• Countries and societies are often stereotyped due to history, culture and location, as seen in the image of India as a land of snake charmers, and in the early British Indologists who, relying on ancient scriptures, portrayed Indian society as purely Hindu, a classical, textual view that differed from empirical reality and was later challenged by sociologists, anthropologists and nationalists, while British scholars showed colonial bias and some Indian thinkers showed nationalistic bias.

• With the establishment of sociology as a formal discipline in the early 20th century, greater objectivity entered the study of Indian society, recognising it as multicultural and complex, though even before the 1920s attempts existed, becoming systematic only after British political and administrative rule.

• Earlier knowledge of society came from religious texts, travelogues and political works, which were discontinuous, yet included accounts by Megasthenes, Ibn Battuta, Marco Polo, and texts like the Arthashastra.

• In the 18th–19th centuries, sociological thought was advanced by voluntary organisations such as the Asiatic Society of Bengal under William Jones (translator of Manusmriti), the Society for the Acquisition of General Knowledge (1838), and by Herbert Risley through ethnographic studies and Caste and Tribes of Bengal (1891), along with the Bethune Society in Madras and the Oudh Scientific Society (1867), while thinkers like Gandhi, Vivekananda and Tagore also interpreted Indian society.

• Indian society is seen as tradition-oriented, with distinctive institutions like caste, kinship and villages, and has been studied through perspectives such as Indological, Marxist and Structural-Functionalist.

• Colonial administration promoted the study of society to improve governance in law, order and revenue, and until the 1850s, understanding was mainly produced by administrators, who between 1820–1850 depicted India as a self-sufficient village economy, a caste-based structure and primitive tribal communities.

• The establishment of universities in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras (1857), the Census Department (1871) and the Ethnographic Survey (1901) enabled more scientific social research.

• After the 1850s, under direct Crown rule, the study of Indian society expanded through western education and administrative consolidation, with attention to institutions like the joint family, Jajmani system, customary laws and Panchayati Raj, and at the macro level, historical works were used for theoretical understanding, though often without field studies.

• Early pioneers of Indian sociology included Patrick Geddes and G. S. Ghurye (Bombay), Radhakamal Mukherjee and D. P. Mukherji (Lucknow), and A. R. Wadia (Mysore).

Major areas of focus of the discipline in India were –

1. Indian Philosophy
2. Orientology and Indology
3. Ethnic and social survey
4. History

• Early Indian sociological studies focused on caste system, tribes, culture, cities, religion and trade, and G. S. Ghurye, influenced by multiple intellectual currents, emerged as the father of Indian Sociology and Indology.

• Radhakamal Mukherjee represented a synthesis of Indian intellectual traditions and Western analytical methods.

• Sir Patrick Geddes established Sociology as an academic discipline in India in 1919 at Bombay University, the same year when Max Weber established the first Sociology department in Germany, and later departments were opened in Lucknow and Mysore Universities.

• Before Independence, scholars mainly adopted a book-view approach, studying society through historical texts, known as Indology, meaning the study of Indian history, literature, philosophy and culture.

• In the 1940s, sociology gained recognition in more universities, and early sociological thought was shaped by the freedom struggle and the distinctiveness of Indian culture, reflected in the works of Ghurye and D. P. Mukherji.

• The Lucknow School adopted an inter-disciplinary and culturist approach, and at the institutional level, the Indian Sociological Society (1951) was founded by G. S. Ghurye, who also started the journal Sociological Bulletin (1952).

• After Independence, sociology became more scientific and was influenced by Structural Functionalism in the 1950s, introduced by M. N. Srinivas through his study of the Coorgs of Mysore, stressing the field-view and empirical research.

• Post-independence studies emphasised factual surveys but often lacked strong theoretical depth, were narrow in scope, relied on short-term field studies, and shifted focus from theological and traditional issues to practical social problems, leading to numerous rural and urban studies.

• The survey method was introduced by the Ford Foundation in the 1950s, and in the 1970s, A. R. Desai revived the Marxist perspective in Indian sociology.

• Indian sociologists debated objectivity and value-neutrality, with some viewing strict neutrality as a barrier to addressing pressing social issues, Ramkrishna Mukherjee advocating a value-accommodating approach, and I. P. Desai asserting the inseparability of knowledge and practice.

