G s ghurye caste and race in india pdf
File Name: g s ghurye caste and race in india .zip
- Caste System in India (Six Characteristics)
- G. S. Ghurye
- Caste started with ‘race’: analysis by the father of Indian sociology, G.S. Ghurye
According to him caste originated from race and occupation stabilised it. According to GS Gurye caste is product of various historical processes, adapting to demand of time and therefore a dynamic institution. Under Caste System society is divided into several small social groups called castes. Additionally, there are multiple divisions and subdivisions of caste system.
Caste System in India (Six Characteristics)
This chapter examines the politics of sociological knowledge by focusing on the views of G. Ghurye, the most influential Indian academic to write about Indian sociology during the colonial period.
Ghurye made important contributions to our understanding of caste, race, and tribal identities, and shows relentless commitment to building the research capacity and relevance of Indian social science. He was also the first anthropologist to study the dangerous effects of colonial discourse and colonial institutions on the fundamental institutions of Indian society.
In his canonic work, Caste and Race in India , Ghurye was especially concerned to evaluate the claims of the colonial state's anthropologist, H.
Risley, about the racial origins of caste. The book analyzes Ghurye's critique of colonial anthropology and the racial theories of Risley. Ghurye , India , sociology , caste , race , tribal identities , H. Risley , anthropology. Ghurye not only played the signal role in establishing this department as one of the leading departments of sociology in India; he was the most influential Indian academic to write about Indian sociology during the colonial period.
And for those who think that retirement means the end of intellectual influence—and I am getting to the stage of life where I have begun to worry about such things—it is reassuring to note that Ghurye wrote seventeen books after his retirement.
Many of these books addressed current and critical issues in India—on topics ranging from social and political tensions to regionalist tendencies—revealing the extent to which Ghurye always thought about the contemporaneous present in his sociological work, however historical that work was. While upholding the highest standards of empirical method and theoretical rigor, Ghurye also made clear how important it was to use the p. It is an especially meaningful honor for me to give this lecture because of the extent to which Ghurye has influenced my own work on caste and Indian society.
He was the first anthropologist to turn his attention to the dangerous effects of colonial discourse and colonial institutions on the fundamental institutions of Indian society. His critique of colonialism was both prescient and profound, for he understood the hidden and dispersed effects of colonial policy on Indian society in the grips of nationalist mobilization. Ghurye challenged Risley directly and ultimately determined that only in the Punjab and parts of the United Provinces was there anything like a correlation between race and caste, in which Brahmans betrayed physiognomic indications of their hereditary connection to the Aryan invaders of the subcontinent.
Everywhere else, and for all other groups, general miscegenation had eroded any racial distinctness to caste. Ghurye emphasized the mixing of castes particularly in Maharashtra and Madras—an observation that had particularly stark political implications since the anti-Brahman movement had become the most potent and, at least according to Ghurye, threatening challenge to the nationalist cause.
I was struck by how Ghurye used the dispassionate tone and method of social science to suggest that the stark caste divisions in the south were in fact based on faulty assumption and partial data.
His confidence in the assimilative power of Indian civilization seemed at odds with what I saw as I was conducting research in Madras: the new electoral success of the DMK, first under Annadurai and then Karunanidhi, and the powerful rhetoric of E. Ramaswamy Naicker known more commonly as Periyar. Given this background, I was fascinated with the parallels between caste and race, not to mention, especially over the years since, the comparisons between debates around affirmative action in the United States and reservations in India.
Risley was not the first to use the decennial census for collecting and presenting material about caste. In particular, he criticized the use of quotas to restrict government employment for Brahmans in Maharashtra and Madras. And while I had become aware, for example, that the Justice Party in Madras had become a problematic vehicle for elite non-Brahman political mobilization, not only exclusive of lower caste non-Brahmans but also of Dalits, and clearly antinational, I believed that some form of affirmative action was necessary to counter historical oppression and create new opportunities for social mobility.
Ghurye, nevertheless, made for powerful reading. He may not have been the first to argue against the policy of reservations and the effects of politicizing caste, but he made the most eloquent, and academically compelling, critique of the relationship of caste and politics in the decades immediately preceding independence.
Further, Ghurye was perhaps the first real scholar to suggest that the politicization of caste was not merely a natural outgrowth of the traditional institution but a conscious design of British colonial policy.
