a review of the syllabi over time indicates how a discipline has developed and its process
of development but in the case of Bombay University Sociology Department, for many years there
were only two teachers- Ghurye and Thoothi- which imparted a high degree of consistency to the
course. This consistency is also reflected in the syllabus which was revised only twice under
Ghuryes tenure as Head. The first traceable syllabus appears in the 1922 University handbook
which included four papers combined with four papers of economics for the Masters degree:
Nature and Scope of Sociology; Social Institutions; Indian Social Institutions, and an essay. This
syllabus apparently remained un-changed till 1945. The topics prescribed were broad and allowed
Ghurye to teach Sociology according to his terms and inclinations. The syllabus was revised in
1945 with the addition of two new positions for lecturers. Ghurye introduced several new papers,
including Culture and Civilization, Social Biology, Social Psychology, and Comparative Social
Institutions. The syllabus indicates a strong emphasis on the study of social institutions, especially
those of kinship, family, and caste as well as a comparative study of civilization and culture. It also
reflects Ghuryes empiricist bias in its wholesale neglect of theory and even research methodology.
One of the hallmarks of Ghuryes sociology syllabus was its inclusion of topics that are usually
found in the province of anthropology, especially the papers on the Archaeology and Ethnology of
India and Social Biology. This carried Ghuryes conviction that the distinction between

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

anthropology and sociology in the Indian context is an artificial one, which is a markedly different
position from the position of strict separation taken by most anthropologists and sociologists. This
could be due to the fact that anthropology in India came to be known as the study of tribes and
Ghurye contested the caste-tribe distinction itself and by extension the sociology-anthropology
distinction as well.
Ghuryes sociology course exercised influence beyond the Bombay University as it was adopted by
other universities in western India when they started teaching sociology, and it remained the
standard syllabus for quite a long time. Another reason that added to the influence of the Bombay
school on the development of the discipline was that it was the first university to offer a MA degree
course in the subject and also the first to introduce MA Sociology as a full course with eight papers.
Elsewhere, sociology continued to be taught as combination course, usually with economics as the
other subject.
Apart from establishing the Bombay University Sociology Department, one of Ghuryes most
important contributions to the institutionalization of the discipline in India was the formation of the
Indian sociological association (ISS), which was registered in December 1951 in Bombay with 107
founder members. Ghuryes main aim in starting the society was to bring out the biannual
Sociological Bulletin. The articles published in it during his tenure reflected his emphasis on the
study of social institutions and culture and indicated the extent of his outreach.
3. A Critical View Of Ghuryes Indological Perspective of Society
G.S. Ghurye stressed on Indian Culture and Indian Traditions in his writings. He further
stressed that Indian traditions are Hindu traditions making the term Indian synonymous with
Hindu. This stance is not considered inclusive as there are large portions of the population in
the country which is not Hindu or does not follow the Hindu religion. His Indological
sociology is hegemonic and homogenizing in nature and does not recognize the diversity
and fluidity of Indian traditions (Upadhya, 2002).
Ghurye failed to realize domination, exploitation and conflict as fundamental features of
Indian society rather focusing on integration through assimilation and acculturation of
various populations into the larger mainstream Hindu population.
Ghuryes Indological approach to the study of Indian culture and civilization had a narrow
Hindu nationalism framework which failed to take into account the various conflicts,
movements, and struggles against indigenous forms of oppression that existed even before
the colonial times.
Ghurye never questioned the construction of history nor the sources upon which he drew for
his works. There is a lack of reflexive or critical thought in his works. On the contrary,
Ghuryes sociology reinstates that India is Hindu and forms a specific kind of Hindu
sociology that is centered on the Brahmanical point of view.
A significant feature of Ghuryes cultural history is the lack of any economic or material
content in his analyses. There might be a few references to crafts, agriculture, trade, etc. but
only pertaining to discussions of caste-based occupational specialization. Therefore, Ghurye
understands culture and civilization through ideas, beliefs and values but he does not include
questions of livelihood, control over resources by different segments of the population, or
caste-based conflicts.

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

CONCLUSION: Impact and importance of G.S. Ghurye on the discipline

Regardless of the critique of Ghuryes works and his Indological approach to the discipline of
Sociology, eminent sociologist, M.N Srinivas has rightly said nothing disguises the fact that
Ghurye was a Giant. He was concerned a great deal about democracy; social justice and nation
building though he never used these words. He was interested in the process of integration of new
values and structures with the existing social order to evolve a cohesive Indian society. His work in
the discipline and his work for institutionalizing the discipline are unparallelled to that of any other.
He has often been acclaimed as the father of Indian Sociology or the symbol of sociological
creativeness. Nothing credits him more than the fact that Ghurye has built up, almost singlehandedly, the entire first generation of Indian sociologists in the post-Independence period.
It has been argued that Ghurye appropriated colonial constructions of Indian history and society, reworking them to create a new kind of nationalist sociology. In this endeavor he was influenced by a
strand of cultural nationalism that itself drew upon the Orientalist story of a glorious Aryan past to
assert the antiquity and authenticity of Indian civilization and therefore of the Indian nation. His
Indological approach in sociology revolves around the idea of Hindu civilization. One significant
consequence of Ghuryes Indological approach has been the entrenchment of the notion of Indian
Culture and Indian civilization as an ancient, unchanging and seamless tradition, which became a
central organizing concept for several disciplines.
Furthermore, Ghuryes Indological perspective opened up the discipline of sociology to more
indigenous ways of looking at Indian society rather than looking at it from an imported lens. It also
forwarded the concept of a unified Indian society and thus Indian sociology which has led to
the discourse of whether Indian society can be looked at as a collective, homogenous fact or
whether to follow a more nuanced discipline of Sociology of India. Without Ghuryes foundation
work, it would have been improbable to trace the evolution of this discipline in the country (Damle,
1987).
The ranges of Ghuryes works have had a profound influence on the development of the twin
disciplines of sociology and social anthropology in India. His diversified interests are a symbol of
the spirit of enquiry and commitment to advancing the pursuit of knowledge.

