About the Book
Understanding Indian
Society brings together a collection of writings by eminent scholars across
disciplines that capture the dynamic character of Indian society. The fifteen
essays focus on four vital areas-gender relations, religion, developmental
concerns and social change, and the future of the discipline of sociology.
The volume explores
a wide range of issues as varied as Muslim women's struggle for independence in
a patriarchal society colonial linkages of female foeticide, religious and
communal conflicts, dilemmas of practising medical ethics, participation of the
Patidar diaspora in the
prosperity of the Gujarati Community, among others. Taken together, the
collection demonstrates the analytical richness of current scholarship and
gives fresh insights into the society of India. Commemorating Professor A.M.
Shah's work in the contemporary context, the contributors highlight the major
role he played in the growth of sociology as a discipline.
The book will be of
interest to specialists in gender studies, sociology of family and religion,
medical sociology and development studies. It will also appeal to readers
interested in the complex structure and practices of Indian society.
About the Author
B.S. Baviskar is senior Fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New
Delhi.
Tulsi Patel is Professor of Sociology University of Delhi
Introduction
In an academic career spanning over five
decades, Arvindbhai Manilal
Shah (born 22 August 1931) totally dedicated himself to teaching, research, and
other professional duties. This volume celebrates his varied and valued
contributions while he was, at the same time, a teacher, researcher, and
professional colleague. It contains fourteen essays on various themes,
presented by his students and colleagues, as a modest tribute to him. It ends
in an epilogue written by his close friend, N. R. Sheth,
about 'the man and his work'.
We begin with a brief review of Shah's major
contributions to development of sociology and social anthropology in India. His
contributions may not be dazzling, but they are solid, original, and
fundamental to the growth of the discipline. Given the constraint of space, we
concentrate on his contributions to the study of the family, the caste system,
Hinduism and its sects, village communities, and historical sociology. This
does not mean, however, that his contributions are limited to these fields.
Shah challenged preconceived notions and
popular beliefs about the family in India. To begin with, he criticised the
indiscriminate use of the term 'family' and the tendency to move imperceptibly
from one sense of the word to another. To avoid the confusion thus created, he
suggested a necessary distinction between 'household' and 'family', for
analytical purposes, and provided definitions for both the terms.
In his sustained writings on the family, which
culminated in The Household Dimension
of the Family in India (Shah 1973), Shah challenged several accepted
notions: (i) that, in the past, joint households were
commoner than nuclear households, (ii) that there is an inevitable evolutionary shift
from the former to the latter, (iii) that joint households are characteristic more
of rural rather than urban areas, and (iv) that urbanisation encourages
formation of nuclear households. On the basis of historical as well as
ethnographic data, he rejected the widespread notion that all villagers in
traditional India lived in large and complex households composed of two or more
married brothers. In fact, small and simple households were preponderant, and
even among the complex ones the large majority was composed of parents and one
married son.
Shah accepted the idea that there is some
pattern in the developmental process of a household, for' example, from simple
to complex household and back to simple household following the break up of the complex household. However, this process
was not cyclical in nature as conceived by Meyer Fortes and his associates, who
believed that domestic groups (or households) passed through a set pattern in
their developmental cycle. With convincing data and arguments, he also refuted
the popular assumption that people lived in large joint households in
pre-British India and that joint households were breaking up because of the
impact of industrialisation and urbanisation initiated by British rule.
Shah's work on the family received widespread
appreciation in the scholarly world in India and abroad. His teacher and
lifelong colleague, M. N. Srinivas, said, 'Or Shah's
study is a milestone in the sociological analysis of the Indian family' (Srinivas 1973: xi). In a letter to Shah dated 22 January
1966, Louis Dumont said, 'Your study of the family is very useful. I have
discussed it in a seminar with my students.' Marc Galanter,
a sociologist of law, wrote to him on 17 July 1965, 'Your study of the family
is very enlightening'. The eminent historian Tom Kessinger
wrote a long review article, praising Shah's work. He said, 'The field is
fortunate to have the contribution of A. M. Shah from the outset. An eminent
sociologist with keen historical sense, his papers over the past thirteen years
and his culminating work, The
Household Dimension of the Family in India (1973) have provided for us a
set of carefully refined definitions, a sophisticated conceptual framework, and
a constructive criticism of preceding work which should guide us around the
pitfalls which have plagued the work on the ... family' (Kessinger
1976: 2-8).