• Global changes also influenced Indian sociology, and after the disintegration of the USSR, Marxist influence declined, though it persisted due to Left Wing extremism.

• P. N. Mukherji, in The State of Sociology, argued for building an authentic and indigenous sociology by moving away from excessive anthropological influence, American interventions and Marxist hangover, and emphasised that 21st century Indian Sociology must develop perspectives rooted in Indian social realities.

Indology

• Indology means the systematic study of Indian society and culture, aiming to interpret and understand society through traditional religious texts, ancient legal and historical documents, literary works and archaeological evidence, and is considered more suitable for the Indian context than Western approaches.

• Sources used include religious texts like Mahabharata, Ramayana, Vedas, Upanishads and Smritis, historical works like Kautilya’s Arthashastra, travelogues of Megasthenes and Fa-Hien, royal inscriptions, writings and other archaeological materials.

• Indology emphasises the study of Indian languages, ideas, beliefs and customs, and treats culture as the central basis for understanding Indian society.

• Indian society is viewed as unique and explainable only through indigenous concepts and theories, not through Western frameworks.

• The approach focuses more on understanding society rather than offering solutions to social problems.

• Social reality is interpreted in terms of continuity with the past and strong historical moorings.

• The Indological perspective rarely uses field studies, often overlooking internal diversity, and therefore produces a broad, ideal and typical picture of Indian society.

Indological perspective changed with time as the nature of study changed. It is broadly categorised in we streams-

Classical Indology:

• The Indological perspective was prevalent before the 1920s in the writings of British intellectuals and was based on a pure book-view, relying on texts at face value, with initial emphasis on translation and interpretation of Sanskrit literature.

• William Jones founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1787), which became a major centre for Indological studies.

• Max Müller’s Sacred Books of the East (50 volumes, from 1879 onwards) translated the Vedas and other sacred texts.

• Henry Maine’s Ancient Law (1861) and Village Communities in East and West (1871) are classical Indological works.

• Early Indologists were mainly Western scholars and British colonial officials, but later Indian Indological institutions also developed, such as the Theosophical Society (1886), Oriental Research Institute, Mysore (1891) and Bhandarkar Institute, Pune (1917).

• Western Indologists generally held a critical view of Indian society, while Indian scholars emphasised its greatness and uniqueness.

• The Western view portrayed India as a land of self-sufficient, isolated, static and orthodox villages, with religion at the centre of social institutions and traditionalism and caste guiding social relations.

• The caste system was seen as closed and symbolic of the feudal and backward nature of Indian society.

• Gradually, institutions like the joint family, Panchayat and Jajmani system were also recognised as key components of Indian social life and became subjects of research.

Modern Indology:

• With the establishment of sociology as a discipline, the study of society came under its scope and Classical Indology was modified by integrating sociological perspectives, leading to Modern Indology (Social Indology).

• Modern Indology was mainly developed by academicians, unlike Classical Indology which was dominated by scholars and colonial officials.

• G. S. Ghurye is regarded as the father of Modern Indology, as he helped establish the first Sociology department in India and synthesised the classical Indological approach with the anthropological diffusionist approach.

• Radhakamal Mukherjee combined Classical Indology with empirical sociology, while D. P. Mukherji integrated it with the Marxian analytical framework, developing a Marxological orientation.

• After Independence, Indology continued to be used, though other perspectives became more dominant.

• Modern Indology criticised the orthodox image of Indian society by rejecting the idea that villages are isolated, static or self-sufficient.

• Religion was viewed as a central institution, but not as an obstacle to social dynamism.

• Modern Indological studies also analysed colonial impact and contemporary social change, and emphasised the relevance of institutions like the joint family and Panchayats.

In spite of being the earliest perspective, Indology started to lose its sheen post-independence on account of various reasons-

• Subsequent field studies showed that actual normative practices differ from the ideal-typical Indological view, as demonstrated by M. N. Srinivas’s concepts of dominant caste and Sanskritisation, which revised traditional understandings of caste.

• Contradictory information in Indological sources created subjectivity, since interpretations varied according to different textual references, reducing analytical reliability.

• The heavy dependence on the book-view was problematic because many texts presented an idealised and biased image of society, such as Prithviraj Raso and similar royal eulogies, where truth was shaped by imperial and courtly interests.

