NCERT Solutions for CBSE Class 11 Sociology: Indian Sociologists

Ananthakrishna Iyer's journey into social anthropology began through his voluntary assistance to British administrators engaged in ethnographic surveys across India. Starting as a clerk, he later transitioned to a college teacher. His significant involvement commenced in 1902 when he was tasked by the Dewan of Cochin to aid in an ethnographic survey of the state. Subsequently, he worked for the British government as an unpaid Superintendent of Ethnography, earning recognition from British anthropologists and administrators. His academic career progressed to becoming a reader at the University of Madras, where he also established the postgraduate department of anthropology at the University of Calcutta, marking him as the first self-taught anthropologist.

Sarat Chandra Roy, educated in law and English, initially gave up his law practice to become a school teacher in Ranchi. Upon resuming his law practice, he was appointed as an official interpreter in court. This role gradually sparked his interest in tribal society, as he had to interpret tribal customs during legal proceedings. Through this work, he acquired substantial knowledge about the culture and society of the tribal people of Chhotanagpur. Roy authored significant monographs and research articles on the subject, undertaking extensive fieldwork and travel among tribal communities. Both Iyer and Roy's practical experiences in their respective fields naturally led them to develop a deep interest and practice in social anthropology.

The debate concerning how to relate to tribal communities in India was primarily characterized by two opposing viewpoints, largely represented by British administrator anthropologists and Indian nationalists.

The British perspective, championed by administrator anthropologists, viewed the tribes of India as 'primitive' people with distinct cultures separate from Hindus. They feared that these 'simple' tribal populations were susceptible to exploitation and cultural degradation if assimilated into Hindu society. Consequently, they argued for state protection to safeguard the tribes' interests and preserve their way of life.

Conversely, the nationalists, with G.S. Ghurye being a prominent exponent, contended that Indian tribes were not inherently backward but had long been interacting with the broader Hindu society. They believed that assimilation was a natural process experienced by all communities in India, and tribes were merely at a later stage in this process. Nationalists argued that attempts to preserve tribal culture in isolation only contributed to their backwardness and that tribal societies, like Hindu society, required reform.

The fundamental difference between these viewpoints lay in their perception of the impact of mainstream Indian culture on tribal communities and the appropriate approach for their integration or preservation.

Herbert Risley, a proponent of racial classification, argued that caste in India originated from race. He posited that different castes were composed of distinct racial types, with the higher castes supposedly descending from Indo-Aryan races and the lower castes from non-Aryan races. Risley believed that India provided an ideal setting for studying racial evolution due to the strict prohibition of inter-caste marriages, which he thought helped preserve racial purity.

G.S. Ghurye, while acknowledging some partial truth in Risley's arguments, offered a critique. Ghurye suggested that the notion of higher castes being Aryan and lower castes being non-Aryan was primarily applicable to North India. He further pointed out that the strict prohibition of intermixing between different castes was also largely a phenomenon of North India. According to Ghurye, racial purity was more effectively maintained in the North, whereas other regions had experienced considerable mixing among racial groups before the practice of endogamy became widespread.

The social anthropological definition of caste, notably articulated by G.S. Ghurye, is characterized by six key features:

1. Segmental Division: Caste is an institution based on the division of society into distinct and closed segments. Membership in a caste is determined by birth, and individuals born into a particular caste remain in it throughout their lives.
2. Hierarchy: The caste system is structured in a hierarchical order, where each caste is assigned a specific rank or status relative to others, implying inequality among them.
3. Restrictions on Social Interaction: The institution of caste imposes significant restrictions on social interactions. This particularly includes limitations on sharing food and other social exchanges, largely driven by notions of ritual purity and pollution.

These features collectively define the rigid and stratified nature of the caste system as understood in social anthropology.