For a Sociology of India

IMTIAZ AHMAD
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY, NEW DELHI

Indian society comprises not only Hindus, who constitute the dominant
majority, but also Muslims, Christians, Parsees, Jews and the adherents of
the three major off shoots of Hinduism, namely, Buddhism, Jainism, and
Sikhism. Each of these groups claims inheritance from a distinctive socio-
cultural and religious tradition. Ideally, a sociology of India should
encompass all these groups and their traditions. It is, however, one of the
characteristics of the discipline today that it has tended to emphasize the
study of Hindus and their religious tradition; the study of non-Hindus and of
their traditions has been sadly neglected by both Indians and foreigners.
If we employ the criterion of the volume of available sociological litera-
ture, we find that studies on Hindus and their religious tradition are several
times more than the studies on all the non-Hindus taken together. Even a
casual perusal of the different bibliographies of sociological writings on
India provides eloquent testimony of this disparity (see, for example, Furer-
Haimendorf 1958, and Patterson and Inden 1962). Other standard biblio-
graphical works similarly reinforce this impression. This is so despite the
fact that each of the different non-Hindu groups in Indian society would
seem to claim attention in its own right on account of its influence upon

Hinduism and its significance for constructing a complete picture of Indian

social life in its diversity as well as unity.
The volume of available sociological work on non-Hindu groups, by itself,
would be a poor basis for asserting that their study has been neglected, or
that it has not received adequate attention. On the strength of their
numerical dominance and greater regional diversity, Hindus legitimately
claim greater attention from the sociologist than any of the non-Hindu
groups.
A better criterion would be whether the available literature tells us as
much about the structure of non-Hindu groups, and the socio-cultural pro-
cesses that have been operating amongst them, as it does about Hindus.

On this criterion also the poverty of Indian sociology is clearly evinced. Over
the last 25 years a large number of micro-level sociological studies have

Downloaded from cis.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 16, 2015

 173

been carried out on Hindu groups in different parts of the country and have
been followed by attempts to discern a broad and general picture of &dquo;specific
patterns of interconnections which can be traced through empirical studies of
particular groups in particular localities and to the changes in such patterns&dquo;
(Singer and Cohn 1968 : 2) . Srinivas (1966), Singer and Cohn (1968),
and Dumont (1971) represent such attempts at systematization. We are
not anywhere near a comprehensive theory of structure and change in
Hindu society, but these exercises have certainly carried us forward in that
direction. We are, however, still far from such an achievement in the study
of non-Hindu societies.
Even where attempts have been made to systematize data on non-Hindu
religious communities, with a view to deducing a rounded picture of their
social structure, they have ended in dismal failure. For example, Dumonts
monumental study of the caste system has a chapter on caste among non-
Hindus (Dumont 1971 : 201-16). Aside from the fact that the author has
failed to take account of all the existing research on this important subject,
the content and quality of the discussion are in marked contrast to the
erudition and wealth of empirical data evinced in the rest of the book.
Dumont neither raises any point of major theoretical significance nor indi-
cates any suitable areas on which future research might prove fruitful.
As a matter of fact, one gets the impression that the author is in a hurry to
finish the discussion and that he does not find the study of social inequalities
among Christians and Muslims sufficiently challenging or rewarding.
If we claim that the aim of Indian sociology is to reveal, not only the social
characteristics of the different ethnic and religious groups in Indian society
and the prevailing processes, but also the nature of intergroup relations,
historical and contemporary, it would appear that the discipline has failed
in fulfilling one of its cardinal aims. For example, for many years now the
concept of Sanskritization has enjoyed wide currency in Indian sociological
discussions and may well be regarded as a key concept for the study of social
change in Hindu society. Several scholars have hinted that similar processes
have historically operated amongst other religious groups and communities
as well, but Indian sociology provides no understanding of these processes

or of the nature and consequences of the interaction between them and

Sanskritization. Srinivas, who first introduced the concept of Sanskritiza-
tion (see Srinivas 1955), went on to argue that it had served as a source of
cohesion in Indian social life, linking local cultures and communities to an
all-India cultural tradition and creating a sense of community among the
Hindus all over the country ( 1967 : 78-82) . He recognized that this cohesive
role of Sanskritization broke down in the late nineteenth century as a result

Downloaded from cis.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 16, 2015

174

of the interaction between it and a similar process among the Muslims.

Indian-nationalism thus expressed itself predominantly in a Hindu idiom,

and this was a factor, though only one, in non-Hindu groups experiencing
a certain sense of isolation. Similar revivalism was present among Muslims
and other religious groups as well.... Hindu communalism stimulated
Muslim communalism and vice versa, and a spiralling of hatred followed.
The partition of the Indian subcontinent was perhaps the natural result
of such a process ( 1967 : 81).

