Page 2 of 4 प्रथमप्रथम 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: samaj shastri

  1. #11
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    गोविन्द सदाशिव घुर्ये (1893-1983)


    1919 में मुंबई विश्वविद्यालय में पेट्रिक गिडिंस ने समाजशास्त्र विभाग की स्थापना की उसके बाद विभागअध्यक्ष बनने वाले जी.एस.घुर्ये प्रथम भारतीय विद्वान थे इसीलिए इनको भारतीय समाजशास्त्र का पिता कहा जाता है
    जी.एस.घुर्ये इंडियन सोशलॉजीकल सोसाइटी,1952 मुंबई संस्था द्वारा प्रकाशित पत्रिका सोशलॉजीकल बुलेटिन के प्रधान संपादक थे
    जी.एस.घुर्ये ने शेक्सपियर से लेकर साधुओं पर कला, नृत्य, वेशभूषा तथा वास्तु शास्त्र से लेकर लोक देवी-देवताओं पर, सेक्स तथा विवाह से लेकर प्रजाति जैसे अनेक विषयों पर लिखा है
    जी.एस.घुर्ये के अध्ययनों में अधिकांश क्यों और क्या के दो प्रश्नों की विवेचना की गई साथ ही प्रसारवादी परिप्रेक्ष के साथ भारत विद्याशास्त्र (इंडोलॉजी) उपागम का प्रयोग किया हैं
    जी.एस.घुर्ये ने जाति की उत्पत्ति के प्रजातीय सिद्धांत का समर्थन करते हुए हिंदू जनसंख्या को शारीरिक विशेषताओं के आधार पर 6 भागों में बांटा है
    इंडोआर्यन
    पूर्व द्रविड़
    द्रविड़
    पश्चिमी द्रविड़
    मुंडा
    मंगोलियन
    जी.एस.घुर्ये ने जाति के उद्भव के बारे में कहा की जाति प्रणाली इंडो आर्यन संस्कृति के ब्राह्मणों का शिशु है जिसका पालन पोषण गंगा के मैदान में हुआ और वहां से इसे देश के दूसरे भागों में लाया गया
    जी.एस.घुर्ये ने जाती की 6 विशेषताओं का वर्णन किया है
    समाज का खण्डनात्मक विभाजन
    संस्करण
    खान-पान और सामाजिक व्यवहार पर प्रतिबंध
    जातियों की धार्मिक निर्योग्यतायें तथा विशेषाधिकार
    व्यवसाय के स्वतंत्र चुनाव का अभाव
    अंतरजातीय विवाह पर प्रतिबंध
    जी.एस.घुर्ये ने अपनी पुस्तक The schedule tribe में जनजातियों को पिछड़े हिंदू कहकर संबोधित किया आपने लिखा कि भारतीय संविधान समाज में जनजातियों को पिछड़ी हुई जातियाँ मानता है न की चिड़ियाघर की चिड़िया जी.एस.घुर्ये ने भारतीय समाज के साथ इनके एकीकरण पर जोर दिया
    भारतीय जनजातियों की समस्याओं के समाधान के रूप में वैरियर एल्विन ने नेशनल पार्क की नीति के विपरीत आत्मसात की नीति का प्रस्ताव किया
    जी.एस.घुर्ये ने महाराष्ट्र की कोली जनजाति का अध्यन किया जो इनकी पुस्तक महादेव कोलिस 1963 में प्रकाशितहुई
    धर्म के समाजशास्त्र के अध्ययन में जी.एस.घुर्ये ने धार्मिक विश्वास, कर्मकांड, संस्कार तथा भारतीय परंपरा में साधु की भूमिका पर प्रकाश डाला इस संबंध में आपकी पुस्तक इंडियन साधुज1964 उल्लेखनीय है इस पुस्तक में आपने सन्यास की दोहरी भूमिका की समीक्षा की और बताया कि सन्यास भूतकाल का एकमात्र अवशेष नहीं है बल्कि हिंदू धर्म का एक प्राणभूत तत्व है
    जी.एस.घुर्ये ने राजनीतिक समाजशास्त्र विषय पर भारत में सामाजिक तनाव 1968 नामक पुस्तक लिखी इस पुस्तक में हिंदू और मुस्लिम संस्कृति तथा संबंधों की मध्यकालीन से लेकर वर्तमान काल तक की समीक्षा की गई है
    जी.एस.घुर्ये की प्रमुख पुस्तकें-
    कास्ट एंड रेस इन इंडिया,1932
    कल्चर एंड सोसाइटी,1945
    कास्ट क्लास एंड ऑक्यूपेशन,1961
    सिटिज एंड सिविलाइज़ेशन,1962
    वाईदर इंडिया,1974
    वैदिक इंडिया,1979
    दि महादेव कोलिस,1963
    दि इंडियन साधुज,1964
    दि शिड्यूल ट्राइब,1963
    सोशल टेंशन इन इंडिया,1968



    In brief, it may be said that Ghurye’s approach to ‘rural-urbanization’ reflects the indigenous source of urbanism. During colonial times, the growth of metropolitan centres altered the Indian life. The towns and cities were no longer the outlets for agricultural produce and handicrafts but they became the major manufacturing centres.

