reflections of social theory in india

7/27/2019 Reflections of Social Theory in India

1/25

Reflections of Social Theory in I ndia: Compli city, Negotiation and

Revolution

Introduction

Singh (2004)1in his book Ideology and Theory in Indian Sociology, maps out the clear

relationship between theory and ideology in Europe; in the works of the three founding

fathers of Classical European Sociology-Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx. The

period between 1889 and1930 was one where Positivism and Enlightenment rationality were

increasingly unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the aftermath of industrialisationand the acute problems of poverty and social disintegration. Politically, the First World War

combined with the rise of Marxism and the violent revolution in Russia contributed to the

growth in the importance of ideology. Sigmund Freud further contributed to the critique of

rationality by positing the opposition between libidinal and violent urges in humans.

He argued that the rational paradigm was fundamentally incapable of accommodating this

dialectic and introduced the controversial theory of repression as the basis of all structures

and institutes in society, thus exploding the hitherto self-maintaining, self-perpetuating

positivist theory of society and exposing it to be rather fragile. At the end of the Second

World War; in the wake of Nazism and the Holocaust, Marx and Freud gained prominence

and this led on to the formation of Critical Theory, best exemplified by the Frankfurt

School in Germany. It was during this phase that the structural-functional approach gained

massive popularity, in an attempt to comprehend the chaos that had just shaken the world.

With the advent of the 1970s several revolutionary movements had sprung up amongst

marginal groups, the 1969 movement in France is perhaps the best known, and structural-

functionalism- notably the Sociology of the Parsonian school came under severe criticism for

being elitist and conservative. This phase marked the movement from the study of social

structures to that of social movements. The next important turn occurred in the form of

post- structuralism and postmodernism, pioneered by theorists like Lacan, Derrida and

1Singh, Yogendra, Ideology and Theory in Indian Sociology, Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications, 2004


2/25

Foucault where the whole concept of the rational subject was challenged and replaced by a

discourse of fluidity along with reconceptualising power. (Singh 2004)2

Hohendahl (2005)3, in his article The Future of the Research University and the Fate of the

Humanities discusses the state of research in the Social Sciences within Universities in the

United States of America. He writes, by way of introduction,

What I want to show is that the function of the research university has been altered. In particular, cultural,

social, and political expectations have changed and therefore also the climate in which the institution has to

operate. Needless to say, the humanities have not remained unaffected by these transformations.

The author then proceeds to discuss the changes in Americas political, social and economic

trajectory and the ways in which those changes impacted the growth of Humanities and

Social Sciences in the USA. He identifies the Second World War and the Cold War as two

important milestones in the history of American Social Sciences, as, it was in this period that

Universities were largely funded by the Federal Government, particularly the Defence

Department. Interestingly, Hohendahl points out that Institutions working on Government

funding were much less restricted and controlled than those supported by private

organisations. The Humanities, during this period, were called upon to defend the moral base

of America and promote a core set of values that would support the nation at war. This

defence of American values and morals came under increasing criticism through the 1970s

along with an explosion of Theory. This caused a major rift in the hitherto harmonious

relationship between the State and the University, and brought the Humanities under public

and media criticism, for deliberately obscuring and elitising its scope and content, relegating

it to the margins of academia; a trend which, according to Hohendahl, has not been reversed

even after the 1990s.

The explosion of Theory, which drew such harsh criticism in America and the politics of

the emergence and growth of social theory in Europe is the point of departure for the essay

that follows. This paper is an attempt to locate Social Theory in India, both historically and

contextually, examine and analyse certain aspects and trajectories of its movement and also


3Hohendahl, Peter Uwe, The Future of the Research University and the Fate of the Humanities, Cultural

(Critique 61 Fall, 2005) 1-21


3/25

explore the more recent socio-cultural and political developments that may have provided a

scripting and performance space for Social Theory, as it were. It must be established at the

outset that what follows is notan attempt at linearity or chronology. It is also by no means an

exhaustive bibliography of Social Theory in India. Innumerable contributors and scholars of

great value and repute have helped to build the Social Sciences in India and continue to do so.

It is beyond the scope and intention of the present work to trace or follow individual scholars

with the exception of a few historical pioneers. The objective is more associative- an attempt

to understand some of the movements of ideas and issues within Social Theory, especially in

the Social Sciences (the inclusion of Literature would once again, make the scope of this

paper too vast, and has been excluded for that reason alone) and the eventual turn to

Postcoloniality and the Subaltern. Naturally,this turn cannot be visualised as a break,

but rather a movement; shaped by myriad socio-cultural, political and economic conditions

and events; of which Colonialism, Nationalism, Ethno- Nationalism and Globalisation form

an integral part. The essay uses these recurrent themes to negotiate the location of Social

Theory in India beginning with the late 1800s, through the Colonial period, the post-

independence era and finally more recent developments in the 1990s. The final section will

focus on the state of Tamil Nadu- its unique cultural and political location and perspectives

provide interesting insights into the possibilities and potentialities of Social Theory. It must

also be noted that the term Social Theory is used in an entirely non canonical or disciplinary

way, but rather as a perspectival or knowledge base from which much research and debate in

the Social Sciences have emerged. There is also an attempt to negotiate and unpack the issues

of colonized and decolonized knowledge within the Social Sciences, without which it

would be impossible to discuss Social Theory, in any context or location. The next section

addresses this very issue of colonized knowledge, before moving on to locating theory in

India.


4/25

The Colonization of Knowledge

Mignolo (2002)4, in his article The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference

traces the bases of knowledge to Francis Bacons essay where he identifies History,

Poesie and Philosophy; which correspond to memory, imagination and reason

respectively as the three major foundations of Knowledge, implying that knowledge as a

category belongs to the West. It

... inscribed a conceptualization of knowledge to a geopolitical space (Western Europe) and erased the

possibility of even thinking about a conceptualization and distribution of knowledge emanating from other

local histories (China, India, Islam, etc.).5

Mignolo posits a distinction between modernity and modern world system where theformer is linked to Philosophy, Literature and the History of Ideas and the latter specifically

to Social Science vocabulary. Further, modernity and consequently, postmodernity trace the

history of western knowledge to ancient Greece while the modern world system traces its

beginnings back to the 15th century and the birth of capitalism. It underlines a spatial

articulation of power rather than a linear succession of events6

Cast in these terms, this essay too adopts the modern world system perspective of the

spatial articulation of power and not the tracing of a linear chronology. The distinction

between modernity and modern world system is a helpful one because it draws attention

to the way in which problems, issues and concepts in the Social Sciences are and continue to

be articulated. The shadow of Modernity still looms large in the trajectory of Social Science

in every developing or postcolonial nation and consequently affects its vocabulary and

conceptualisation. The author points out a rather obvious fact of Colonial expansion that is

nevertheless well worth recalling; which is that along with political and economic expansion,

Colonialism also engaged in intellectual and educational expansion.

