Indological Perspective AND Ghurye’S Methodological Approach PDF

Preview

Summary

Indological Perspective AND Ghurye’S Methodological Approach...

Description

INDOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE AND GHURYE’S METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH

Indology: Definition and Meaning:

The science of Indian society is known as indology. The Indological approach claims to be able to comprehend Indian society through the concepts, theories, and frameworks associated with Indian Civilization. It claimed that Indian society is unlike any other in terms of structure, function, and dynamics, and that it cannot be compared to European society. Indology is based on a book's perspective and culture, and it rejects serious empirical research. Indology is both a method of studying Indian society and a separate discipline having Indian society as its focus. Indology is the study of language, beliefs, ideas, conventions, taboos, rules, institutions, rituals, ceremonies, and other cultural elements in both forms. Indology necessitates a multidisciplinary, cross-disciplinary, and interdisciplinary approach. Indology is older than Sociology as well. It dates back to 1784, when it was created by Sir William Jones of Calcutta. Sir William Jones founded the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1987, where he established the two departments of Sanskrit and Indology. It is the start of Indology in India, which has been continued by a number of other scholars.

Indology Scholars:

Because Indology is primarily a textual discipline, many scholars have performed their research using only text. The research done during this time span includes a wide range of topics, including social structure and relationships, cultural values, kinship, ideology, cultural transactions, and life and world symbolism, among others. Many academics, including Bernett (1976), David (1973), Fruzzetti and Oslor (1976), Inden and Nicholas (1972),

Khare (1975, 1976), Murray (1971, 1973), Marriott (1979), Pocock (1985), Eck (1985), have performed text-based investigations. The majority of these studies are based on literary resources derived from epics, stories, and myths, as well as folklore and other cultural symbols. The majority of these were published in T.N. Madan's "Contributing to Indian Sociology" (New Series). Indological Perspective owes its origins to the contributions of Orientalists such as William Jones, Henery Maine, and Max Muller, among others. They have made significant contributions to the evolution of society, and it is as a result of their efforts that the Indological Perspective has emerged. All of them have based their research on India's rich cultural past as well as the principles that govern the country and the Hindu laws. As a result, they were dubbed "Indologists." Indology has inspired many of the founding fathers of Indian sociology. B.K. Sarkar, G.S. Ghurye, R.K. Mukherjee, K.M. Kapadia, Irawati Karve, P.H. Prabhu, and Louis Dumont are among the numerous scholars.

Orientalism and Indology:

There is a bifurcation of two topics within Indology. That is Indology, sometimes known as Indian or Indian studies, and Oriental studies. They have certain similarities and differences in common. Indology is a friendly and favourable portrayal of East Asian non-European society, especially Indian civilization and culture. Orientalism portrays Indian society in a negative and unsympathetic light.

Indology is regarded to be a labour of love for Indian wisdom by westerners. And the British Empire's ideological requirement for Orientalism arose. Indologists such as Jones, Louis Renou, and Bougle in France, and Wilson in British India, are well-known, while Orientalists such as Muller, William Archard, Max Weber, and Karl Marx are well-known. Indologists have a tendency to overstate the virtues of Indian culture, whereas Orientalists try to

legitimise missionary operations and colonial legacy by pointing out the negative aspects of Indian heritage. Indologists exaggerated Indian spirituality while downplaying materialistic culture, whilst Orientalists did the opposite, undermining spirituality while exaggerating materialistic culture. The Oriental Institute at Baroda, founded in 1893 by Maharaja of Baroda, was India's second most prominent Indological centre. The institute's main goal was to establish a well-stocked library of rare and unpublished manuscripts as well as reference materials on Oriental and Indological studies.

Ghurye's methodological approach:

Two techniques to describing Ghurye can be approximated. To begin, break Ghurye's text into a number of broad themes and study each of these items separately.

demonstrating Ghurye's discussion on institutions and processes As the following lesson will demonstrate, a thematic analysis of Ghurye's writing is a must in order to correctly judge him. Despite some of the interesting detours, in fact. His significant works have been organised into themes. In the body of this unit, caste, tribes, family and kinship, culture and civilization, religious institutions, social tensions, and so on have all been examined separately. An attempt was also made to explain not just Ghurye's writings, but also to provide a critical appraisal of them in light of contemporary sociological thinking and research. Clearly, the present author sought to be as analytical as possible in accepting or refuting Ghurye's contributions.

Second, it is equally necessary to consider whether Ghurye's writings can be split into periods. Ghurye was a prolific writer who had been writing for almost sixty years, thus the question is essential. We are aware of writers who have altered their minds and even approaches during the course of their careers.

Hardel Laski, for example, had a keen, analytical, and responsive mind, and one must study the many stages of his life in order to analyse his thinking.

Caste in India:

Ghurye has a comparative, historical, and Indological understanding of caste. Unlike his contemporaries, he does not praise or condemn caste, but rather sees it as a product of Indian culture that evolves over time. As a result, it is a topic of sociological interest. Ghurye is more of a diffusionist and historian than an Indologist when it comes to caste. He agrees with Sir Herbert Risley in his book "Caste and Race in India" that caste is a product of race that arrives to India with the Aryans. Ghurye thinks it's sad that the caste system is usually associated with Brahminic dominance. Throughout Indian history, caste has undergone various forms of fusion and fission. Caste was a product of race throughout the Vedic period. Aryans were recognised from non-Aryans solely by their skin colour, but as time passed, diverse ethnic groups formed alliances/relationships with one another, and Hindu culture and values spread from Aryan to non-Aryan populations. Aryans never identified themselves as Brahmins or as a race superior to non-Brahmins. Distinct types of jobs were practised by Aryan culture, which were assigned to different persons and households. Caste names were assigned to distinct groups based on their occupation. As a result, the Aryan society included architects, peasants, soldiers, and artisans, and it was highly disciplined, ordered, and progressive. According to Ghurye, caste may have evolved in India with the arrival of Aryans, whose racial character differed from that of Indians. However, previous to the arrival of the Aryans, India had a variety of ethnic groups. There was no single racial group that called India home. The arrival of the Aryans added another race to the mix. Caste was not an exploitative hierarchical system. Aryans brought with them a caste structure that encouraged discipline in their lives and allowed them to specialise in specific occupations. There was no superior or inferior caste. It was