Shah's contribution to the understanding of
caste system is equally original and important. In his Division and Hierarchy co-authored with I. P. Desai (Shah and
Desai 1988), who was his teacher and colleague, Shah corrects the tendency
among scholars, including Louis Dumont, to overemphasise the principle of
hierarchy and to ignore the principle of division. Marshalling ethnographic
data on caste from rural as well as urban Gujarat, he highlights these two
basic principles governing the caste system. According to him, division (or
separation) is as important as hierarchy. Division emphasises a sense of being
different and separate rather than being higher or lower. However, there is a
tendency in the literature to emphasise hierarchy as the primary principle.
Caste in urban areas in particular, however) demonstrates division as the
primary principle. Shah's research on caste covered both rural and urban areas
unlike most other studies, which were limited to rural areas. He therefore
pleads for the study of caste in urban areas in order to override the tendency
to generalise about caste on the basis of studies in rural areas alone; the latter
tendency distorts perception and hinders a balanced view. According to him, at
one end, there are castes where the principle of
hierarchy has free play and where the role of the principle of division is
limited. The Rajputs, Kolis
and Bhils in Gujarat are examples of such castes. At
the other end, there are castes where the principle
of division has free play and where the role of the principle of hierarchy is
limited. The Vanias (Banias)
of Gujarat are such an example. Dowry and bride price are characteristics of
the Rajpurs, Kolis and Bhils, where hierarchy is the primary principle; and their
absence is a characteristic of the Vanias, where
division is the primary principle. As Srinivas
stated, 'Shah rightly points out the failure of scholars to take note of urban
caste. Shah tried to fill up this gap'. Srinivas also
noted that hah's account of hypergamy
in Gujarat is one of the best he had come across (Srinivas
1988: xi-xii).
Contents
|
Acknowledgements |
vii |
|
Abbreviations |
ix |
|
Introduction |
1 |
|
PART 1 GENDER
ISSUES |
31 |
1. |
Assertive Voices: The Other Side of Burqa |
33 |
2. |
Heart Beating with Fear and Eyes Filled with Rosy Dreams: Experiences
of Poor Muslim Women in Rural Bangladesh |
58 |
3. |
Towards a Conceptual Understanding of Female Infanticide in Modern
India |
93 |
|
PART 2 SOCIOLOGY
OF RELIGION: |
129 |
|
BELIEF, PERCEPTIONS
AND PRACTICES |
|
4. |
Popular Perceptions of the Role of Catholic Priests |
131 |
5. |
Religious Cover for Political Power: Narratives from People and the
Vernacular Press on the 2002 Riots in Gujarat |
146 |
6. |
This-Wordly Hinduism: A Case Study |
172 |
|
PART 3 DEVELOPMENT
AND MODERNISATION |
185 |
7. |
Grandmothers Hold the Key to Social Change |
187 |
8. |
Cooperatives and Industrialisation in Rural Areas: The Indian
Experience |
202 |
9. |
Patidars as Metaphor of
Indian Diaspora |
220 |
10. |
The Socio-Cultural Context of Informed Consent in Medical Practice |
257 |
|
PART 4 DISCIPLINARY
CONCERNS |
281 |
11. |
Empirical Meaning and Imputed Meaning in the Study of Kinship |
283 |
12. |
Gendering Sociological Practice: A Case Study of Teaching in the
University |
308 |
13. |
Why Are Children's Voices Largley Unheard in
Household Ethnographies? |
331 |
|
Epilogue: A. M. Shah-Man and His Work |
352 |
|
Glossary |
362 |
|
Publications of A. M. Shah |
364 |
|
Contributors |
371 |
|
Index |
373 |
About the Book
Understanding Indian
Society brings together a collection of writings by eminent scholars across
disciplines that capture the dynamic character of Indian society. The fifteen
essays focus on four vital areas-gender relations, religion, developmental
concerns and social change, and the future of the discipline of sociology.