4Mignolo, Walter, The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference, The South Atlantic Quarterly,

(101:1,Winter 2002), 57- 96


(101:1,Winter 2002) p 586Mignolo, Walter, The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference, The South Atlantic Quarterly,

(101:1,Winter 2002) p 60


5/25

Mignolo uses the work of Fals-Borda, a Latin American Social Scientist to elucidate this

concept of intellectual colonization. Fals- Borda wrote extensively on the issue and made

the extremely valid point that a critique of colonialism from the west or the left, no matter

how well intended, is still a critique from the west. It is still born out of an existing

framework of epistemology and knowledge, and hence a Nietzschean critique of Christianity

which is undoubtedly powerful and extremely significant, is still from within that framework

as opposed to a Middle-Eastern, Chinese or Indian scholars critique of Christianity. He

correctly points out that Dependency is notlimited to the right; it is created also from the

left.7This must neitherbe construed as a debunking of anything western nor as the

construction of monolithic, binary identities of west versus non-west, but rather as a

caution against the subtle nuances of colonized knowledge and perspectives; both for the

west and the non- west. As an extension of this, Mignolo uses Enrique Dussel, another

Latin American scholars work, where he argues that first world Left discourse is very

different from third world Social Science. He argues in what could be construed as a

slightly polemical essay, but his point is an important one nevertheless, that when third

world issues of poverty, starvation and death are brought into the realm of a pan continental

philosophy, these issues suddenly become cheap shots and look embarrassingly non-academic. Thus Mignola surmises that:

Either the social sciences are similar to North Atlantic social sciences all over the planet so that they do not

make any distinctive contributions, or they are not social sciences and social knowledge is not being recognized.

Social scientists from the Third world have not raised their voices as loudly as philosophers have. Yet they have

not been silenced either, as the examples of Fals-Borda and Quijano in Latin America and the South Asian

Subaltern Studies group illustrate.8

The issue of colonised knowledge is not a new one, but it continues to be a very significant

one. Paulo Friere, Frantz Fanon, Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Gayatri Chakraborty

Spivak, to name a few have all addressed the issue of colonial discourse (Spivak 1993)9,


(101:1,Winter 2002) p 648Mignolo, Walter, The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference, The South Atlantic Quarterly,

(101:1,Winter 2002) p 739Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, Outside, in the Teaching Machine, London: Routledge, 1993


6/25

pedagogic violence (Bourdieu 1990)10 and the power relations that constitute and produce

knowledge, discourse and subject (Foucault 1980)11.

Syed Farid Alatas (2006)12 addresses the colonisation of knowledge in his work extensively.

Drawing form a wide base of scholarship all through Asia, he analyses several of their

perspectives and ideas on the issue. He uses Syed Hussein Alatas concepts of the Captive

Mind and Colonial Mentality which simply imports and extends the application of western

ideas and concepts without enough critique or contextualisation. The Captive Mind13

allows for the implantation of intellectual imperialism, which, according to Syed Hussein

Alatas, explains the almost exclusive emphasis on Western concepts, paradigms and

frameworks in the teaching of Social Theory in Asia. There is a refusal to accept or

incorporate Non- Western Scholarship and more so Asian and African scholarship in the

realm of Theory. Philosophically, much of eastern scholarship is allegedly ground in

spirituality, and this is a different dimension altogether, one which is beyond the scope of this

paper. However, ideas, concepts, schemas and critiques that form Social Theory are clearly

western. Syed Farid Alatas does make the point that much of Asian Social Science research

has been involved in empirical and policy related research... and the contribution to theory is

minimal 14, but it would be entirely inaccurate to suppose that theory has not in any way

informed Social Science scholarship in the non- west. He also developed the concept ofacademic dependency15 which runs along similar conceptual lines as the captive mind. It

is important to note that there is no western counterpart for the Captive Mind- the relation

of Coloniser to Colonised within this specific contextdictates that the academic

10Bourdieu, Pierre, Homo Academicus, translated by Collier,P. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990

11Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge : Selected interviews and Writings 1972-1977ed. Colin Gordon Harlow:

Longman, 1980

12Alatas, Syed Farid, Alternative Discourses in Asian Social SciencesNew Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2006


p 30


p 14

15

Alatas, Syed Farid, Alternative Discourses in Asian Social SciencesNew Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2006p 25


7/25

dependency is based on distinctly western frameworks, as has been previously illustrated

with Mignolos work.

Syed Farid Alatas speaks of the Indigenization of Social Sciences. The author quotes Evans

(1997) on how Anthropology in Vietnam was indigenized because of Communism. He points

out that much of the research objectives were in keeping with the developmental aims of the

state, which were based on their vision of progress, built on a Stalinist-Maoist interpretation

of Marxism. Sinha (1998) is careful to point out that Indigenization does not entail a

rejection of western knowledgeand even less a replacement of Eurocentrism with

Nativism or any other dogmatic position16. Alatas (2006) himself highlights the problems

implicit in the word indigenize as it automatically and connotatively privileges western

knowledge.

Fals-Bordas concept diaspora of brains explains this difficulty rather succinctly.