possible to change occupations. As a result, Aryans evolved into highly specialised and indigenous people. People looked to the Aryans for advancement. As a result, they began to incorporate these themes into their daily lives. The Brahmins, who praised the Aryan civilization, taught rulers the qualities of Aryans. These itinerant saints disseminated the concept of caste among non-Aryans. In Aryan society, caste was regarded fundamental to an organised kind of division of labour, according to Ghurye. The disciplined nature of Aryan culture was admired by indigenous rulers who infused the elements of caste into their social life when Aryans and indigenous communities created interpersonal relationships through communication and warfare. Priests, monasteries, and visitors also extolled the benefits of the Aryan caste system. As a result, the caste system spread from northern India to the rest of the country.

Characteristics of Caste:

Ghurye defines caste in India using six distinguishing characteristics:

• The dividing of society into segments;

• Hierarchy;

• Disabilities and privileges in civil and religious matters;

• A lack of unrestricted career options;

• Food, alcohol, and social interaction are restricted;

• Endogamy.

The society is divided into segments:

The division of the population into groups is known as segmentation. It is primarily horizontal in nature. It causes social clustering but not labelling. Membership is attributed in character, which means it is determined by birth and passed down from generation to generation. Every member has a predetermined status, position, and job based on their membership. They must carry out their responsibilities in accordance with the roles they have been allocated. These jobs have moral ethics, obligations, and justification value.

Hierarchy:

It is the second most important feature of caste that penetrates Hindu social order and Indian society. After the society's segmental divisions are placed in a pyramidical framework, it is referred to as hierarchy. The positioning of social segments in the hierarchy t in layer is determined by cultural ideals such as purity and contamination, prioritisation of certain groups, and societal preferences. The segment layering is primarily vertical in nature. This caste hierarchy is in charge of defining access and preventing caste, as well as becoming the key consideration for role distribution, responsibility sharing, and the implementation of restrictive norms. Caste rules are determined by hierarchy.

According to Ghurye, hierarchy is the most important factor to consider while deciding on all of the aforementioned criteria. It essentially refers to the division of labour. Religious, government, maintenance, and menial activities are the four sorts of activities that make up society. Religious activities are accorded the highest priority in society among all of these activities. As a result, Brahmins

are entrusted with this task. Governance is the second important activity, which is managing the state craft and safeguarding the populace from external assault. It is given to Khatriyas in this way. The Vaishyas are in charge of the management activities, which include generating sustenance for the society. And menial labour, despite being an important element of society, is given the lowest priority and assigned to the shudras. As a result, the roles are determined by the hierarchy. The larger the role and the greater the responsibility, the higher the position in the hierarchy. Individual access to life opportunities (education, health, nutrition) and resources is also determined by hierarchy (wealth, power, property). The easier it is to gain access the higher up one's caste system one is, and vice versa. In the caste system, the concept of distributing justice was never prominent, but it was always disregarded. The caste rights are determined by the preferential caste position rather than the creative effort. In caste society, rights were never asked, but were preferentially imposed on particular castes. The higher castes were more likely to be affected, whereas the lower castes were less likely to be affected. Restrictive rules have a hierarchical feel to them. Every caste had its own distinct culture. It creates its own set of rules to govern its members' actions, behaviour, attitudes, and perceptions. Restrictive laws had inter-caste and intracaste repercussions in general. In terms of taboos, the Shudras were subjected to more stringent rules. Restrictive laws lacked rigidity and did not apply to those in the middle of the hierarchy, such as Khatriyas and Vaishyas, but restrictive rules were re-enforced for the higher castes, such as Brahmins.

Disabilities in civil and religious matters:

The caste system's rigidity was manifested through civil and religious disabilities. Ghurye observed and sensed the broad reflection of Hindu social life through such impairments. The infirmities were widespread among castes in various sections of the country, but the caste groups included in it were not, and there were differences. The theme of purity and defilement underpins both civil and religious infirmities. Privileges were for pure/higher castes, whereas disabilities were for impure and filthy castes.

Lack of unfettered occupational choice:

Heredity has determined the jobs. In most cases, they have been denied the opportunity to shift their customary vocations. Members of a caste retain their superiority and secrecy in their jobs, refusing to allow members of other castes to participate. The upper castes, such as Brahmins, are free to study religious books, whilst the lower castes are not allowed to do so. Lower-level tasks, such as sweeping bathrooms, washing clothes, and scavenging, have been placed in an untouchable category.

Food, alcohol, and social interaction are all restricted:

All castes have been subjected to some rules. Feeding restrictions and social contact restrictions are still prominent in Indian society. There are two sorts of food: Kachha (cooked) and Pakka (raw) food, both of which have significant limits on sharing, such as: • Caste groups from whom twice born caste individuals can take Kachha food;

• Caste group from which Pakka cuisine can be accepted by twice-born caste people;

• Caste groupings in which people born twice can accept water but not food;

• Caste groupings in which twice-born caste people refuse to drink or eat and maintain a safe distance.

Endogamy:

The Indian caste system is also polarised, as endogamy is essentially defined by caste. People can only marry inside their caste. Disobedience to the caste system is not only considered a crime, but also a sin. The caste panchayat not only condemns inter-caste marriages, but also punishes people who violate the regulations....