Even so, Srinivas does not tell us why increased Sanskritization should have
initiated a vicious spiralling of communal hatred; nor does he examine the
precise nature of the interaction between Sanskritization and the processes
operating among Muslims and other religious communities; nor indeed does
he ask whether the growing estrangement between Hindus and Muslims in
the nineteenth century was a mere adventitious growth, or a more direct
consequence of the structure of Indian society and the social and cultural
processes taking place in it. These are important questions, answers to which
are relevant not only to the understanding of the nature of Hinduism and

Sanskritization, but may also contribute to our knowledge of the nature of

Indian society as a whole. Yet Indian sociology is regrettably silent on
most of these relevant questions.
The paucity of sociological studies of non-Hindu communities has led to
the perpetuation of commonplace stereotypes about them. Let us take the
example of a cliche which has enjoyed wide currency in scholarly discussions
about Muslims. On empirical grounds, Indian Muslims would seem to
be deeply fragmented. Language, social customs, economic differences,
and sectarian and other religious differences tend to divide them throughout
the country into a number of different enduring units. Most contemporary
writers on Muslims continue to use such expressions as &dquo;Muslim politics&dquo;,
&dquo;Muslim mind&dquo;, &dquo;Muslim culture&dquo; and &dquo;Muslim ethos&dquo;, as if the entire
Muslim population was an undifferentiated collectivity sharing a common
worldview throughout the country. I concede that as a purely theoretical
abstraction one could speak of &dquo;Muslim culture&dquo; or &dquo;Muslim worldview&dquo;,
but it is highly questionable that such abstractions will conform to actual
empirical reality.1 Yet they are commonly accepted as sociological
formulations because there have been no attempts by sociologists to analyze
1 Misra is the only author who shows some awareness of the tremendous social diver-
gences amongst the Muslims. This is reflected in title of his book (see Misra 1964). Also
see Mujeeb (1967) and Rajni Kanth (forthcoming).

Downloaded from cis.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 16, 2015

 175

whether Indian Muslims actually constitute a single community.2

* * *

I suggest that intellectual preference or bias partly explains the historical

development of Indian sociology as an academic discipline. The pronounced
tendency among sociologists to equate Hindu society with India, though
sometimes explicit, often remains an unstated assumption. Dumont and
Pocock stated it clearly in the form of a postulate while inaugurating Con-
tributions to Indian Sociology.

... we learn in the first place never to forget that India is one. The very
existence, and influence of the traditional higher, Sanskritic, civilization
demonstrates without question the unity of India. One might even think
that it does not only demonstrate, but actually constitutes it . , ..
[And again] the unity of India is a sort of common-place, and the
...

existence of castes from one end of the country to the other, and nowhere
else would impose the idea .... Still, it is essential that this unity be postu-
lated from the outset. We shall see that although this may complicate
our methods it simplifies our principles and objectives ... if, for the sake of

apparent simplicity, we refuse this initial postulate, we shall be led in fact

inextricably into difficulty, and there will be no sociology of India except
in a vague geographic sense (Dumont and Pocock 1957 : 9).

Leaving aside the point that the authors might have conceded that the
fundamental unity of India may also be established on objective empirical
grounds, rather than stated in the form of a theoretical postulate, one is
tempted to ask how the unity of India can be seen to lie in the presence of
the higher, Sanskritic civilization alone. India is a multi-religious country
characterized by the presence of several traditions. A sociologist working
on any of the non-Hindu groups is at once forced to reckon with one or other

of these traditions (see Bailey 1959 : 91).

Many sociologists working on India are not necessarily in sympathy with
the theoretical position enunciated by Dumont and Pocock, but the tendency

2
Gopal Krishna has recently completed a detailed and comprehensive survey of Muslim
communities throughout India and it should provide answers to some of these questions.
The results of his survey are eagerly awaited.
It may be added here that sociologists themselves may parade popular cliches and
stereotypes in their writings or order their analysis in terms of them. Thus, Ghuryes recent
study of social tensions in India (see Ghurye 1968) is a highly prejudiced work.

Downloaded from cis.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 16, 2015

176

to equate Hindu society with Indian society is common to several of them and
comes outclearly in their writings. Consider, once again, Srinivas (1966)
and Singer and Cohn (1968). The titles of both these works raise ones
expectations that they would provide an understanding about Indian society
as a whole, but their emphasis and contents belie these expectations. Srinivass

study, while dealing with social change among Hindus, refers to Muslims
only twice : once in connection with their influence on Hindus and at another
place in the context of Westernization. There are references to Christianity
only in the context of their proselytizing activities. The Singer and Cohn
volume also is heavily weighted in favour of Hindus. Christians and Parsees
find no place in it, and Muslims are mentioned only in Schwartzbergs paper,
dealing with caste regions of the north Indian plain, and in the paper by
Marriott. (Also see Harper 1967, Silverberg 1968, and Singer 1972 for a
similar bias.) If the limitation was due to paucity of data, or the failure
of the editors to find authors who had worked among non-Hindu groups,
this should have been clearly stated. Otherwise the charge of bias becomes
inescapable.
A second reason for the Hindu orientation of Indian sociology would seem
to be the extensive use by Indianists of Redfields notion of the Little and
Great Traditions. As originally conceived, the twin concepts were
essentially an heuristic device for analyzing communities that are part of
a larger society and local cultures that are a part of an ancient civiliza-

tion (see Redfield 1960; Redfield and Singer 1955: ix). There was
a close correspondence between the empirical reality and the empirical

