G.S. Ghurye
Ghurye is credited with developing the first line of sociologists in independent India. M. N. Srinivas has called him a giant. Ghurye’s Sociology Govind Sadashiv Ghurye was the pioneer of Indian sociology. Some thinkers are of the opinion that he was the father of sociology in this country. Patrick Gais was the first teacher of sociology at Bombay University, after that Ghurye took over the reins of teaching sociology. He has written a lot in this genre. His handwriting is filled in many pages. The name of Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (G.S. Dhurye: G.S.Ghurye) is at the first level among Indian sociological thinkers. He is credited with establishing an institutionalized form of sociology in India. He first headed the Department of Sociology at the University of Bombay at the postgraduate level and worked in this department for 35 years.
Notwithstanding this, Ghurye should be an undisputed sociological thinker. Whatever has been written about him is not very clear. He has been praised a lot in many places and he has also been called eccentric. Instead of establishing sociology as a scientific epistemology, it has been his attempt to make it Hindu sociology. He was the pioneer of ‘Bharat Vidya’
G S-Ghurye was born on December 12, 1893 in the small town of ‘Malvan’ in the western Konkan coastal region of India. His family was initially a prosperous businessman, but later it declined. According to his family tradition, he started acquiring knowledge of Sanskrit with his early education. He went to Junagadh, Gujarat for his 10th class studies. In 1913, he took admission in Elphiston College, Mumbai. Graduated in Sanskrit Hons. He took a master’s degree in Sanskrit and English from this college in 1918. In 1919, he was selected for a scholarship for training abroad in the subject of sociology. Initially the leading sociologist of his time, L. Taught at the London School of Economics by T-Hobhouse. Later taught at Cambridge by W and Rivers Khiri. Influenced by Reverse’s expansionist approach. In 1923, under the direction of S-C-Haydon, P-H. D . Has received the title of . Return to Mumbai in May 1923. ‘Caste and Race in India’ P-H. D . A series of books on the manuscript was accepted for publication at Cambridge. In 1924, after working for a short time in Calcutta, he was appointed as Reader and Head of the Department at Bombay University. There he was associated with teaching and research work for 35 years. In 1934 he was made Professor of Sociology. In 1936 he was headed by P-H in the Department of Sociology at Bombay University. D . degree was started. First Ph.H. in Sociology in Indian University under the direction of Ghurya. D . Degree G. R . presented to the principal. In 1945, a full-time course in sociology was started under his guidance.
The Indian Sociological Society was founded by Dhurya in 1951. He became its founding president. The Indian Sociological Society ‘ started its journal ‘ Sociological Bulletin ‘ in 1952 , till now Ghurye retired from university service in 1959 . But remained active in academic life. Ghurya died in 1983 at the age of 90, mainly publishing 30 books in 17 books he wrote after his retirement. Ghurye was a master of multidimensional talent. Under his direction many M. N. Srinivas, I. P . Desai, KM – Kapadia, A. R . Desai and Bai. b. Damne Adi – became recognized as the sociologist of India. He was also the President of the Anthropological Society of Bombay from 1945-50. Ghurye founded the ‘Indian Sociological Society’ and under its auspices started the publication of a magazine called ‘Sociological Bulletin’ in 1952, which is one of the leading sociological journals not only in India but in the world today. . He continued to serve as its first president till 1966. There is a long list of Ghurye’s works
Books
Caste and Race in India ( 1932 ) :
Sex Habits of Middle Class People (1938) ;
The Aborigines – ‘ So – called ‘ and Their Future ( 1943 ) ;
Culture and Society ( 1945 ) ;
After a Century and a Quarter ( 1960 ) ;
Caste, Class and Occupation (1961);
The Indian Sadhus (1964) ;
Social Tensions in India (1968);
Family and Kin in Indo – European Culture ( 1962 ) ;
Cities and Civilization (1962) ;
Anatomy of a Rururban Community ( 1963 ) ;
The Scheduled Tribes ( 1963 ) ;
The Mahadev Kolis ( 1963 ) ;
Whither India (1974) ;
India Recreates Democracy (1978) ;
Vedic India (1979); And
The Burning Caldron of the North – East (1980).