Brains are not being stolen when a social scientist leaves a country in which there are limited research

conditions and moves to a country and institution with better resources. Instead, this happens when the social

scientist remains in a country under limited research conditions and reproduces or imitates the patterns,

methods, and above all, the questions raised by the social sciences under different historical and social

experiences.17

The idea that relocating a social scientist to the west will inevitably make her Eurocentric is

simply essentialist and a symptom of reverse colonialism. The issue here is not one of

exposure but of uncritical adoption and mimesis. It is in fact quite possible that a non-

western social scientist actually located in Europe or America learns and processes the

knowledge gained there in a critical fashion and equally possible that one physically located

in Asia or Africa consumes the available knowledge in an undiscerning manner encouraged

by an inherent and internalised intellectual imperialism. It is thus imperative to understand

that indigenising Social Sciences while an important early step is by no means enough. The

social sciences have to be decolononized and recontextualised, which is the project and

process that several contemporary social scientists and scholars are actively engaged in.


p 85


(101:1,Winter 2002) p 74


8/25

The Indian Journey

This section of the essay will briefly trace the inception and growth of Sociology and

Anthropology as disciplines with Social Theory as its focus. This tracing will attempt a broad

chronology and focus on some academic personalities based on their contributions and

proximity to theorising the social sciences. It is however important to keep in mind that

theory does not stand out as clearly as it does in the western academic tradition; given

that both Anthropology and Sociology found their way into India with the establishment of

British rule and were therefore already rooted strongly in European and British theoretical

traditions. As American academia began to influence Europe and Britain, it found its way to

the colonies as well, albeit with some time lag. This is not to suggest that there were no new

theoretical frameworks or paradigms; it simply did not exist in any formalised structure or

canon. Much of Indian (and other colonised countries) Social Science was negotiated

carefully and tenuously through hands- on fieldwork that very often was in the service of the

British Government, using whatever knowledge and resources that were available as well as

personal experiences, narratives and cultures. Of course, this does not fit very comfortably

with the legacy of the Enlightenment values of rigorous empiricism and the rationality.

Ironically, it finds rather better articulation with the post-structural and post-modern ideas

and thought, even though Indian social scientists at the time were struggling to claim entry

for Indian Anthropology and Sociology on the bases of scientific rigour and empirical

rationality.

At the outset, it is also necessary to establish that the distinction between Sociology and

Social Anthropology is very blurred in the Indian Context. Several Sociologists adopted the

stances and methodologies of Social Anthropology and vice versa. A well known example of

straddling both these worlds openly and consciously is that of the French

Sociologist/Anthropologist Pierre Bourdieu. In the wider sense and todays context of

increasing inter-disciplinarity, this does not seem especially problematic. It assumes great

importance within that time frame, when the rigours of categorising and defining disciplines

were quite extreme.

Given the backdrop of Colonialism, followed by the Indian National Movement, it was

inevitable that Colonialism, Anglophilia and the afore- mentioned intellectual imperialismstrongly influenced Indian scholarship along with the rising wave of Nationalism and the


9/25

need to define a unique, Indian identity which was to some degree, unfathomable by the

west, timeless and a bearer of culture and tradition. Singh (2004) notes accurately, that

One may notice that even though the challenges of colonial domination over India have come to an end in

political terms, the feeling of uneasiness among Indian intellectuals, Sociologists and Social Anthropologistsabout the continuation of the western attempt towards cultural, economic and ideological hegemony continues to

persist.18

The politics of several activists such as Raja Rammohun Roy, Rabindranath Tagore,

Aurobindo and most importantly, Mahatma Gandhi, played a decisive role in the scholarship

of Indian Sociology and Anthropology. The links between Colonialism and Nationalism have

been pointed out and analysed by several scholars (Chatterjee (1993)19, Alatas (2006)20,

Nandy (1983)

21

, Geetha, V. and Rajadurai, S.V. (1999)

22

to name a few). The construction ofa pan Indian identity, although intended to define itself as distinct from any other identity,

especially the British, took on much of the rhetoric and ideological subtleties of Colonialism.

The weaving of meta- narratives and the usage of Hinduism as equated to India, were quite

reminiscent of the Raj. The predominance of Brahmins, both as reformers/activists and

academics is also an important factor in this context. Mukherjee (2006)23 describes Indian

Sociology as having developed in a triangle consisting of British Social Anthropology,

American Sociology and the Marxist tradition on the one hand; Indigenous Knowledge and

the Gandhian critique of Western Modernity on the other hand and finally the tension created

by the need for an indigenous approach vis-a-vis the western approach. It is therefore not

hard to understand the diversity of approaches and varied trajectories that developed in Indian

Sociology and Anthropology and yet they were bound together by certain common concerns.

18Singh, Yogendra, Ideology and Theory in Indian Sociology, Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications, 2004 p 19

19 Chatterjee, Partha, The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and PostcolonialHistories, UK: Princeton

University Press


21Nandy, Ashis, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism, New Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 1983

22Geetha, V. and Rajadurai, S.V., Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium : From Iyothee Thass to Periyar, India:

Popular Prakahsan, 1998

23Mukherji, Partha Nath, Sociology for What? Rethinking Sociology in an Era of Transformatory Changes,

Sociological Bulletin (55 (2), 2006) 172-200


10/25

The following section will, in some detail, examine the inception and emergence of

Sociology and Anthropology. Anthropology in the East, a recent publication edited by

Uberoi, Deshpande and Kumar (2007)24 provides an excellent canvas of the development of

Anthropology and Sociology as disciplines in India. The book reads almost like an anthology

of essays on pioneers in these fields and has been written by eminent contemporary scholars

from India. Uberoi et al comment on the problem of preserving work in India; citing lack of

proper documentation and a severe dearth of well maintained libraries as a major contributing

factor. They identify the history of Sociology as being linked to modernity and to the

development of a scientific approach to the study of man and society. Anthropology on

the other hand is intricately tied to the technologies of domination of the West over the Non-

West.. Indian scholars havereceived almost no recognition in standard disciplinary

histories. Singh (1968) refers to Indian scholars as the handymen of history (p 27) who

acquire knowledge in a non reciprocal way, causing their work to be more imitative than

innovative (Singh 1968 p 27). Anthropology in the East refers to several pioneers, whose

names are listed below; however only some of them will be discussed owing to space

constraints.

