M. N. Srinivas’ Study on Village

 

Shobhit Mishra,

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Mysore Narsimhacharya Srinivas (1916-1999) was born in a Brahmin family in Mysore on 16^th Nov., 1916.He was himself from a brahmic background, emerged as a breath of fresh air in the over- Brahminized world of Indian scholarship. Srinivas had initiated the tradition of basing micro-sociological generalizations on micro-anthropological insights and of giving a sweep and perspective to anthropological investigations of small scale communities. He obtained MA, LLB and PhD from Bombay, and DPhil from Oxford. He was professor of Sociology at Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda and University of Delhi , and Senior fellow, Sociology Unit at Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore and J.R.D Tata Visiting Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies Bangalore.

 

M.N. Srinivas, an internationally renowned scholar, was a student of G.S Ghurye at the department of Sociology of Bombay University. He was an institution builder, a creative researcher and a devoted teacher in a remarkable manner. He took up the challenge of building a Department of Sociology at M.S University Baroda, which involved starting from scratch in every respect instead of choosing to be a lecturer at Oxford with all the prestige.   Later on he also helped, in the setting of the Department of Sociology at Delhi University. However, he went to oxford afterwards but he did not stay much and left in 1951. He joined the Instituite of Social and Economic Change at Banglore after leaving Delhi School Of Economics. Srinivas was one of the few who preferred to be a professor and remained one all his life rather than accepting the offer of joining the powerful and prestigious post in government

 

STUDY ON VILLAGE

Srinivas got the seed idea of studying India’s village from his mentor Radcliffe Brown in 1945-46.When settled in India after  his return from Oxford, he conducted the study of Rampur- a Mysore village- which gave him the concept of “dominant caste”. The study has been contained in The Remembered Village (1976), it is here only that Srinivas takes some time to discuss social and economic changes, which have taken place in Rampura.

The main aim of Srinivas has been to understand Indian Society. And, for him, Indian society is essentially a caste society. He has studied religion, family, caste and village in India. He was a functionalist and was influenced by Radcliffe-brown, Robert Redfield and Evans Pritchard. 

 

 

These anthropologists were functionalists of higher stature. Ideologically, they believed in status quo: let the dalits survive and let the high castes enjoy their hegemony over subaltern.  Srinivas’ search for the identity of traditions makes him infer that the Indian traditions are found in caste, village and religion. For him, it appears that Indian Social structure is on part with the advocates of Hindutva say, the cultural nationalism.

 

Srinivas though talks about economic and technological development, all through his works he pleads for change in caste, religion and family. Even in the study of these areas he sidetracks lower segments of society. They are like “untouchables” for him. Srinivas has extensively talked about the social evils of the caste society; he pleads for change in caste system and discusses westernization and modernization as viable paradigms of changes. But his perspectives of change are Brahminical Hinduism or traditionalism. In his zeal for promoting  sanskritization, he has marginalized and alienated religious sense secular ones. Srinivas, in a straightforward way, rejects secularism and stands in favour of Hindu Traditions. In his critique of Indian secularism, which appeared in a short article in Times of India in 1993, he finds secularism wanting because he believes that India needs a new philosophy to solve the cultural and spiritual crises facing the country and that philosophy cannot be secular humanism. It has to be firmly rooted in God as creator and protector. Srinivas’ construction of sanskritization and dominant caste put him closer to Hindutva  ideology of cultural nationalism. At this stage of discussion , Doshi (2003) comments regarding India’s tradition, it can be said that any tradition emanating from caste system cannot be nation’s tradition as the constitution has rejected caste.

 

Srinivas’ widely known classic, The Remembered Village, has all the qualities of a classical novel on changing village  in a part of South India. Srinivas has portrayed the character types in “Three Important Men of Village Rampura”: the village headman and the landlord of the old type ; the broker between village and the outside world.

Srinivas concentrated on the study of some vital aspects of Hindu Society and culture and his study did it explore the dimensions of interaction and interface between the Hindu and non- Hindu segments. The area that he studied did not have a large non- Hindu presence. He hoped that other sociologists would take up the study of the non- Hindu segments of Indian Society and culture without which an Indian Sociology, Indian in the sense of being comprehensive and authentic and hence truly representative  of the plurality and complexity of India, would not emerge. In this context, Joshi (2000) viewed that Srinivas’ self-defination and self- perfection was never that of a Hindu sociologist but that of an Indian sociologist studying Hindu religion and its social institutions in a specific area through intensive fieldwork  at the ground level.

 

CRITICISM:

The life mission of Srinivas has been to understand Indian Society.he though talks about economic and technological development but in the study of these areas sidetracks lower segments of society. In his endeavour for promoting sanskritization, he has marginalized and alienated religious minorities. For him, Indian traditions are those, which are manifested in caste and village. His traditions are Hinduized traditions and in no sense secular ones.The construction of Sanskritization and dominant caste put him closer to Hindutva ideology of cultural nationalism. One can say that his understanding was more elitist or presents only upper caste view.

 

The indigenous concepts of social change prevailing among sociologists in the 1950s and,to a large extent also in the 1960s were formulated by M.N.Srinivas under the labels ‘sanskritization’ and ‘westernization’, which he regarded as “limited processes in modern India and it is not possible to understand one without reference to the other.”

Srinivas has evolved the concept of sanskritization while preparing his doctrinal  dissertion under the guidance of Radcliffe-Brown and Evans  Pritchard at Oxford(1952).He finally formulated the concept as denoting the process by which a ‘low’ Hindu caste or tribal or other group, changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a high and frequently ‘twice-born caste’.

 

REFERENCE:

·      Caste, Class, Power; Andre Beteille

·      Doshi, S.L. (2003) Modernity,Post Modernity And Neo-Sociological Theories, Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

·      Indian Sociological Thought, B.K. Nagla, Rawat Publications

·      M.N. Srinivas, The Remembered Village, Delhi, Oxford University Press, 1976.

 

Received on 20.01.2012

Revised on   16.02.2012

Accepted on 20.03.2012

© A&V Publication all right reserved