A new ideology came in the 20th century on Indian civilization. It was said that this civilization was the best in the whole world. Aryans were the origin of this civilization. It was said that everything in Western civilization has been borrowed from India. In the 1830s, Romil Thapar said that the Vedas should be regarded as the source of complete knowledge.
came to be called dar. Noted social reformers such as Ram Mohan Roy have repeatedly said in their texts that Indian Sanskrit texts are the heritage of our culture. We have a lot to learn from them. These were the reformers who popularized the Gita and Ramayana. The ideology that emerged in India in the 1930s was that of cultural nationalism. This nationalism was based on the Vedas. In this era it was said that the culture of India is Vedic culture, Indian philosophy is Vedanta, and Indian religion is Hinduism.
The following ideology was very influential in the country till the 19th and early 20th century
After the arrival of the Aryans in India, history took a very important turn. The struggle started between the Aryans and the Dasas.
2 Differences emerged between Hindus and Muslims regarding language, religion and race.
3 The Aryan race and the Hindu race came to be considered synonymous. The Brahmins and the upper castes came to be kept in the same category among the Hindu castes. The interesting thing is that Sanskrit texts have been the basic basis of what Ghurya has written. He was an advocate of the Vedas. He has given the highest position to Brahmins in the caste system. After writing all this, he never opposed the choice of the prevailing history. He was a traditionalist thinker.
Ghurye’s writings are considered to be based mainly on the following six broad focal points:
(1) Caste,
(2) tribe,
(3) Kinship, family and marriage,
(4) Culture, civilization and historical role of cities,
(5) religion and
(6) Sociology of conflict and integration.
Ghurye believed that though groups play an integrated role in the society, the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Muslims as minority groups and linguistic minorities also pose a threat to national integration due to excessive attachment to their group. give.
Views of Ghruye on Race and Caste
Yes . s . Dhurye’s fame was done by him at Cambridge. H. D . Based on the dissertation of . Which was later published in the name of ‘Cast Aid Race in India’ in 1932. In this book, he criticized the prevailing theories on the relationship of caste and race in detail. The popular thinker of that period was Herbert Risley. According to them the division of man has been divided into different species on the basis of his physical characteristics – the width of the skull, the length of the nose and the weight of the cranium etc. Risley believed that caste must have originated from a species, because different caste groups seem to belong to a particular species. Generally, the higher castes are similar to the Aryan race, while the lower castes have the characteristics of non-Aryan tribes, Mongols and other races. Risley and others believed that only the lower castes were the original inhabitants of India. They were suppressed by the Aryans, who had come from outside and settled in India. Ghurye partly agreed with Risley’s arguments. Ghurye said that in Risley’s research, the upper castes have been described as Aryans and the lower castes are non-Aryans. This is true only for northern India. Not for other parts of India. In most of India, except in the Indus-Gangetic plain, there was a long association of different ethnic groups among themselves. Thus, racial purity survived only in North India, as intermarriage was prohibited there. In the rest of India, endogamy (marriage within a particular caste) was practiced in those classes which were similarly different at the ethnic level. When Ghurye was writing on this subject, his writings attracted people towards him. G-S-Ghurye is also known for giving a detailed definition of caste. He has discussed the characteristics of caste, on the basis of which it is said to be more useful to understand caste. These features are the following
(1) Segmental Division of Society:
The caste system divides the society into certain segments. The status, position and functions of the members of each block are determined by birth and have a sense of community. It is a moral duty to follow the caste rule.
(2) Hierarchy :
Within the caste system, the status of each caste is higher or lower than each other. The Brahmins are at the top of this strata and the untouchable castes at the bottom. There are many castes between these two ends. Not only this, within a caste there are many sub-castes and among them there is a hierarchy of high and low.
(3) Restrictions on Food and Social Intercourse:
In the caste system, there are restrictions related to food, drink, social interaction and social contact. Often the people of one caste do not accept food from the hands of the lower castes. Along with this, many restrictions are seen related to raw and cooked food. Similarly, the feeling of untouchability is found in the context of social interaction and interaction.
(4) Social and Religious Disabilities:
In the caste system, a special difference is seen in rights and facilities. On the one hand, the upper castes got special facilities and rights in social, economic, religious and political fields, while on the other hand the lower and untouchable castes were denied even public facilities and rights. many of them
was declared disqualified.
(5) Hereditary Nature of occupation:
The occupation of a person is determined on the basis of caste system. The caste in which a person is born has to follow the occupation of that caste. The caste system does not allow the members of each caste to take up occupations other than the traditional occupation.