L.K. Ananthakrishna Iyer, B.N. Sarkar, Sarat Chandra Roy, Patrick Geddes, G.S. Ghurye,

D.P. Mukherji, N.K. Bose, Elwin Verrier, Iravati Karve, A.R. Desai, S.C. Dube and M.N.Srinivas are the scholars identified in the book. This list is by no means exhaustive, but serves

as some indicator to provide an ideological background for Indian Sociology and

Anthropology.

A.K. Iyer was a pioneer in the field of Anthropology not only because of the period in which

he lived and worked- 1861- 1937, but also because he walked the fine line between being an

anthropologist, though not formally trained and being financially supported by the British

Census Commission. A.K. Iyer is barely remembered or credited, but in fact set up the

earliest centres of Ethnology in the country. Kalpana Ram, the author of the essay makes an

important point about how agency purely in terms of consent and choice was not a burning

concern for colonised peoples at the time. Science the universalising discourse offered

24Uberoi, Patricia, Deshpande, Satish and Sundar, Nandini, Introduction : The Professionalisation of Indian

Anthropology and Sociology: People, Places and InstitutionsAnthropology in the East: Founders of Indian

Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish Deshpande, Ranikhet, India:

Permanent Black, 2007


11/25

legitimacy and some degree of autonomy which though has been and continues to be

critiqued, should not be undermined or dismissed given its context. 25

Roma Chatterjis26paper on B.N.Sarkar and his Nationalist Sociology is an interesting and

perhaps slightly atypical insight into how nationalist ideology and sentiments shaped and

produced academic discourse in the social sciences. Sarkar played an active role in the

Swadeshi movement between 1905 and 1907. Several other scholars during that period,

including Tagore and Coomaraswamy saw Indias spiritualist and non- imperialist history

as a unique trait and advocated that Indias independence would benefit the world. Sarkar on

the other hand argued for independence on the grounds that political domination and

imperialist strength were universals and India was as capable of them as any other nation.

While others saw the construction of Nation itself as an imperialist construction, Sarkar

saw power as a positive force and to this end was thoroughly positivist in his approach. Much

of his work was comparative and concerned with nation building and sovereignty. His work

was much more inclined to studying structural change and therefore not very empirical. He

studied the classical text Shukraniti on the science of Government and drew heavily from it

in his work. He also applied Tonnies concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft to the story

of Krishna, the Hindu God; contrasting Krishnas childhood as a cowherd in Vrindavan-an

idyllic, natural, village community with his adult life as an aristocrat in Dwaraka, a largemetropolis, created and constructed by men. Sarkar thus saw history as a horizon of shifting

boundaries 27 and held that material interests and conflict were at the core of society. He also

believed that there is no infinite progress; only cycles of progression and regression.

However, it is important to understand that he did equate India with Hinduism and saw it as a

force which amalgamated several varying cultures into itself- a stance that leaves itself open

to much critique.

25Ram, Kalpana, Anthropology as Ananthropology: L.K.Ananthakrishna Iyer (1861-1937), Colonial

Anthropology, and the Native Anthropologist as pioneer, Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian

Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish Deshpande, Ranikhet, India:

Permanent Black, 2007

26Chaterji, Roma, The Nationalist Sociology of Benoy Kumar Sarkar, Anthropology in the East: Founders of

Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish Deshpande, Ranikhet,

India: Permanent Black, 2007

27Chaterji, Roma, The Nationalist Sociology of Benoy Kumar Sarkar, Anthropology in the East: Founders of

Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish Deshpande, Ranikhet,India: Permanent Black, 2007 p 118


12/25

Patrick Geddes28, yet another pioneer, set up the department of Sociology and Civics in

Bombay University in 1919 which was to become a formidable influence in the course of

Indian Sociology. Geddes was very keen on incorporating Geographical, Ecological,

Biological and several other perspectives into that of Sociology. It was perhaps this keen

interdisciplinary interest that obscured his contributions somewhat.

G.S. Ghurye29, often referred to as the Father of Sociology, created the Bombay School

and influenced generations of Sociologists and Anthropologists. His approach was

Indological and Cultural Historical and he was heavily influenced by the Diffusionist

School which was the school that his English advisor Rivers, subscribed to. Ghurye took the

idea that culture was transmitted by the migration of races and applied i t to the Aryan

influence in India which he saw as the strongest and as having incorporated indigenous

people- the Dravidians into its Vedic structure. Ghurye, like many other liberal reformists

believed that caste in India would disappear after independence. Ghurye focussed on the

centrality of Hinduism and Brahminism in the integration of Indian society. He was anti

protectionist and believed that Indias tribes and other minorities were simply imperfectly

integrated Hindus. His Sociology used Family, Kinship and Religion as its units of analysis.

Much of Ghuryes fieldwork was conducted through his students owing to ill health and he

utterly rejected Functionalism in favour of Diffusionism. He categorically refrained fromincorporating new developments in the West into his work arguing that Indian Sociology had

to find its own path. Ghurye established the Indian Sociological Society and launched

Sociological Bulletin, Indias first academic sociological journal. It must be pointed out, at

the risk of repetition that, like many others of his time, Ghurye was deeply concerned with

Indian independence, building an Indian nation and identity. Numerous, though, are the

criticisms against him, G.S. Ghurye provided a solid foundation for the later growth of Indian

Sociology.

28Munshi, Indra, Patrick Geddes: Sociologist, Environmentalist and Town Planner, Anthropology in the East:

Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish Deshpande,

Ranikhet, India: Permanent Black, 2007

29Upadhya, Carol, The Idea of Indian Society: G.S. Ghurye and the making of Indian SociologyAnthropology

in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish

Deshpande, Ranikhet, India: Permanent Black, 2007


13/25

D.P. Mukherji as T.N. Madan30writes, described himself as a Marxologist and was one of

the three pioneers of the Lucknow School of Sociology, initially a rival of the Bombay

School. Mukherji rejected both Parsonian Functionalism as well as the empirical approach,

preferring to lay emphasis on the purpose in human lives and on the Hindu principles of

Shantam, Shivam and Advaita; i.e. Harmony, Welfare and Unity. Although vague and

perhaps not academically rigorous, it was an early attempt to step outside of the existing

western paradigms of the time. D.P. Mukherji was against an uncritical acceptance of

modernisation and emphasised that tradition was a condition of modernisation, not an

opposition to it.