• Indologists are criticised for lack of objectivity, as Western scholars were influenced by colonial interests and Indian scholars by nationalist biases, preventing a neutral sociological explanation.

• Although Indology is losing dominance, Indological studies remain relevant, and there is renewed effort to reinterpret traditional texts.

• A form of post-modern Indology is emerging, reflected in works of Devdutt Pattanaik on mythology, Romila Thapar combining Indology with history, and Wendy Doniger exploring alternative interpretations of Hindu social organisation.

Indology of G.S Ghurye

• Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, born in a Brahmin family and trained as a Sanskrit scholar, studied the Vedas, Shastras and the poetry of Kalidasa, and was influenced by Western scholars like W. H. R. Rivers, thereby pioneering Modern Indology and improving the narrow Classical Indological view.

• He played a major role in the professionalisation of Sociology by founding the Indian Sociological Society and the journal Sociological Bulletin, wrote more than 30 books, and mentored scholars like M. N. Srinivas, A. R. Desai, M. S. A. Rao, Irawati Karve and I. P. Desai.

• In Ghurye’s Indology, culture is central, and society is studied through Sanskritic texts, historical documents and archaeological material, supplemented by theoretical perspectives.

• His methodology was shaped by classical texts and the influence of the Bhandarkar Institute, Pune, and combined historical diffusionism with descriptive ethnography, emphasising empirical reality and historical context.

• Ghurye viewed Indian society as unique, essentially a Hindu society, to be understood through its traditions, historical continuity and the interaction of order and change, including the modernising influence of British rule.

• He analysed social order through institutions like caste, religion, village, tribe and urbanisation, and adopted a dynamic view acknowledging both continuity and transformation.

• His seminal work Caste and Race in India (1932) proposed a diffusionist theory that caste originated in the Gangetic plains and spread outward.

• He identified six features of caste: division of labour, purity and pollution, hierarchy, civil and religious disabilities, hereditary nature and endogamy, the last being the key principle maintaining caste boundaries.

• Ghurye used a comparative approach, linked caste and tribe by calling tribals “backward Hindus,” and described modern caste associations as caste patriotism.

• Though opposed to caste, he believed its decline would be gradual, driven by urbanisation and education, and later expanded his analysis to include occupation and class to capture social change.

• G. S. Ghurye wrote extensively on religion, including Indian Sadhu (1952) and God and Men (1962), and viewed religion as dynamic, rational and not orthodox, while accepting religious diversity as non-contradictory.

• In Indian Sadhu (1952), he interpreted Sadhus as a social link between spiritual elites and common people, and analysed the genesis, development and organisation of asceticism in Hinduism.

• Ghurye held that religion is central to the total cultural heritage of man, and in Religious Consciousness (1965) he studied religious practices like worship, afterlife and mythology across the Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Hindu civilisations.

• His views on tribes were rooted in Hindu tradition; he rejected the British isolation policy, argued that tribes were always in contact with Hindus, called them Backward Hindus, and classified them as Hinduised, partially Hinduised and Hill tribes.

• He explained tribal backwardness as due to imperfect integration into Hindu society and cited examples like the Santhals, Bhils and Gonds of South-Central India.

• Ghurye criticised British policies, especially forest policies, for causing tribal hardship, studied specific tribes like the Kolis of Maharashtra, and ideologically debated with Verrier Elwin, opposing the view that tribal isolation should be preserved.

• He argued that the incorporation of Hindu values and norms into tribal life was a positive step for tribal development.

• On village life, he considered villages the centre of Indian social life but rejected the self-sufficient village thesis and derived village structure mainly from caste, while ignoring dominant caste and power relations.

• He had an optimistic view of urbanisation, rejected Louis Wirth’s pessimism, saw cities as cradles of innovation, and viewed rural–urban growth as organically linked.

• Ghurye preferred detailed historical description over grand theory, maintained a nationalistic orientation, avoided non-Indian frameworks, and engaged intellectually with Toynbee, Spengler and Bertrand Russell.

• His works reflected the formative struggle of Indian sociology, but he is criticised for an over-Hinduised view, a favourable stance on caste, neglect of its dehumanising aspects, failure to recognise colonial structural changes, and excessive focus on cultural rather than structural analysis.