model implied in the concept of the Little and Great Traditions in the
Mexican situation in that Mexico had only a single Great Tradtion
in the form of Spanish-Catholic civilization to which a host of
local cultures were related. The anthropologist could empirically demons-
trate these relationships. Such a model can have only a limited
value in a country like India, because it is characterized by more than one
Great Tradition, each with its corresponding Little Traditions. Yet sociolo-
gists have transposed the correspondence of the model to empirical reality
in Mexico to the Indian situation. One of the consequences has been that
local cultures that relate to non-Sanskritic Great Traditions, such as Islam
and Christianity, are either excluded from consideration or are relegated
to a peripheral position in sociological studies.
Studies of small-scale communities carried out during the last two decades
or so afford evidence of this transposition. Srinivass account of the social

system of a Mysore village (1955), which was to a great extent a pace setter
for similar studies by others, contains no discussion of Muslims, though we

Downloaded from cis.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 16, 2015

 177

are told that nearly 11 per cent of the population of the village is Muslim.
Ordering his data within the framework of the Little and Great Tradition
dichotomy, he confines himself entirely to an examination of Hindu social
structure. Even Marriott, who is generally more conscious of social diversi-
ties in Indian social structures (see, for instance, Marriott 1960), tends to
confine his analysis to Hindus. In his early paper on a north Indian village,
he mentions that Muslims are resident in the village, but his discussion of the
processes of parochialization and univeralization leaves one in complete
darkness about the social linkages of Muslims with the outside world (see
Marriott 1955).

* * *

My aim in this note has been to argue that greater attention must be paid
to non-Hindu societies if our aim is to build a comprehensive sociology of
India. I do not wish, however, to imply by this that the emphasis should
be shifted from the study of Hindus and Hinduism to non-Hindu groups and
their religious traditions, or that these groups should be studied in isolation
from one another and from the Hindus. Such an approach will result in
an opposite kind of parochialism and will be as inimical to a sound
develop-
ment of the discipline as the current narrowness of scope. If non-Hindu
groups are studied in isolation from one another and from Hindus, there is
a possibility that one may tend to regard the social structures and social pro-

cesses among these groups as sociologically unique whereas they may actually
be common to many of them. In my view, non-Hindu communities do
not exist in Indian society as separate and isolated entities. On the contrary,
they operate within the social structure as segments of a composite social
framework. Only when such a perspective is adopted would we be able to
say that a sociology of India is taking shape. Until then we may have Hindu,
Muslim or Christian sociologies, but hardly a sociology of India.

REFERENCES

BAILEY, F.G., "For a Sociology of India", Contributions to Indian Sociology, 3, 1959, 88-101.
DUMONT, L., Homo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and its Implications, Delhi, Vikas Publica-
tions, 1971.
DUMONT, L. and D.F. POCOCK, "For a Sociology of India", Contributions to Indian Sociology,
1, 1957, 1-22.
FURER-HAIMENDORF, ELIZABETH VON, An Anthropological Bibliography of South Asia (3 vols),
The Hague, Mouton, 1958.

Downloaded from cis.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 16, 2015

178

GHURYE, G.S., Social Tensions in India, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, 1958.

HARPER, E.B., Religion in South Asia, Seattle, Washington State University Press, 1967.
KANTII, R., "Muslim Political Culture in India", Muslims in Modern India (Zafar Imam,
ed.), Delhi, Orient Longmans, forthcoming.
RIARRIOTT, M., "Little Communities in an Indigenous Citilization", Village India (McKim
Marriott, ed.), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1955, 171-222.
———, Caste Ranking and Community Structure in Five Regions of India and Pakistan, Poona,
Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute. Deccan College Monograph
No. 23, 1960.
MISRA, S.C., Muslim Communities in Gujaral, Bombay, Asia Publishing House, 1964.
MUJEEB, M., Indian Muslims, London, George Allen & Unwin, 1967.
PATTERSON, M.L.P. and R.B. INDEN (eds.), South Asia: An Introductory Bibliography, Chicago,
The University of Chicago Press, 1962.
SILVERBERG, .J. (ed.), Social Mobility in the Indian Caste System, The Hague, Mouton, 1968.
When a Great Tradition Modernizes, Delhi, Vikas Publications, 1972.
SINGER, M.,
SINGER, M. and B. S. COHN (eds.), Structure and Change in Indian Society, Chicago, Aldine
Publishing Co., 1968.
SRINIVAS, M.N., "The Social System of a Mysore Village", Village India : Studies in the Little
Community (McKim Marriott, ed.), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1955, 1-35.
———, "The Cohesive Role of Sanskritization", India and Ceylon: Unity and Diversity (Philip
Mason, cd.), London, Oxford University Press, 1967.
———, Social Change in Modern India, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1966.

REDFIELD, R., "Social Organization of Tradition", Introducing India in Liberal Education

(Robert Redfield and Milton Singer, eds.), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960.
REDFIELD, R. and M. SINGER, "Foreword", Village India: Studies in the Little Community
(McKim Marriott, ed.), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1955, vii-xviii.

Downloaded from cis.sagepub.com at Yale University Library on May 16, 2015