Ramachandra Guhas essay on Verrier Elwin31 is yet another interesting insight as it shows

Elwin to be on the margins as it were of Anthropology and Literature. An amateur

anthropologist though he was, Elwin spent much of his time engaged in intense, long term

fieldwork. Though his work never qualified as rigorous enough for Anthropology as an

academic discipline, his knowledge and insights as well as the lucid, aesthetic and vivid style

of writing that was his trademark make him an important figure of dissent and non

conformity in his time.

Iravati Karve32was Indias first woman Anthropologist; she founded the department of

Anthropology in Pune and is well known for her anthropological work as well as her feminist

reinterpretation of theMahabharata, the well known Indian epic entitled Yuganta, where she

analysed the lives and roles of the women in the story, thus far ignored. A student of Ghurye,

she too has heavily influenced by Diffusionism and Indology, and much of her work too

centred round family, kinship, religion and caste. Her other major interests which influenced

her work were Archaeology and Genetics and she completed her doctoral work in Germany

under a Eugenics Professor. Karve drew heavily on Sanskrit texts and was, until the very end

30Madan, T.N., Search for Synthesis: The Sociology of D.P. MukerjiAnthropology in the East: Founders of

Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish Deshpande, Ranikhet,

India: Permanent Black, 2007

31Guha, Ramachandra, Between Anthropology and Literature: The Ethnographies of Verrier Elwin,

Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar

and Satish Deshpande, Ranikhet, India: Permanent Black, 2007

32Sundar, Nandini, In the Cause of Anthropology: The Life and Work of Iravati Karve, Anthropology in the

East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish



14/25

a classical anthropologist. Her work on Kinship classification in India is still used when

teaching Sociology. Although she opposed the imposition of uniformity on India in theory,

she too subscribed to the idea that India meant Hinduism and this belief informed much of

her work.

Sujata Patels essay on A.R. Desai33 is an extremely pertinent one as Desai was a radical

social scientist and unique in many ways that separated him distinctly from his colleagues

and peers. Desais most active period was during the1950s- 70s and he studied macro and

meso levels as opposed to the then prevalent micro framework. Desai used the historical

rather than participant observation method and was heavily influenced by Marxism. He

analysed the role of capitalism in Indias transition from feudalism to capitalism, pre-

capitalist formations, especially caste as well as the role of Nationalism in opposing

Colonialism. Desai argued that Colonialism had in fact impeded the growth of Capitalism,

which according to Marx did hold a revolutionary potential in that it would lay the conditions

for the Proletarian revolution. However, he also recognised the role that Colonialism played

in creating Nationalism and consequently reform. Desai paid specific attention to the Indian

middle class, recognising that the landed rural elite were quite similar to the urban elite and

was therefore not capable of true revolution. He also criticised the state and the congress

tacit submission to the British made evident by its numerous negotiations with them andbelieved the Constitution of India to be a bourgeois creation. Desais critique of the state was

based in the idea that in order to perpetuate and nurture capitalism, it was willing to sacrifice

democracy. He was also one of the first Sociologists to make the link between caste and

politics- which has become a universally known fact today as well as used theories of under

development to explain Indian society- another first. The criticisms levelled against Desai are

that he did not revise his work despite being aware of new developments and also whether his

works entailed a strong political agenda. Desais contributions to the body of Indian

Sociology and Anthropology have been immense and radical and changed the trajectory of

thought for many scholars.

33Patel, Sujata, Towards a Praxiological Understanding of Indian Society: The Sociology of A.R. Desai,

Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar

and Satish Deshpande, Ranikhet, India: Permanent Black, 2007


15/25

Deshpandes paper on M.N.Srinivas34 is the final one in the book, and he must surely be

regarded as a tour de force in Sociology and Anthropology. A staunch advocate of Social

Anthropology, Srinivas was the Student of Radcliffe Brown at Oxford and brought Structural

Functionalism to India. Srinivas was clearly biased towards Social Anthropology as it was

holistic, concentrated on fieldwork and possessed a comparative perspective. He brought the

focus of Social Anthropology to Village studies from the study primitive peoples, which

was further encouraged by the way in which villages were venerated in Indian scriptures, the

British interest in administering and managing villages successfully and the Gandhian

emphasis on rural life as embodying the spirit of India. Srinivas contributed a sizeable

amount to the Indian body of knowledge and was responsible for evolving the concepts of

Sanskritization as well as Dominant Caste among many others which have found a

permanent place within textbooks of Indian Sociology.

The brief overview provided above is only a sample and suggestive of both the dominant

discourses that shaped Sociology and Anthropology and consequently Social Theory, as well

as the Social Theory which informed those discourses. It also indicates the extent of

divergence in the perspectives and politics which fed into the body of knowledge of Indian

Sociology and Anthropology in its nascent stages, which make it rich and varied, as well as

problematic.

The next segment of the essay will summarily locate some of the important and broad

chronological turns in Sociological and Anthropological theory and ideology before

examining the specific context of Tamil Nadu in an attempt to clearly portray the

potentialities and new possibilities of Social Theory in the face of rapidly changing socio-

cultural and political conditions.

Theory and Ideology in India- A brief overview

The previous section has discussed the foundations of Sociological and Anthropological

knowledge and theory through the course of British rule up until the 1980s. Several other

Scholars have emerged and contributed significantly to the body of Knowledge, some of

34Deshpande, Satish, Fashioning a Postcolonial Discipline: M.N. Srinivas and Indian Sociology, Anthropology

in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish



16/25

whom will be discussed below. Singh (2004)35notes that the 1900s- 1950s saw a

preoccupation with colonialism followed by Nationalism and its influences on Indian

Sociology and Anthropology. The 50s and 60s were largely concerned with the project of

Nation building, planning and policy and the Social Sciences were rallied in to support this.

The late 60s through the 70s set the stage for new challenges, critical perspectives and the

emergence of several alternative fields of enquiry. With the 90s came several major political

upheavals, the increase in communal frictions- the Mandal Commission, Bombay Riots etc.

which profoundly affected the social sciences and forged new directions in ideology and

theory. According to Singh (2004)36, the period that followed independence saw the

professionalization of Sociology, an increase in methodological rigour and an emphasis on

planning and development combined with increased funding from the University Grants

Commission of India. The acute food shortage and agricultural revolution brought rural

studies to the fore especially during the 1950s. This move was heavily influenced by the

Chicago School of Sociology popularised by scholars such as Redfield, Singer, and Marriot.