At about the end of the British rule in India, caste-society presented the spectacle p. But he was resolutely opposed to the politicization of caste, whether by the British or by forces in the anti-Brahman movement. And his greatest concern in the politicization of caste seemed to be the generation of bad faith around both Brahmans and Brahmanism, the latter being for him the font of principles that were fundamental to Indian civilization.
At the same time, he made clear how dangerous it was for the national cause to draw attention to these kinds of differences, or as we might say today, to reify and essentialize them. Although Ghurye led with a political commitment to national unity, his principal argument was historical, much of it based on the colonial archive itself.
And it was the combination of his historical framework with his critical sensibility regarding the colonial that connected my p. My Ph. For Cohn, grammars were as much an instrument of policy as land revenue and military control, and in a pathbreaking essay from he argued—with clear influence from Ghurye—that the decennial census had played a constitutive role in the development of modern caste forms and identities.
Indeed, I discovered that the princely states were convenient vehicles of colonial policy too. Scheduled districts—the precursors of excluded areas—were not artifacts of precolonial isolation so much as the products of deliberate colonial policies of sequestration and division.
Ghurye believed that tribal groups should be incorporated within new parliamentary institutions—using reservations for members of backward tribes—and that tribal groups more generally should be allowed to continue the process of absorption, assimilation, and progressive social change that had characterized them before the British conquest of India. It was only in his writing on caste, where he focused more on the non-Brahman movement, that he stipulated the role of Brahmans, and indeed of early textual constructions of caste, as fundamental.
When anthropologists had described social forms and village customs in India in the s, they wrote about the twin processes of universalization and particularization, about the mimetic logic of caste and hierarchy more generally, and about the harmonious relationship between great and little traditions.
Although U. In particular, while Ghurye delineated the segmental division of society, focusing on issues around marriage, occupation, and commensality, he maintained the necessity of the Brahman. Common service to the civic life, prescriptive rights of monopolist service, and specific occasions for enjoying superiority for some of the castes, considered very low, made the village community more or less a harmonious civic unit.
Complete acceptance of the system in its broad outlines by the groups making up that system and their social and economic interdependence p. Of course, this harmony was not the harmony of parts that are equally valued, but of units which are rigorously subordinated to one another. These were the ultimate sources for his emphasis on the role of the priesthood, the sacred dimensions of caste differentiation, and the values that underlay the social compact of Hindu society.
Influenced by Chiplunkar as well as other major figures in early twentieth-century Maharashtra, he was, in the words of A. Yet his path-breaking analyses of caste and tribe anticipate other conjunctures as well, between anticolonial nationalism and social conservatism, between a critical relationship to colonial transformations of caste and tribe and a newly revitalized commitment to an idea of the Indian social as fundamentally harmonic, between a critical reaction to the colonial denunciation of Indian society and the idea of Indian civilization as essentially Hindu.
His nationalist agenda, therefore, reveals some of the significant tensions of nationalism itself; he belittled the political aspirations of non-Brahmans while making very little mention of Muslims in Indian society.
From some perspectives, his greatest concern seemed to be the loss of Hindu community in the face of attacks on the sacred charter of Brahmans and Brahmanism. Ghurye was a particularly important figure in these growing conjunctures, as he both made such an early, and forceful, argument against the social effects of British rule and correlated his sociological theories with contemporary political predicaments.
But his work invites us to consider more generally the question of the politics of sociological knowledge in India. And Ghurye was well aware that modernization was not in fact leading to the demise of caste predicted by Weber and others. But he was not an advocate of the idea of the modernity of tradition, to take the phrase of Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph. Indeed, he felt that the non-Brahman movement of Maharashtra and, although in different respects, the movement in Tamil Nadu as well had extremely dangerous effects.
The new organization takes up a rather militant attitude against other castes, especially those which are popularly regarded as immediately higher or lower than the caste which it represents. Ghurye was worried that this conflict would lead to social tensions that would hinder both nationalism and indeed national p.
He was also concerned about the politicization of anti-Brahman sentiment, since it would block the development or in his view the reinstantiation of the proper separation between religion and politics and potentially lead to a wanton attack on Hindu ideas and institutions.