The volume explores
a wide range of issues as varied as Muslim women's struggle for independence in
a patriarchal society colonial linkages of female foeticide, religious and
communal conflicts, dilemmas of practising medical ethics, participation of the
Patidar diaspora in the
prosperity of the Gujarati Community, among others. Taken together, the
collection demonstrates the analytical richness of current scholarship and
gives fresh insights into the society of India. Commemorating Professor A.M.
Shah's work in the contemporary context, the contributors highlight the major
role he played in the growth of sociology as a discipline.
The book will be of
interest to specialists in gender studies, sociology of family and religion,
medical sociology and development studies. It will also appeal to readers
interested in the complex structure and practices of Indian society.
About the Author
B.S. Baviskar is senior Fellow, Institute of Social Sciences, New
Delhi.
Tulsi Patel is Professor of Sociology University of Delhi
Introduction
In an academic career spanning over five
decades, Arvindbhai Manilal
Shah (born 22 August 1931) totally dedicated himself to teaching, research, and
other professional duties. This volume celebrates his varied and valued
contributions while he was, at the same time, a teacher, researcher, and
professional colleague. It contains fourteen essays on various themes,
presented by his students and colleagues, as a modest tribute to him. It ends
in an epilogue written by his close friend, N. R. Sheth,
about 'the man and his work'.
We begin with a brief review of Shah's major
contributions to development of sociology and social anthropology in India. His
contributions may not be dazzling, but they are solid, original, and
fundamental to the growth of the discipline. Given the constraint of space, we
concentrate on his contributions to the study of the family, the caste system,
Hinduism and its sects, village communities, and historical sociology. This
does not mean, however, that his contributions are limited to these fields.
Shah challenged preconceived notions and
popular beliefs about the family in India. To begin with, he criticised the
indiscriminate use of the term 'family' and the tendency to move imperceptibly
from one sense of the word to another. To avoid the confusion thus created, he
suggested a necessary distinction between 'household' and 'family', for
analytical purposes, and provided definitions for both the terms.
In his sustained writings on the family, which
culminated in The Household Dimension
of the Family in India (Shah 1973), Shah challenged several accepted
notions: (i) that, in the past, joint households were
commoner than nuclear households, (ii) that there is an inevitable evolutionary shift
from the former to the latter, (iii) that joint households are characteristic more
of rural rather than urban areas, and (iv) that urbanisation encourages
formation of nuclear households. On the basis of historical as well as
ethnographic data, he rejected the widespread notion that all villagers in
traditional India lived in large and complex households composed of two or more
married brothers. In fact, small and simple households were preponderant, and
even among the complex ones the large majority was composed of parents and one
married son.
Shah accepted the idea that there is some
pattern in the developmental process of a household, for' example, from simple
to complex household and back to simple household following the break up of the complex household. However, this process
was not cyclical in nature as conceived by Meyer Fortes and his associates, who
believed that domestic groups (or households) passed through a set pattern in
their developmental cycle. With convincing data and arguments, he also refuted
the popular assumption that people lived in large joint households in
pre-British India and that joint households were breaking up because of the
impact of industrialisation and urbanisation initiated by British rule.
Shah's work on the family received widespread
appreciation in the scholarly world in India and abroad. His teacher and
lifelong colleague, M. N. Srinivas, said, 'Or Shah's
study is a milestone in the sociological analysis of the Indian family' (Srinivas 1973: xi). In a letter to Shah dated 22 January
1966, Louis Dumont said, 'Your study of the family is very useful. I have
discussed it in a seminar with my students.' Marc Galanter,
a sociologist of law, wrote to him on 17 July 1965, 'Your study of the family
is very enlightening'. The eminent historian Tom Kessinger
wrote a long review article, praising Shah's work. He said, 'The field is
fortunate to have the contribution of A. M. Shah from the outset. An eminent
sociologist with keen historical sense, his papers over the past thirteen years
and his culminating work, The
Household Dimension of the Family in India (1973) have provided for us a
set of carefully refined definitions, a sophisticated conceptual framework, and
a constructive criticism of preceding work which should guide us around the
pitfalls which have plagued the work on the ... family' (Kessinger
1976: 2-8).