It was also during this time that the methodological divergence between the holistic method

of Anthropology and the Statistical- Survey method crystallised. The 1960s were

characterisedby an attempt at synthesising the various Sociologies that had emerged in

India over the last few decades and as mentioned earlier set the stage for major changes in the

1970s. Americas war against Vietnam created a general disillusionment all over the world

about the American Nation and this affected the Social Sciences too. This generated a severe

critique of existing structural- functional paradigms and gave rise to several alternative

discourses which laid conflict and contradiction at the centre of societal analysis. In India too

reservation had energised the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and a limited elite had

emerged among them, providing leadership (Singh ). Several New Social Movements

emerged and scholars such as M.S.A Rao studied the SNDP movement in Kerala and P.N.

Mukherjee studied the Naxalbari movement in West Bengal, especially unique because it was

a violent, class- based movement. T.K. Oommen studied the Sarvodaya and Gramdana

agrarian movements in Rajasthan using Charisma as his main conceptual and analytical tool,

while Dipankar Gupta studied the emerging right wing and regionalistic Shiv Sena movement

in Maharashtra.




17/25

The womens movement gained some prominence at this time, with scholars such as Neera

Desai, Veena Majumdar, Gail Omvedt, Maitrayee Chaudhari, Lindsey Barnes etc. In 1974

there was a report prepared by the Academic Arm of the Womens Movement on the Status

of Women in India- the first of its kind (Sharma, 200237). The report revealed several

changing trends related to the unorganised sector, declining sex ratio etc. The Indian Council

of Social Science Research responded to this report with three goals: to identify trends in

womens position, to develop a new perspective in Social Science and to revive the debate on

the Womens question. Throughout the 1970s Womens Studies was dominated by

empiricism and dealt with legislation, policy and administrative measures. With the rise in

movements such as the Chipko and SEWA, these concerns deepened, leading to the National

Conference on Womens Studies in 1981held in Mumbai by UNESCO. There have since

been 83 such conferences held in South and South-East Asia and finally, in 1986, the

National Education Policy included a section on education for womens equality. The

primary reason for stating this list of events is to highlight the prolonged absence of the

gender debate within the Indian Social Science academy. Although several women have

produced excellent work, none of it found its way into the mainstream of academic debate.

Post 1980s and through the 1990s there has been a marked increase in Womens

scholarship. Several women scholars such as Patricia Uberoi, Veena Das, Nivedita Menon,

V. Geetha, Roma Chatterjee, Sharmila Rege, Nita Kumar, to name a few have contributed

immensely to bridge the gender lacuna within Indian Sociology and Social Theory.

The era beginning with the 1980s up until thepresent has been witness to several upheavals.

The increased impact of Globalisation combined with the decreasing population in Europe

along with an increase in life expectancy saw a massive increase in migrant labourers leading

to a focus on Diasporic studies, issues of multiculturalism, racism etc. The 1980s was also

the period when the Subaltern Studies group originated formally in India, headed by

Ranajit Guha. Its initial focus was on empirical studies from social, economic and political

history, but my mid 80s it turned increasingly towards critical and cultural theory and the

postmodernist use of literature. This postmodernist turn according to Bahl (2000) took

place primarily because the subalterns were autonomous and active in navigating their

position and participation in the Indian National Movement. The Subaltern Studies School, in

37Sharma, Kumud

, Womens Studies and Higher Education: The Troubled JourneyIndian Journal of Gender

Studies (9:2 2002) 209-219


18/25

order to prove this idea had to turn to literature and read against the grain in order to locate

the voices of the subaltern which was typical of postmodern ideology. (Alatas, 2006)38

Politically, the scenario was increasing in complexity, thus alienating the general populace

from understanding its decisions. Decentralisation was on the increase, and the States lack of

support for marginalised groups was increasing unrest. Environmental concerns too, began to

grow in a big way, and the media grew increasingly powerful in shaping and informing

public opinion. Singh (2004)39, notes that the Third Survey of Research in Sociology and

Social Anthropology Volumes one and two records a focus on Science, Technology and

Development; Problems of SC/STs and Reservation; Gerontology; Womens Studies;

Sociology of the Youth, Deviance, Social Movements and Religion. This, along with the

movement of Research from Universities into NGOs marks an extremely important shift in

the way in which Sociology and Anthropology began to grow and continue to. The rise of

Dalit movements right from the late 1960s also gained increasing prominence and have been

studied with increasing interest and rigour in the recent past. It is from this perspective that

the final section of this paper considers the example of Tamil Nadu, albeit briefly, in the

context of the creation of an alternative social theory.

Tamil Nadu: Politics and Potentialities

The following segment is a brief examination of Tamil Nadu and its politics and the

consequent political, social and cultural ideologies that emanated from it. It is not intended to

be a review or analysis of Tamil scholarship which is vast and extremely significant, but, as

explained earlier, more to illustrate the possibilities that the socio-cultural and political milieu

afford to recast Social Theory into an alternative discourse, a task already being carried out

by several eminent scholars in the field.

In 1967, the state of Madras was renamed Tamil Nadu (Pinto, 1999)40. Nearly twenty years

prior, E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, or Periyar as he was popularly known (henceforth


p 89


40

Pinto, Ambrose, End Of Dravidian Era in Tamil Nadu; Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34 No. 24 (June12- 18, 1999) 1483-1485


19/25

abbreviated to E.V.R.) transformed the Justice Party league into the Dravida Kazhagam

(DK). The DK party was essentially anti- Hindi, anti-Sanskrit and consequently anti-

Brahmin and demanded the secession of Tamil Nadu from the rest of India. It articulated a

demand for Dravida Nadu. Its leader E.V.R. was a staunch atheist, advocated strongly

against the caste system and promoted womens rights, widow remarriage and inter-caste

marriages. The DK party was a staunchly regionalist, linguistic party and engaged in two

major anti- Hindi riots one of which in 1952 involved the desecration of Aryan, Hindu Gods.