Ghurye recognized throughout his career that the scheduled castes were in many respects a special case. Ghurye accordingly lamented both the ambiguity of the Constitution and the degree to which political concerns seemed to propel a proliferation of provisions even as the category of backward caste would relentlessly expand. Decisions to allow states to draw up their own lists of backward castes and to repeatedly extend provisions meant originally to be temporary only made matters worse.
Though Nehru had opposed extensions and decried the creation of vested interests through these provisions, Ghurye was not wrong to anticipate the further, and indefinite, politicization of caste, if not the fundamental reasons leading to p. To be sure, Ghurye understood that Tamil Nadu had a far more distinctive non-Sanskritic linguistic and literary tradition than North India, and a history less characterized by Brahman influence.
But Tamil politics was moving in precisely the wrong direction, providing all the necessary warning signals for why India should become casteless rather than plural. I had commenced my own study of caste through attempting to understand the reasons why caste politics became so dominant in the Tamil-speaking region of southern India. The literary history of the region offers few clues about the rise of caste politics—Tamil had an ancient classical tradition, to be sure, but Sanskrit and Tamil had coexisted happily for centuries, along with a host of other languages, including Telugu, Kannada, Marathi, and Persian.
It was only when the missionary philologist Robert Caldwell began to charge that Brahmans were outsiders, and Sanskrit the vehicle of their colonization of Tamil culture, that caste—coded here as anti-Brahmanism—and literature began to be linked. But even the rise of the cult of Tamilttay, the mother goddess of Tamil, did not exacerbate the role of caste in political discourse and mobilization. Those who were deeply invested in Tamil itself, from the literary collector of Sangam poetry, U.
Swaminathan, to the great poet Subrahmanian Bharati, were often Brahmans and rarely xenophobic. Anti-Brahmanism itself formally began with the Justice Party and the early efforts on the part of elite non-Brahmans to gain access first to government employment and then to university admission.
It was E. Ramaswamy Naicker who most insistently linked anti-Brahmanism with a host of other oppositional stances, against North India, against Sanskrit and Hindi, against Hindu practice and precept, and indeed against the forms of Indian nationalism more generally that either refused to take on caste politics directly or sought either to use or placate religious sentiment on behalf of political causes.
But the more I learned about Periyar, the more I realized that he hardly unlocked the key to understanding the significance of caste in southern India. When I began my graduate study of India in the early s, social scientists and historians in North America were seeking to understand caste by stripping away the weight of colonial anthropology and the colonial archive , even as they were reading the work of Ghurye, Srinivas, and Karve, among many others, to understand the effects of colonial history as well as of modern change on the traditional features of Indian society, caste and kinship especially.
There was a great deal of attention to the work of Indologists, since the most authentic meanings of caste were assumed to predate colonial rule.
The Pramalai Kallar of Tirumangalam presented a picture of an Indian social world in which Brahmans, and principles around purity and pollution, seemed about as far away as anywhere in South Asia. So perhaps it made sense after all that Dumont interpreted his fieldwork as grist for the mill of a totalizing theory that accorded encompassing significance to a grand Indological conception of sacred, and indeed sacerdotal, values. Even as I was intrigued by his critique of the mystifications involved in American understandings of equality, I was also suspicious of the idealism of his account.
And it was then that I began to think about the effects of colonial rule in a much more comprehensive way, drawing inspiration from Ghurye and from Cohn and ultimately writing a book in which I tried to demonstrate not just the nature of social change under colonialism but the way a Dumontian view could in some ways only be possible after colonial rule.
Where did this leave the politics of my own scholarly intervention? In the context of academic discussions in the West, it seemed clear. Caste and its relationship to religion , as it had developed over the course of the last two hundred years, was in part the product of explicit efforts to justify, and then sustain, colonial control and occupation.
And in a postcolonial context, conventional Western beliefs that poverty and backwardness were the inevitable byproducts of culture rather than of colonial rule could be directly critiqued. From my standpoint, I could also engage in a critical way the epistemological formations of my own education, cultivated as it had been by Cold War preoccupations, and heavily influenced by its classical aka orientalist origins.
In short, I was in agreement with Ghurye about the impact of British colonialism on caste, but I shared neither his sense of what caste had been before the colonial nor his alarm over p. At the same time, I could prove Dumont wrong but also recuperate his critique not only of the epistemological problems of Western social science but of how value systems concealed, whether through direct embrace or denial, contradictions that either inserted inequality in place of equality or oppression in place of hierarchy.
