(a) Differentiate between 'Western' and 'Indological' perspectives on the study of Indian society. Bring out the major aspects of…

(a) Western and Indological Perspectives; Ghurye's Contribution

Western perspectives: approaches that study India through concepts and methods developed in the West:

• Colonial ethnography and census (H.H. Risley, J.H. Hutton): classifying castes and tribes for administration, often by race and rank;
• Orientalism: Edward Said (1978) and Bernard Cohn showed how such knowledge presented India as static, caste-bound and religious, and served colonial rule;
• Western theoretical frameworks: structural-functionalism and fieldwork (M.N. Srinivas's "field view"), Marxism (A.R. Desai), and modernisation theory, applied to Indian material;
• emphasis on empirical observation, universal categories and comparison.

Indological perspective: understanding Indian society through its classical texts (Vedas, Dharmashastras, epics, Puranas) and civilisational history, from the inside, using Sanskrit sources:

• the book view (Srinivas's term), emphasising ideals, values and continuity;
• its early scholars were themselves European Orientalists (William Jones, Max Müller), so the contrast is between approaches, not simply between Western and Indian scholars;
• Indian sociologists who used it include G.S. Ghurye, Irawati Karve, K.M. Kapadia and, combined with structuralism, Louis Dumont (Homo Hierarchicus, 1966).

• Sources: fieldwork, surveys and census (Western) versus classical texts and history (Indological);
• Focus: actual behaviour, structures and conflict versus ideals, values and civilisational unity;
• Categories: universal ones such as class, function and modernity versus indigenous ones such as varna, dharma, jati and ashrama;
• View of change: change and modernisation versus continuity and synthesis;
• Risk: ethnocentrism and Orientalism versus a Brahmanical, textual and idealised picture.

G.S. Ghurye's contribution to the Indological approach:

• Method: he combined Sanskrit texts with ethnography, census data and history, a historical-comparative method. He founded the Bombay school and trained Srinivas, Karve, Kapadia, A.R. Desai and others;
• Caste (Caste and Race in India, 1932):
• six features: segmental division, hierarchy, restrictions on feeding and social intercourse, civil and religious disabilities and privileges, lack of free choice of occupation, and endogamy;
• he traced caste to Indo-Aryan culture in the Gangetic plain and saw endogamy as its core;
• Tribes (The Aborigines "So-Called" and Their Future, 1943; The Scheduled Tribes, 1959): tribes were "backward Hindus", long in contact with Hinduism, to be integrated into the mainstream, against Verrier Elwin's protectionist "isolation";
• Religion and asceticism (Indian Sadhus, 1953): sadhus and monastic orders as unifying forces of Hindu society;
• Kinship (Family and Kin in Indo-European Culture, 1955), and studies of gotra, costume, cities and cultural unity;
• Theme of national integration: Hindu culture as the common thread of Indian unity.
• Critique: a Brahmanical and Hindu-centric view, weak on conflict and on Dalit, tribal and minority perspectives; the "backward Hindus" thesis ignores tribal distinctiveness; texts describe norms, not practice.
• Conclusion: the two perspectives are complementary. Ghurye's lasting value lies in showing that Indian society must be studied historically, using both texts and fieldwork.

(b) Defining Tribes and Obstacles to Tribal Development

Definitional problems:

• No constitutional definition: Article 366(25) simply refers to communities notified under Article 342 by the President, so identification is administrative and political;
• Outdated criteria: the Lokur Committee (1965) used primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact and backwardness. These are evolutionary, derogatory and less true after decades of change (the Xaxa Committee, 2014, criticised them);
• Tribe–caste continuum: many communities lie between tribe and caste, having adopted Hindu practices (F.G. Bailey; André Béteille), so no sharp boundary exists;
• Heterogeneity: 705 notified communities (Census 2011), about 8.6% of the population, ranging from hunter-gatherers to settled farmers and urban professionals; 75 are Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs);
• State-wise lists: a community may be a Scheduled Tribe in one state and not in the next;
• "Indigenous" debate: India does not accept the category of indigenous peoples for its tribes, though the term Adivasi claims original inhabitance;
• Colonial legacy: categories like "animist" and "criminal tribes" shaped later classification;
• Politics of inclusion: demands for ST status by groups such as the Paharis of Jammu and Kashmir (added in 2024) and the Meiteis of Manipur, and opposition from existing STs, show that the category is also a resource.

Obstacles to tribal development:

• Land alienation: transfer of tribal land to non-tribals despite tenancy laws (Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas Tenancy Acts) and the Supreme Court's Samatha judgment (1997);
• Displacement: dams, mines and industries have displaced tribals far beyond their share of the population, often without adequate rehabilitation (Walter Fernandes);
• Forest rights: the Forest Rights Act, 2006 is weakly implemented, with many claims rejected and community rights under-recognised;
• Weak self-governance: PESA, 1996 rules have been framed late or diluted in several states;
• Human development gaps: ST literacy was about 59% in 2011; high malnutrition, anaemia and poor access to health care;
• Exploitation: moneylenders, traders in minor forest produce, and contractors;
• Inappropriate development models: top-down schemes, language barriers in schools and neglect of tribal knowledge; Nehru's Tribal Panchsheel (with Elwin) is often ignored;
• Conflict and insecurity: Left-wing extremism and counter-insurgency in central India;
• Unequal benefits within STs: better-off groups capture reservations.
• Recent responses: PM-JANMAN (2023) for PVTGs and the Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan (2024).
• Conclusion: the problem of definition and the problem of development are linked: development requires recognising tribes' rights over land, forests and self-government, not only welfare.

(c) Béteille on Agrarian Class Structure

• Context: André Béteille (Caste, Class and Power, 1965, on Sripuram village in Tanjore; Studies in Agrarian Social Structure, 1974) argued that agrarian classes must be understood through their relationship to land, using a Weberian, multi-dimensional approach rather than fixed Marxist categories.

Bases of agrarian class structure:

• Ownership, control and use of land: the key question is who owns land, who controls its management and who actually works it. This gives three broad categories:
• landowners: non-cultivating rentiers, and owner-cultivators;
• tenants: including sharecroppers;
• agricultural labourers: casual and attached;
• Local categories: in Sripuram, the Brahmin mirasdars (landowners), non-Brahmin payirkkarar (tenants) and Adi-Dravida pannaiyal (attached farm servants);
• Overlapping positions: one household may own some land, lease in more and also work for wages, so classes are not sharply bounded;
• Type of labour relation: whether a household uses family labour, hires wage labour or keeps attached, unfree labour;
• Relation to caste: caste and class tend to overlap (upper castes as owners, Dalits as labourers), but do not coincide fully.
• Caste, class and power: Béteille showed that these three dimensions were once cumulative (Brahmins held ritual rank, land and power) but became dispersed: land passed partly to non-Brahmins, and political power moved to non-Brahmin parties through elections.

Analysis:

• his approach avoids a simple landlord–peasant polarity and shows regional variation;
• Marxist scholars (such as Utsa Patnaik) focused instead on the mode of production and the exploitation of labour;
• land reforms, the Green Revolution and non-farm employment have since changed agrarian classes, creating capitalist farmers and more wage labour.
• Conclusion: for Béteille, agrarian class rests on the ownership, control and use of land, interacting with caste and power rather than being reducible to them.