TheRamayana (a classical Hindu Epic) was identified as a prime source of Nationalist,

Aryan, and therefore anti-Dravidian propaganda. Ram, the fair, Aryan God destroys the entire

race of dark skinned, evil asuras led byRavana, the king of Lanka which symbolises

Dravidians.

The next major figure in the history of the DK party was E.N. Annadurai or Anna as he was

popularly known. Originally a follower of E.V.R., he separated from him in 1949 forming

the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) which emphasised the linguistic aspect far more

than the DK had. He was responsible for renaming Tamil Nadu and also relinquished the

demand for secessionism. Annadurai attempted to meliorate the severe brahminical

opposition by distinguishing Brahminism from Brahmins and took an anti Aryan god

stance rather than an atheistic one. The Self- Respect marriage act which stripped marriage ofany rituals or the mandatory presence of a Brahmin Priest was passed in his time. He also

organised the World Tamil Conference and began to act in films, using it as a medium to

popularise the DMKs ideology. Following him was the next and still most important figure

in Tamil politics; M. Karunanidhi, the current Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. An active

member and disciple of Annadurai, Karunanidhi scripted numerous films which Annadurai

acted in and is a powerful writer and orator. In 1970, the partys credo was set: to oppose

Hindi Imperialism, to establish a society without exploitation, to work for autonomy for the

states and federation at the centre and to conquering of poverty avoiding violence (Indian

Express, Feb. 24, 1970). Karunanidhi drew the focus away from atheism to the stance of anti

exploitation in the name of religion. 41

The year 1969 saw a massive clash between Dalits and land owners in Kilvenmani,

Thanjavur. Several Dalits were burnt to death and the landlords responsible were acquitted.

41Pinto, Ambrose, End Of Dravidian Era in Tamil Nadu; Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34 No. 24 (June

12- 18, 1999) pp 1483-1485


20/25

Neither the state nor the DMK offered them any real support and this led to the first major

break that the Dalits made with the DMK, turning to Ambedkarism and alternative ideologies

and leaders. (Forrester, 1976)42

In 1976, M G Ramachandran one of the most popular Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and a

blockbuster film star broke away from the DMK forming the All India Anna Dravida

Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) he remained in power for several years and maintained a

very cordial relation with the Congress and Mrs. Indira Gandhi, with whose help the AIDMK

allegedly gained power (Wyatt, 2002) changing the hue of Dravidian ideology dramatically.

After his death, the party was led by J. Jayalalitha, a Brahmin herself, which further

complicated and diluted the original Dravidian thrust. AIDMK remained in power till 1989

after which the DMK took over once again. In the following years, there were several

electoral alliances, even between the DMK and the Congress as well as the DMK and the

BJP, which was perhaps the more shocking of the two. As Pinto (1999)43 notes, the original

agenda of Tamil Ethno Nationalism no longer held sway. Pandian (2000)44 remarks on the

Hindutvization of Tamil by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), pointing out that with a

significant proportion of Tamil non- Brahmins being staunch Shaivaites (worshippers of the

Hindu God Shiva), this was not difficult to achieve. Besides, the DMKs use of Tamil

identity had become ritualistic and tokenistic. This along with the fact that the upper crustof backward classes were by now upwardly mobile and the growing feeling that English is

the Panacea turned the hitherto fervent ideological and cultural stronghold of the DMK into

mere lip- service. Several caste groups like the Thevars and Vanniyars had gained power and

formed parties of their own such as the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

(MDMK) underVaiko and the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) under Dr. Ramadoss,

respectively after the 1990s, and with the 1991 census reporting the percentage of Schedule

Castes to be 19.2 (Wyatt, 2002)45 the political scenario of Tamil Nadu is a precarious one.

42Forrester, Duncan, Factions and Film Stars: Tamil Nadu Politics since 1971, Asian Survey Vol. 16,No. 3

(March 1976) 283-296

43Pinto, Ambrose, End Of Dravidian Era in Tamil Nadu, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34 No. 24 (June

12- 18, 1999) 1483-1485

44Pandian, M.S.S., Tamil Friendly Hindutva, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 21/22 (May 27- June

2, 2000) 1805-1806

45

Wyatt, A.K.J., New Alignments in South Indian Politics: The 2001 Assembly Elections in Tamil Nadu, AsiaSurvey, Vol. 42 No. 5 (Sept.- Oct. 2002) 733-755


21/25

It is clear from the above account that in the chaos and wrestle for power between dynastic

politics and caste based parties, the Dalits were deliberately and clearly excluded from the

entire affair. While they are electorally significant, the extent of their oppression and the

virtual absence of agency and choice is the space in which the potentiality of Social Theory

could be envisioned.

Nigam (2000) 46in his article notes that Dalit Potitics embody a dogged resistance to the

binaries set up by modern politics in the era of nationalist struggle and ... in the contemporary

movement. It fits neither into the Nationalism/Colonialism bind, nor the

Secularism/Communalism bind, thereby placing them in a liminal space outside the

violence of this categorisation (Benjamin 1979)47. Nigam points to the path that Ambedkar

chose, which, though highly problematic, illustrates this capacity to move outside the

dominant Indian political flag staffs of secularism and nationalism, thereby making it an

extremely effective critique of modernity. Gandhis treatment of Dalits as Harijans, according

to Nigam flowed neatly into the Nehruvian concept of State. Gandhis way was, in a certain

sense, an attempt to co-opt Dalits into the fold of Hinduism, which is once again highly

problematic, like any technique of assimilation and Nehruvian politics left little room for the

concerns of the Subaltern. Nigam also points out the reason for Dalit antipathy towards

Communism, which he explains is just as hierarchical and caste conscious as far as Dalits areconcerned. Marxism claims history for itself, thereby denying the Dalits their own history

and memory. The modern self, comments Nigam, believes that forgetting caste and religion is

the best way forward, and perhaps one does find echoes of this, especially amongst the neo-

urban elite of today. He warns against the recasting of old casteist terms in new modern

discourses which only problematises the issue more as historical and cultural amnesia cannot

be any real solution.

