AIR 136 · CSE 2016 · Sociology II · 38 pages

Garima Lekhwani: Sociology II answer copy

15 answers by Garima Lekhwani, as written in the test. Each question opens a page with how other toppers answered it.

The questions

  1. Q1(a)Q1) a) Sanskritisation & structural changes. (12.5)12.5 marks
  2. Q1(b)Caste among Muslims in India.12.5 marks
  3. Q1(c)Social differentiation among tribes.12.5 marks
  4. Q1(d)Land Reforms and transitions in the agrarian relations12.5 marks
  5. Q2(a)Critically discuss Marxist approach to the analysis of Indian Nationalism.
  6. Q2(b)Discuss the impact of Bhakti movement on the Indian society.
  7. Q2(c)Compare MN Srinivas and Dumont's understanding of Indian caste system.
  8. Q3(a)Critically analyse the changing caste-class nexus in the agrarian social structure.
  9. Q3(b)Modernisation in the Indian context is a complex phenomenon involving both continuity and change. Comment.
  10. Q4(a)Colonial rule engendered various movements as a reaction to it. Discuss the nature of these movements & its impact on Indian society.
  11. Q4(b)Evidence against the view that tribes are primitive communities living isolated lives untouched by civilisation.
  12. Q4(c)Brief Account of Ghurye's understanding of Indian civilisation.
  13. Q5(a)(i)Q5(a)(i) Dominant Caste
  14. Q5(b)Are tribal protests & movements an indication of limitation of the policy of integration in independent India. Comment.
  15. Q5(ii)ii) Village Studies in Indian Sociology iii) Indological approach to study of Indian society

The answers

Question 1(a) · 12.5 marks · 204 words written

Q1) a) Sanskritisation & structural changes. (12.5)

Opening

Ans. MN Srinivas' sanskritisation theory came as a criticism to Louis Dumont's 'Homo Hierarchicus' which claimed that Indian caste based society is closed, based on hierarchy with no scope for mobility.

Sanskritisation may imply:

Body · points and prose

a) collective recognition of lower castes as having gained higher status due to acts of chivalry, access to economic, political power, etc. Eg: Kayasthas of Bengal. b) unilateral attempt of a lower caste to emulate the rituals/ideology of a higher twice born caste to rise in ritual hierarchy.

Close

Sanskritisation thus implies social mobility; morever it is used to bridge the gap between position in ritual and secular hierarchy through 'orthogenetic' change. While more often, it implies a 'positional change', but it may also lead to a structural change.

This theory is based on RK Merton's Reference Group Theory & Middle Range Theory.

For eg: Lingayats of Karnataka, Yadaws of UP, Kurmis of Bihar resorted to sanskritisation to emerge as 'dominant caste' and politically asserted themselves to bring change in the power structure.

However, Srinivas' concept cannot claim originality as it was earlier explained by Lyall & Risley as 'Aryanisation'/'Brahmanisation'.

Moreover, lower castes have frequently rejected upper caste ideologies etc and resorted to conversions and protests to achieve mobility (SC Bose).