Shah's contribution to the understanding of
caste system is equally original and important. In his Division and Hierarchy co-authored with I. P. Desai (Shah and
Desai 1988), who was his teacher and colleague, Shah corrects the tendency
among scholars, including Louis Dumont, to overemphasise the principle of
hierarchy and to ignore the principle of division. Marshalling ethnographic
data on caste from rural as well as urban Gujarat, he highlights these two
basic principles governing the caste system. According to him, division (or
separation) is as important as hierarchy. Division emphasises a sense of being
different and separate rather than being higher or lower. However, there is a
tendency in the literature to emphasise hierarchy as the primary principle.
Caste in urban areas in particular, however) demonstrates division as the
primary principle. Shah's research on caste covered both rural and urban areas
unlike most other studies, which were limited to rural areas. He therefore
pleads for the study of caste in urban areas in order to override the tendency
to generalise about caste on the basis of studies in rural areas alone; the latter
tendency distorts perception and hinders a balanced view. According to him, at
one end, there are castes where the principle of
hierarchy has free play and where the role of the principle of division is
limited. The Rajputs, Kolis
and Bhils in Gujarat are examples of such castes. At
the other end, there are castes where the principle
of division has free play and where the role of the principle of hierarchy is
limited. The Vanias (Banias)
of Gujarat are such an example. Dowry and bride price are characteristics of
the Rajpurs, Kolis and Bhils, where hierarchy is the primary principle; and their
absence is a characteristic of the Vanias, where
division is the primary principle. As Srinivas
stated, 'Shah rightly points out the failure of scholars to take note of urban
caste. Shah tried to fill up this gap'. Srinivas also
noted that hah's account of hypergamy
in Gujarat is one of the best he had come across (Srinivas
1988: xi-xii).
Contents
|
Acknowledgements |
vii |
|
Abbreviations |
ix |
|
Introduction |
1 |
|
PART 1 GENDER
ISSUES |
31 |
1. |
Assertive Voices: The Other Side of Burqa |
33 |
2. |
Heart Beating with Fear and Eyes Filled with Rosy Dreams: Experiences
of Poor Muslim Women in Rural Bangladesh |
58 |
3. |
Towards a Conceptual Understanding of Female Infanticide in Modern
India |
93 |
|
PART 2 SOCIOLOGY
OF RELIGION: |
129 |
|
BELIEF, PERCEPTIONS
AND PRACTICES |
|
4. |
Popular Perceptions of the Role of Catholic Priests |
131 |
5. |
Religious Cover for Political Power: Narratives from People and the
Vernacular Press on the 2002 Riots in Gujarat |
146 |
6. |
This-Wordly Hinduism: A Case Study |
172 |
|
PART 3 DEVELOPMENT
AND MODERNISATION |
185 |
7. |
Grandmothers Hold the Key to Social Change |
187 |
8. |
Cooperatives and Industrialisation in Rural Areas: The Indian
Experience |
202 |
9. |
Patidars as Metaphor of
Indian Diaspora |
220 |
10. |
The Socio-Cultural Context of Informed Consent in Medical Practice |
257 |
|
PART 4 DISCIPLINARY
CONCERNS |
281 |
11. |
Empirical Meaning and Imputed Meaning in the Study of Kinship |
283 |
12. |
Gendering Sociological Practice: A Case Study of Teaching in the
University |
308 |
13. |
Why Are Children's Voices Largley Unheard in
Household Ethnographies? |
331 |
|
Epilogue: A. M. Shah-Man and His Work |
352 |
|
Glossary |
362 |
|
Publications of A. M. Shah |
364 |
|
Contributors |
371 |
|
Index |
373 |