DID YOU KNOW?

1. Diffusionism had emerged as a critique to the late nineteenth century evolutionism and
enjoyed a brief period of popularity in England from 1910-1930. While evolution believed that
every society would eventually advance towards civilization, passing through different stages
of cultural development, diffusionists argued that culture was transmitted mainly by the
migration of different races. This led to the conclusion that cultural diversity of a place was
primary evidence that its inhabitants were a racially diverse collection of migrant settlers.
Diffusionism was often considered as an embarrassing aberration in the history of
anthropology. The leaders of the Diffusionist school of thought were Elliot Smith, W.J. Perry,
and Rivers. They surmised that civilization was invented only once, in Egypt, from where it
had been carried by migrants. This diffusionist argument was perhaps what attracted Ghurye to
it as it resounded with established understanding of Indian history- which traced the origins of

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

Indian civilization to the incursion of Indo-Aryan people.

2. G.S. Ghurye was considered an arm-chair sociologist. Arm-chair theorizing refers to an
approach in developing new trends in a particular field that does not involve the collection of
new information or data, i.e. fieldwork, but rather a careful analyses or synthesis of existing
data or information.
3. Sociology was not a school or college subject when Ghurye was a student. Ghurye studied
sociology after completing his Masters. He studied Sanskrit and English for his BA and MA,
in the latter case being awarded the Chancellors Gold Medal for the first position. He sent an
essay titled Bombay as an Urban Centre which won him a foreign scholarship instituted to
train young scholars in the field of Sociology. Ghurye went to the London School of
Economics and from there to Cambridge where he worked with W.H.R Rivers to start on his
Doctoral work titled Caste and Race in India.
4. The Indian Sociological Society has progressed a great deal. Its membership has
increased manifold. Its journal is now published annually with three issues since 2004
instead of two. Its conferences are held every year and are well attended. In addition to
the journal the Society now publishes two issues of ISS Newsletters annually. The Society
now organizes its major academic work through 22 Research Committees, which
provides a better opportunity for members to participate in meaningful dialogues and
exchange of views. The annual lecture series in memory of Professor M. N. Srinivas and
Prof. Radha Kamal Mukerjee, and the annual prize for young sociologists in honor of
Prof. M. N. Srinivas have contributed to the academic profile of the Societys activities.
5. Ghurye was the prime mover in the formation of Indian Sociological Society in 1952 and
was also instrumental in the publication of its mouthpiece, Sociological Bulletin, as its
official bi-annual journal. However, the first sociological journal in India, The Indian
Journal of Sociology, was started in January 1920 under the editorship of Alban G.
Widgery of Baroda College in Baroda.

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

WEB LINKS:
Web links
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23620433
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23619186
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23620062

POINTS TO PONDER ABOUT:

1.

One interesting point to think about is how Ghuryes backgrounds in Sanskrit led him
to base and supplement his major body of works on old Sanskrit texts and manuscripts.
This point suggests the extent to which ones background influences and directs the
course of research that one might take up in the discipline.

2. The idea of a collective Indian society is the underlying theme of Ghuryes works. It
points towards his nationalist thought of unity and integration. It would be interesting
to discuss this stance verses the diversity that our nation imbibes and the multitudes of
groups that live in it. The discipline then comes across the terminological dilemma of
whether it should be termed Indian Sociology, as propounded by the Indological
perspective or should it rather be termed as Sociology of India, which points to the
diversity of groups and intersections of race, caste, class and gender which allow for
different sociologies.
3. Does Ghuryes way of doing sociology maintain the status quo in society? That is,
considering he derives from texts and scripts which mostly propound the hierarchy of
caste that exists, does his Indological approach leave room for being reflexive or
questioning established patterns of society which lead to oppression and injustice?
4.

In his nationalist way of writing, Ghurye believed that religious and linguistic
minorities pose danger to the national unity in modern India. This might lead to an
exclusive approach in policy making and social research processes which do not take
into account the rights and statuses of minority groups in the country.

5. Finally, as important as it is to be acquainted with Ghuryes works and

accomplishments, questioning it will lead to better understanding of his Indological

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network

perspective on doing sociology.

6.

Even though Ghurye himself never followed a single methodological track, he

encouraged students under his tutelage to explore new theoretical and methodological
directions. For example, M.N. Srinivas is viewed as a Structural-Functionalist while
A.R Desai was a Marxist sociologist.

REFERENCES:
Nagla, B.K. Indian Sociological Thought. Jaipur. Rawat Publications, 2008.
Dhanagare, D.N. Social Policy Concerns in Indian Sociology. Sociological
Bulletin. Indian Sociological Society. Vol. 53, No. 1, (January-April 2004),
pp4-30.
Y.B Damle. Problems and Perspectives in the Study of Sociology.
Sociological Bulletin. Indian Sociological Society. Vol. 36, No. 2(September,
1987), pp 1-14.
Upadhya, Carol. The Hindu Nationalist Sociology of G.S. Ghurye.
Sociological Bulletin. Indian Sociological Society. Vol. 51, No. 1(March 2002),
pp28-57.
Upadhya, Carol. The Idea of Indian Society: G.S. Ghurye and the Making of
Indian Sociology in Anthropology in the East: The Founders of Indian
Sociology and Anthropology by Nandini Sundar, ed. Patricia Uberoi, and
Satish Deshpande. New Delhi. Permanent Black, 2007. Pp195-247.

Library Science

Management of Library and Information Network

Network