Guru, Gopal and Geetha, V. (2000)48 write about the need for a critical intellectual movement

amongst Dalits. They note that much of Dalit activism has been both anti-intellectual and

46Nigam, Aditya, Secularism, Modernity, Nation: Epistemology of the Dalit CritiqueEconomic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 35No. 48 (Nov, 25- Dec 1 2000) 4256- 4268

47Benjamin, Walter ,On Language as Such and on the Language of Man in: One-way street, and other

writings, translated by Edmund Jephcott, Kingsley Shorter, London: NLB, 1979

48Guru, Gopal and Geetha, V., New Phase of Dalit-Bahujan Intellectual ActivityEconomic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 35 No.3(Jan 15- 21 2000) 130-134


22/25

uncritical of its leaders, which places it at a disadvantage. However, there has been a

concerted effort at creating a body of theory and discourse that democratises and de-

hierarchises knowledge. However, the authors point out the dangers of creating an

emancipatory social theory and warn that ideological polemic and vitriol cannot form the

basis of any social theory. It requires rigorous debate, discussion and a multi layered

understanding of social reality. The search for identity somewhat mitigates critical

consciousness and the exercise of self- reflexivity and self- critique. The Vikas Adhyayan

Kendra in Mumbai established the Dalit Intellectuals Collective, bringing together both Dalit

and Non- Dalit scholars in an attempt to dislodge the category of what the authors term

theoretical Brahmins and empirical Shudras and attempt to create a Dalit Theory which

will interrogate postmodern theories and explore the notions of intertextuality and fluidity.

An attempt is being made to develop a public and political reason which will at least

facilitate dialogue between Dalits and Non-Dalits.

The authors go on to discuss the usage of Dalit as a term, the need to handle Dalit

Feminism as a distinct issue and to examine Dalit Knowledge carefully and sensitively.

Dalit Knowledge is embedded in informal and oral traditions of storytelling, music and

folklore. Dalits are also very close to the process of production, therefore globalisation and

the advent of the virtual are particularly dangerous to them. At the same time, one must becareful not to essentialise or exoticise this knowledge which would once again defeat the

exercise of building alternative theory. The experience of modernity too, is unique for

Dalits and cannot be categorised under a global or universal narrative of modernity.

Modernity for Dalits is a positive experience because it brought with it the significance of

self recognition; by the same token, Dalits were denied access to modernity thereby making

it a non- reciprocal process.

Conclusion

This essay has visited and examined a vast arena of issues, not necessarily linked in time or

space. The only theme that runs through everything that has been discussed up until this point

has been that of Social Theory- its conception, emergence and renewed significance. Theory

is not based in abstraction or apathy. It is an immediate, constant, yet changing response to

issues and concerns that have to do with society. To that extent, social theory has the

potential to be truly inclusive, allowing an infinite range of thoughts, ideas and discourses to

irrigate its field. To presume any definiteness or perfect chronology as far as Social Theory is


23/25

concerned defeats its very purpose and it is with that intent that this essay has avoided any

such linearity. After having wrestled through centuries of thought, revolution, critique and

reflexivity, the potential for creating a completely new discourse and theory that is non-

linear and non- hierarchical is both exhilarating and challenging. While it is fraught with very

real problems and dangers which must be carefully addressed and negotiated at each turn and

perhaps, there will come a time in the not too distant future when a space, even a small one,

can be created for a genuinely radical turn in Social Theory.


24/25

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anthropology in the East: Founders of Indian Sociology and Anthropology, eds. Patricia

Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish Deshpande, Ranikhet, India: Permanent Black, 2007

Alatas, Syed Farid, Alternative Discourses in Asian Social SciencesNew Delhi, India:

Sage Publications, 2006

Benjamin, Walter, On Language as Such and on the Language of Man in: One-way street,

and other writings, translated by Edmund Jephcott, Kingsley Shorter, London: NLB, 1979

Bourdieu, Pierre,Homo Academicus, translated by Collier,P. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress, 1990

Chatterjee, Partha, The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories,

UK: Princeton University Press

Forrester, Duncan, Factions and Film Stars: Tamil Nadu Politics since 1971, Asian Survey

Vol. 16, No. 3 (March 1976) 283-296

Foucault, Michel,Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and Writings 1972-1977ed. Colin

Gordon Harlow: Longman, 1980

Geetha, V. and Rajadurai, S.V., Towards a Non-Brahmin Millennium: From Iyothee Thass to

Periyar, India: Popular Prakahsan, 1998

Guru, Gopal and Geetha, V., New Phase of Dalit-Bahujan Intellectual Activity Economic

and Political Weekly, Vol. 35 No.3 (Jan 15- 21 2000) 130-134

Hohendahl, Peter Uwe, The Future of the Research University and the Fate of the

Humanities, Cultural (Critique 61, Fall, 2005) 1-21

Mignolo, Walter, The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference, The South

Atlantic Quarterly, (101:1,Winter 2002), 57- 96

Mukherji, Partha Nath, Sociology for What? Rethinking Sociology in an Era of Transforma

tory Changes, Sociological Bulletin (55 (2), 2006) 172-200


25/25

Nandy, Ashis, The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism, New

Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983

Nigam, Aditya, Secularism, Modernity, Nation: Epistemology of the Dalit Critique

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35No. 48 (Nov, 25- Dec 1 2000) 4256- 4268

Pandian, M.S.S., Tamil Friendly Hindutva, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No.

21/22 (May 27- June 2, 2000) 1805-1806

Pinto, Ambrose, End of Dravidian Era in Tamil Nadu, Economic and Political Weekly,

Vol. 34 No. 24 (June 12- 18, 1999) 1483-1485

Sharma, Kumud, Womens Studies and Higher Education: The Troubled Journey Indian

Journal of Gender Studies (9:2 2002) 209-219

Singh, Yogendra, Ideology and Theory in Indian Sociology, Jaipur, India: Rawat

Publications, 2004

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, Outside, in the Teaching Machine, London: Routledge, 1993

Wyatt, A.K.J., New Alignments in South Indian Politics: The 2001 Assembly Elections in

Tamil Nadu, Asia Survey, Vol. 42 No. 5 (Sept.- Oct. 2002) 733-755

reflections of social theory in india

Documents