( 6) Endogamous :
According to the caste system, the members of the caste can establish marriage relations in their own caste or sub-caste. Often no one dares to violate this rule. Westermark has considered this feature as ‘the essence of the caste-system’. The endogamy rule is still found in the castes. Thus, on the basis of the above description, it becomes clear that the main and obvious basis of Indian social stratification was the caste system. That is why caste was considered as a system. Here the pace of change has accelerated for about 40 years, as a result, the above characteristics of the caste system are changing.
Ghurye – a nationalist
A phrase is used a lot in today’s politics. Those people who want to develop the country as a nation-state, often talk of cultural nationality that the cultures of this country should be one, not many. And this is a culture Hindu culture or Hindu religion. Ghurye says in his book Caste and Race in India that there is such a combination of race, language and culture in India which tells the civilization here. These ideas of Ghurye are very evident in Social Tensions in India, Vedic India and the Banning Castration of North-East India. It is true that Ghurye wanted to make India a unified country.
Ghurye’s opinion There are many types of riots in this regard, the demand for a separate state is increasing continuously and it was like this –
Ghurya did not believe in the secular policy accepted by the government or by Nehru.
2 Multiple societies cannot be created in this country.
National integration is possible only when the citizens of the country accept the same values.
Ghurye said that national integration is possible only when there is social and political integration in the country. Like a nationalist, Ghurye categorically states that Muslims are the main cause of partition in this country. This is because the Muslims could not assimilate themselves into the Hindu culture even after a very long period of their coming to India. Even today the relation between these two communities is not cordial. Pillai says that the reason for the lack of harmony is the inconsistency in their religious practice.
Ghurye was a supporter of national integration. In his view this integration in India can be brought about by the following method:
– 1 Ghurye believes that the first step of Indian national integration should be that we should take various religious groups and backward groups into the mainstream of Hindu society. He kept this ideology in one of his articles.
and their Assimilation in Hindu Society).
2 Ghurye was against the new incarnation of castes seen in contemporary India. In this context, he criticizes Risley, saying that he did a great wrong by getting the castes enrolled in the census. Castes are divisive in national integration, it is necessary to ban castes for integration.
Ghurye had a strong belief that cultural homogeneity was essential for national integration. That is why he was against caste assembly, reservation and caste based movements. All these are attentive to the process of integration.
Ghurye’s Indology
Sociology started in Asia first in India and then in Japan. Patrick Ghurye was the Head of the Department in the University of Bombay. His students include many eminent sociologists. The names of some of these are notable – M.N. Srinivas, K.M. Kapadia, A.R. Desai, IP Desai, Y. V . Dayale, Mrs. Jalu and K.C. Panchandikar, N.S.A. Rao Vilas, Sangwe Dhirendra Narayan Gopal Singh Nepali, M.G. Kulkarni and A. Bopegame | Although Ghurye’s students were free to have their own ideology, they did not impose anything on anyone. Nevertheless, it is a matter of understanding that Ghurye’s ideology had an impact on these students directly or indirectly. a R. Desai, who is considered a Marxist thinker, was perhaps an exception to the Ghurye ideology.
Ghurye was a nationalist
, They wanted to make this country a nation-state. But his nationalism was of a different kind. He wanted Hindu, Jain, Buddhist and Sikh cultures to be united, and such cultural unity would give the country the status of a nation-state. Some political parties of India are also disseminating the description of the nationalist culture that Ghurya has given. For these parties, cultural unity is more important than political unity, and clearly, this cultural unity would in fact be the unity of the Hindu castes. The ideology of Dhurya on the Muslim margins is centered on the culture of Brahmins or Aryans. They consider Muslims to be completely separate from Hindus. Their religion is different, dates and festivals are different and their thinking is also different. in national unity
The only option left for the Muslims is that they should merge themselves with the Hindus.
In view of Sanskrit Ghurye
Sanskrit language was a storehouse of infinite knowledge. All the knowledge of the world was contained in Sanskrit. Risley and Hutton had firmly stated that whatever knowledge the colonialists had about Indian society, it was given by Brahmins. It is also true that whatever British anthropologists have written about India has been given by brahmins.