In Tamil Nadu, however, my interlocutors were quick to worry that by focusing on the role of the British, I was running the risk of letting Brahmans off the hook. In the context of Dalit politics, I soon realized that this concern was even more intense, a fear that criticism of colonialism would both ignore the useful role that some colonial reforms played in addressing untouchable issues and indeed blame the British for the millennial sins of Brahmans and other upper caste groups.
Whether this was so or not, the stakes and meanings that attend current-day writing about caste are perhaps more vexing today than ever before. And while the role of the state, and in the case of India the role of the state in regard to reservation policy especially, continues to be the key site of debate about caste, increasingly the real questions that confront us have to do with the relationship between the new economic regime of liberalization and the social.
What difference has liberalization made to caste as either the marker or the medium for social differentiation? Has liberalization in fact made state reservations less important? Is the marketplace socially blind? Or, rather, is the global marketplace an opportunity for privilege to be recoded as about money rather than social identity? What kind of pressure can be exerted on the corporate sector? And what kinds of extranational means of pressure, justice, etc.
G. S. Ghurye
This chapter examines the politics of sociological knowledge by focusing on the views of G. Ghurye, the most influential Indian academic to write about Indian sociology during the colonial period. Ghurye made important contributions to our understanding of caste, race, and tribal identities, and shows relentless commitment to building the research capacity and relevance of Indian social science. He was also the first anthropologist to study the dangerous effects of colonial discourse and colonial institutions on the fundamental institutions of Indian society. In his canonic work, Caste and Race in India , Ghurye was especially concerned to evaluate the claims of the colonial state's anthropologist, H. Risley, about the racial origins of caste. The book analyzes Ghurye's critique of colonial anthropology and the racial theories of Risley.
Cambridge educated G. Ghurye was the foundational figure of Indian sociology. Ghurye's initial training was in Sanskrit , and it was only after attending Geddes' lectures at Bombay and being selected for a scholarship that he went to England where he studied anthropology at Cambridge under Rivers and Haddon He took over as Head of Department of the Department of Sociology in Mumbai University in and wrote prolifically about all sociological issues in India. Damle and M.
Every society is stratified. But it differs from society to society Stratification or classification of Indian Hindu society is based on caste system. The caste system appears to be the most significant feature of the Hindu society. In some societies this stratification system is based on the principle of achievement and in the other societies it is based on the principle of ascription. But, caste system in India is purely based on the principle of ascription.
Caste and Race in India by G. S. Ghurye. Author(s): Barbara Celarent. Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. , No. 5 (March ), pp.
Caste started with ‘race’: analysis by the father of Indian sociology, G.S. Ghurye
Caste system is also a form of social stratification which based on religious beliefs. The study found that the caste system of Hinduism has an influence on Muslims in India. Since the majority of Muslims in India are those whose ancestors had converted to Islam during the Muslim Empire's rule in the Middle Ages, then they brought the idea of caste in to practice though caste is prohibited in Islamic doctrine.
Please choose whether or not you want other users to be able to see on your profile that this library is a favorite of yours. Finding libraries that hold this item You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.
Ghurye was born on 12 December , at Malvan , in present-day Maharashtra. Sanskrit and M. Sanskrit degrees from there. Rivers , who was his PhD guide.
Элементарная ошибка, подумала Сьюзан, Стратмор, по-видимому, поменял местами поля информации, и Следопыт искал учетные данные совсем не того пользователя.
User account menu
Сегодня как раз такой день. - В глазах его читалась печаль. - То, что сейчас скажу, я не собирался говорить никому. Она почувствовала, как по спине у нее пробежал холодок. Лицо коммандера выражало торжественную серьезность. Видимо, в его действиях было нечто такое, что ей знать не полагалось. Сьюзан опустилась на стул.
Человек, к которому он направил Росио. Странно, подумал он, что сегодня вечером уже второй человек интересуется этим немцем. - Мистер Густафсон? - не удержался от смешка Ролдан. - Ну. Я хорошо его знаю. Если вы принесете мне его паспорт, я позабочусь, чтобы он его получил.
Но я уезжаю сегодня вечером.