About the Author: Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1893-1984) is a towering figure in intellectual and academic circles for his unique contribution in the field of Indian sociology. He is consider as the ‘father of Indian sociology.’ It was the tragedy of G. S. Ghurye to be overshadowed by one of his own students the modest but brilliant M. N. Srinivas. But the difference was as much in historical moment as in scholarship. Ghurye made his career in preparation British India; subaltern status forged his bitterness. But Ghurye was a great man, author of ten thousand pages on subjects as diverse as caste and costume, Shakespeare and sadhus. Head of department and professor of sociology at the University of Bombay, Ghurye trained 40 PhD’s in a 35-year teaching
…show more content…
In the first two chapters he tried to analyze caste system through textual evidences using ancient texts. The first two chapters identify the basic features of the caste system and analyze the nature of caste groups. These chapters are largely descriptive and consider caste as it was in the 1920s. They are quite frank about the fluctuating nature of caste and find the principal of caste and subcaste in their constraint of social life and cultural patterns, but above all in their prescription of endogamy. Ghurye notes the very loose affiliation of caste with occupation, sect, and other forms of difference, but emphasizes the looseness rather than the …show more content…
He is under no illusions about that system; he knows well that the current “reality” of caste is in large part a creation of the British census. In this insight, he anticipated later critical theorists by half a century. Indeed, it turns out that the British themselves were quite aware of the objectifying power of the census. Among the many British critics of caste-counting, Ghurye singles out L. Middleton, the Punjab census officer in 1921 who noted that many were refusing to give their caste, a refusal that Middleton took to show that Indians were abandoning caste altogether. Ironically, the British insistence on classification reflected in part a desire for data on which to base early forms of affirmative action thereby curing the problem that at least according to Middleton, Ghurye, and others the British were in part themselves creating. Like many later analysts, Ghurye noted that one obvious result of the census was a proliferation of caste associations aiming to change their levels in the hierarchy: aboriginals seeking classification as Hindus, Sikhs worried about under counting, Kolis claiming to be Koli Rajputs, and so on.
Critique: In Caste and Race he nowhere reports for his readers his own caste, and even his autobiography mentions only that he avoided the new caste-advancement associations on grounds of principle. But by identifying those associations, he indirectly but surely quite consciously
In the first two chapters he tried to analyze caste system through textual evidences using ancient texts. The first two chapters identify the basic features of the caste system and analyze the nature of caste groups. These chapters are largely descriptive and consider caste as it was in the 1920s. They are quite frank about the fluctuating nature of caste and find the principal of caste and subcaste in their constraint of social life and cultural patterns, but above all in their prescription of endogamy. Ghurye notes the very loose affiliation of caste with occupation, sect, and other forms of difference, but emphasizes the looseness rather than the …show more content…
He is under no illusions about that system; he knows well that the current “reality” of caste is in large part a creation of the British census. In this insight, he anticipated later critical theorists by half a century. Indeed, it turns out that the British themselves were quite aware of the objectifying power of the census. Among the many British critics of caste-counting, Ghurye singles out L. Middleton, the Punjab census officer in 1921 who noted that many were refusing to give their caste, a refusal that Middleton took to show that Indians were abandoning caste altogether. Ironically, the British insistence on classification reflected in part a desire for data on which to base early forms of affirmative action thereby curing the problem that at least according to Middleton, Ghurye, and others the British were in part themselves creating. Like many later analysts, Ghurye noted that one obvious result of the census was a proliferation of caste associations aiming to change their levels in the hierarchy: aboriginals seeking classification as Hindus, Sikhs worried about under counting, Kolis claiming to be Koli Rajputs, and so on.
Critique: In Caste and Race he nowhere reports for his readers his own caste, and even his autobiography mentions only that he avoided the new caste-advancement associations on grounds of principle. But by identifying those associations, he indirectly but surely quite consciously