The result of Dhruya’s study is that the guiding principle of Indian society is religion. And this religion is brahmin religion. Indian society is organized on the basis of this religion. In his book Vedic India, Dhuye describes the socio-cultural features of the Indian society with reference to the Indo-Aryan people. Thus in his view the Aryan culture – whether from India or outside, has many similarities. The similarities of culture and language make the Aryans an ethnic group. Ghurye has kept the history of Indian culture in many of his books, he concludes that whatever Indian society is today, its root lies in Vedic literature and Sanskrit texts. They also tell that the origin of religion, language, family, caste, customs in this society is related to Sanskrit texts, Brahmins and Hindu rules. “It is certain that the book Andar composed by Ghurye is very vast. It has a lot to offer to the Indian society. But there should be no shortage in these books, it is not so. Some shortcomings are going to be knocked out. He wrote books influenced by Sanskrit literature. It is nowhere told what was the economic condition of the people of that era. What was the food and drink of the people. How did the common man and the poor Gurbani lead a life. And further how was the relation of the king with the subjects. It seems to be Sanskrit. In the language dominated Indian society, Brahmins and their religion were the idiom of the whole life. How would any secular nation-state accept Ghurya as a thinker. And the sociology that Ghurye has created, how will people embrace it .
Sociology of Indian Civilization
Whatever Ghurya has written, the center of it is of Indian civilization. This civilization has formed the Indian society. He has understood this civilization through Sanskrit texts. He says that the culture of Indian civilization has been influenced by external processes as well. Giving details of the rituals related to death, he says that the rituals may have come from the civilization of Miss. Srinivas has said at one place that Ghurye was under the influence of diffusionism till the 1040s. This diffusionism can be clearly seen in his book Family and kin in Indo European culture, 1955. Here he tries to look at the family in terms of fraternity. They take the patterns of behavior of the members from the Indo-Aryan, Greek and Latin cultures. Ghurye’s interest is found in many places in the history of civilization. In his first book ‘Culture and Society’ (Culture and Society, 1947), he makes reference to Britain and says that during the period 1800-1930, this country made many efforts for the formation of nation-state. Here he explains the difference between culture and civilization and says that both are part of the same phenomenon. They should not be treated separately. In his words, culture is civilization and a person inculcates it in his mind and behaviour. Anthropologists by tradition consider culture to be absolute – culture is neither big nor small. It cannot be said that Indian culture is bigger than American culture. Culture is culture. Each group considers its own culture to be great. Ghurye departs from the tradition of anthropology and takes culture in a smaller and larger sense.
“Caste and Race”
The species has been discussed in detail in the first edition of the book. At this time Risley’s book on species had arrived. Risley raised the issue of race with caste. In fact his discourse was a species of caste. If seen, the ethnographic studies that followed in India in the 20th century were centered on ethnic considerations in anthropology. Now anthropologists began to classify species on the basis of physical characteristics and language. Physical symptoms include blood group, skull density, length and width of nose, eye texture, skin colour, height etc. The scholars of anthropology divided the entire species into species. Risley was the director of the Indian ethnographic mind and for the first time looked at castes in a racial context. Ghurye rejected Risley. He again looked at the data from the study of anthropology and said that the status of species in stratification did not fit with the record of the species. The physical characteristics of Brahmins are similar to those of many other castes. Ghurye rejected the basis of the design of the nose for the species classification that Risley had made. Despite all this, Ghurye’s conclusion cannot be said clearly, he could not explain the pomegranate of race, language and culture. The influence of many types of social change processes can be seen on Ghurye’s ideology. He was a diffusionist and the reverse was his guide at this stage. Ghurye civilizations were defined according to the kind of intellectual stage that was in the 20th century.
wanted to explain. He tried to see Indian civilization in terms of caste and race. Overall, he used to see the world (Egypt and China) but his eyes were fixed on India i.e. cultural nationality.
