Question 1(e) · 771 words written
1(e)
Opening
Reform movements refer to the social movements which try to reform societies by ridding them of social practices which are evil and degrading. They can be religious eg. Arya Samaj or non-religious eg. Satya Sodhak Samaj.
Body
Arya Samaj: Started by Swami Dayanand Saraswati, it was a puritanical movement, which aimed to reform society by countering misinterpretation of religious texts. Swamiji gave call to 'Go back to the Vedas' to purify the Hindu society of evils of casteism and ritualism. He even promoted modern education in conjunction with ancient system of Gurukul.
Ramakrishna Mission : It was started by Swami Vivekanand to reform Indian society and also as a social service movement for upliftment. It also was puritan in nature and shunned caste practices. Women empowerment was also aimed through this.
Both these movements did instil courage and self-respect among Indian masses. However after death of founders they split due to disagreements and failed to bring mass structural changes in society.
G.S. Ghurye had been a proponent of Indological study of Indian society. He believed that the Indian culture had a history of 3000 years which was captured and dictated by Hindu texts which were to be studied in order to obtain and understand Indian social and cultural structure.
Indological view is largely Book view of Sanskritic texts such as Vedas, Puranas, etc. The Indian society functions according to the mores laid out in the texts like Manusmriti.
Hindu culture is Indian culture in its totality and any study of Indian society using western sociological tools will present a distorted reality.
Ghurye studied caste as it was depicted in texts and found it to be applicable in the society as it is. He even regarded Islamic influence as external break in Indian culture and not a syncretic composition.
However, this rigid view of Indian society has been challenged on many parameters:
→ M.N. Srinivas says that Ghurye was an armchair theorist who was content with book view. He failed to grasp that social changes were brought by Sanskritisation and traditional caste hierarchy has morphed into dominant caste. → Y. Singh, criticised Indologists for ignoring modernity and the social changes it brought. → Andre Beteille, said that since Sanskritic texts were authored by Upper castes, they were biased in their depiction. → Gail Omvedt criticised them for presenting a harmonious picture of Indian society and ignoring movements of Phule and Ambedkar. → Ranajit Guha much later stressed focus on subalterns who were completely ignored in Indological studies.
It would be unkind to Ghurye to completely discard his contribution. He did encourage ethnographic field view of society. His students were methodological pluralists such as A.R. Desai, I. Karve and M.N. Srinivas. Thus, he is rightly called as 'Father of Indian Sociology'.
Rise of caste associations in the colonial period for social upliftment gradually morphed into caste politics. The advent of Dominant caste with penetration of democratic institutions in rural India further accentuated this phenomenon.
Communal Politics in India emerged as a result of 'Divide and Rule' policy of Britishers who found it easier to instigate the religions among them. The rise of Muslim League in 1905 and Hindu Mahasabha in 1915 gave further strength to it.
Caste politics has been criticised on following grounds: → Ghurye predicted that caste consciousness will lead to social anomie and weakening of National unity. → A.R. Desai calls it false consciousness serving the capitalist bourgeoisie and ignoring class issues. → Yogesh Atal says that caste politics did not benefit castes but caste dynasties as certain families take advantage of identity politics. → Vote bank politics supersedes the politics of development as caste groups have to be accomodated and pleased. → Minority castes such as Mushars of Bihar are neglected due to numerical disadvantages.
Communal politics further damages democracy as it increases the feeling of hostility among communities.
→ Paul Brass blames it for causing riots which are engineered for political gain. → Christophe Jaffrelot states that Muslims do not focus on development but political survival and hence are treated as vote banks. → Development is geared towards religious identities and politics of name-changing overshadows capital investments. → Religious symbolism endangers secular political values.
Close
Rajni Kothari disagrees and says that caste and politics both need each other. Primordial identities help strengthen political consciousness and even in USA race, ethnicity and religion is used.
Communal focus of politics also helps minorities voice their issues; the development of 15-point programme and various government schemes are due to importance of their votes.
Thus, even though there are short-comings, consciousness as a political class can enhance their social value in dispersed social structures.