He has kept this ideology of his in many books. Chief among these books are – ‘ Family and kin in Indo – European Culture ‘ ( Family and kin in Indo – European Culture , 1955 ) ” Two Brahmanical Institutions ( Gotra and Charana , 1972 ) Vedic India ( Vedic India , 1979 ) Apart from these books, there are many other books of Ghurye.In all this he has considered the following aspects of Indian culture –
Knowledge of traditional Hindu or Brahmin castes
2 Religious practices
3 Social Organization and Gautra and Charan
4 law
Dhurve has discussed the above cultural aspects on the basis of Sanskrit texts, in this connection he discusses caste, dress, religion and sexuality. Somewhere they also tell the fact that how this culture of Vedic period is maintaining its continuity even today. Gotra is actually promiscuous marriage. Ghurye traces the best, history and extent of the gotra on the basis of Sanskrit texts and establishes that the practice of this practice today is due to the Aryans. This practice is going on since Vedic times. Like the gotra, Ghurye traces the description of many other customs and customs from Vedic culture. He says about Parihar that the joint family system in India has its origin from the Indo-Aryan culture. The custom of ancestor worship in the gotra system, they have found it in the memories. Ghurye in his full description says that these practices should be understood in the context of religious Sanskrit texts. With this we will get to see these practices at their core.
In many of his studies he used cutting edge survey-method and statistical techniques (Study of Sex Habits, 1938) and field-work method in the study of ‘Mahadev Koli people’ (1963) Roots of empiricist tradition in Indian sociology and social anthropology. has strengthened. The basis of most of Ghurye’s sociological studies is not only all India but also the context of Indian civilizational relation. He made distinctions between castes and tribes on the basis of Indian cultural and linguistic. For the study of social structure and change, he has used various nouns and concepts which are taken from ancient Indian history and epics. For example, he has also used this method in relation to rural and urban studies. In the sociological works of Ghurye from the beginning to the end, Indology has been used and analyzed in a balanced manner.
Sex Habits of Middle Class People in Bombay ( 1938 )
He used field surveys for his book Sex Habits of Middle Class People in Bombay (1938). Similarly, his monograph Mahadev Kolis (1963) was also based on a field survey rather than a bookish perspective. Therefore, it can be said that Ghurye, in his studies, did not limit himself to Indological and bookish perspective by adopting inductive-empirical and historical-comparative methods and proved that he was ‘ Theoretical were ‘pluralists’ and did not consider a single perspective suitable for understanding the reality of Indian society. A glimpse of structural-functional perspective can also be seen in his analysis. Srinivas and Panini have rightly written that although Ghurye was in favor of field work, he himself was a scholar working in a comfortable chair. Therefore, despite being trained in Indology, he was not opposed to field work.
Society Tensions in India
He has presented a historical comparative study of stress in his book ‘Social Tensions in India’. In his work ‘Cities and Civilization’, he has mentioned the natural history of cities, the history of cities in America and England, the condition and growth of cities in India, the form of city capitals and the form of huge cities.
Caste , Class and Occupation
Ghurye in his book ‘Caste, Class and Occupation’ has described the characteristics, forms of caste system, caste, race and caste in different eras, elements of castes outside India, origin of caste, scheduled castes, occupation and caste, functions of class and The future of caste etc. has been discussed.
The Scheduled Tribes
In his book ‘The Scheduled Tribes’, Ghurye has discussed in detail the problems of the tribes of India and their solutions. Along with this, he has also presented complete details about the social organization, family, marriage, kinship and religion etc. of some Indian tribes.
Ghurye’s Indological perspective has been used by many of his disciples; For example, K. M. Kapadia used this method in the context of marriage and family in India and A. R. Desai in the analysis of Indian nationalism. Thus we see that Ghurye studied the origin, development and formation of social institutions by using Indology under the historical comparative method.
He has expressed his opinion on problems like conversion.
Ghurye’s criticism
Ghurye has been a top-notch nationalist and advocates this. To make a nation, we should re-establish the Vedic culture. According to this ideology the non-Hindu groups of the country are meaningless. Their existence is on the margins. If we look a little liberally, it has to be said that in the kind of ideology or knowledge that was being created during the colonial period, it was in our interest to tell the greatness of Indian civilization. We wanted to tell the British that our Sanskrit literature is great, our religion is high, and our heritage is our religion. At that time when Ghurye was there, in fact that was our antiquarian ideology. During the colonial period, antiquarianism was our national approach and Ghurye has revived this antiquity. In this sense, he was the father of sociology, a thinker. But the sociological literature and ideology that is emerging in the recent times strongly criticizes Ghurye. If we look at the stream of modern and post-modern sociology, it will become clear that this literature is for the poor, the backward and the underprivileged. Now short stories are predominant in this literature. The Sanskrit language was imposed on the student according to the three language formula. Now this language is not the language of the common man.