    These centres used rural areas for producing raw materials and turned into a market for selling industrial products. Thus, the metropolitan economy emerged to dominate the village economy. Therefore, the urbanization started making inroads into the rural hinterland in contrast to previous pattern. A large city or metropolis also functioned as the centre of culture of the territory encompassing it.

    For Ghurye, the large city with its big complexes of higher education, research, judiciary, health services, print and enter*tainment media is a cradle innovation that ultimately serves cultural growth. The functions of the city are to perform a culturally integrative role, to act as a point of focus and the centre of radiation of the major tenets of the age. Not any city, but large city or metropolis having an organic link with the life of the people of its region can do this work well.

    According to Ghurye, an urban planner must tackle the problems of:

    (1) sufficient supply of drinking water,

    (2) human congestion,

    (3) traffic congestion,

    (4) regulation of public vehicles,

    (5) insufficiency of railway transport in cities like Mumbai,

    (6) erosion of trees,

    (7) sound pollution,

    (8) indiscriminate tree felling, and

    (9) plight of the pedestrians.

    Culture and Civilization:
    There are two conflicting views about the growth and accumu*lation pattern of culture. One theory maintains that in any community culture grows quite independently of similar events happening elsewhere or predominantly with reference to local needs and local situation. The other group believes that culture grows by diffusion. A single invention or discovery is made at one place and ultimately this cultural trait diffuses throughout the world. Sir G.E. Smith was the most ardent advocate of the diffusion theory.

    In one of his papers, “The Disposal of Human Placenta”, published in 1937, Ghurye examines the practices of human beings with regard to the disposal of discard of human body like first out hair, nail pairing, first fallen teeth and the after birth. The purpose of this paper is, as he says, to compare the methods of disposal of the human placenta in the different regions of the world to see if they shed any light on the problem of diffusion of culture.

    Culture diffusion is essentially an anthropological theory, which is concerned with the nature of culture contact operating principally among the preliminary people. According to Ghurye, culture constitutes the central or core element for understanding society and its evolution. In fact, culture is a totality involving the entire heritage of mankind. Ghurye’s abiding interest was to analyse the course of cultural evolution and the nature of heritage which mankind has denied from the past.

    Culture relates to the realm of values. It is a matter of individual attainment of excellence and creativity. Ghurye had a strong faith in the power of man to preserve the best of his old culture, while creating from his own spirit of new culture. He was more concerned with the process of evolution of Hindu civili*zation, which has been termed as a ‘complex civilization’.

    And, Ghurye thought that for analyzing the dynamics of culture in such a long historical civilization. In this context, the process of accultur*ation is more relevant than the process of diffusion. He thinks that the challenging task of a sociologist is to analyse this complex accul*turation process in India.

    According to him, India has been the home of many ethnic stocks and cultures from pre-historic times. In his analysis of caste, Ghurye refers to how caste system was developed by the Brahmins and how it spread to other sections of the population. The operation of the process of Hinduization also provides the general backdrop of his analysis of the trial phenomenon.

    Ghurye was promoted by the belief that there is a “common heritage of modern civilization” and that civilization is a “collective endeavour of humanity”. He holds that behind the rise and fall of civilization, there has occurred a steady growth of culture. Cutting across the vicissitudes of civilization growth, there are certain values, which have been established as final. These values have been termed by Ghurye as the ‘foundations of culture’.

    He delineates five such values or foundations of culture. These are:

    1. Religious consciousness

    2. Conscience

    3. Justice

    4. Free pursuit of knowledge and free expression

    5. Toleration

    According to Ghurye, “civilization is the sum total of social heritage projected on the social plane”. It is also an attribute of the society. Different societies can be differentiated with reference to their civilizational attainment.

    Ghurye makes four general conclu*sions with regard to the nature of civilization:

    i. Firstly, as yet, there has been no society, which has been either completely civilized or very highly civilized.

    ii. Secondly, Ghurye believes in the law of continuous progress.

    iii. Thirdly, gradation of civilization is also correlated with the distribution of values. In a high civilization, the humanitarian and cultural values will be accepted by a wide cross-section of population.

    iv. Fourthly, every civilization, high or low, possesses some distinctive qualities.

    Sociology of Religion:
    Last edited by dkj; 27-08-2018 at 09:56 PM.
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  2. #12
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    Religion is fundamental to man. Man becomes conscious of some power beyond his comprehension almost at the dawn of civili*zation. This field has drawn the attention of sociologists like Weber (The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism, 1930) and Durkheim (The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, 1915).

    Ghurye thinks that religion is at the centre of the total cultural heritage of man. He gives the five foundations of culture as mentioned earlier in the description of culture and civilization, out of which ‘religious consciousness’ is most important. It moulds and directs the behaviour of man in society.

    Ghurye made original contribution to the study of Indian religious beliefs and practices. He wrote six books to bring out the role of religion in society. These are: Indian Sadhus (1953), Gods and Men (1962), Religious Consciousness (1965), Indian Accumulation (1977), Vedic India (1979), and The Legacy of Ramayana (1979).

    All these works reflect Ghurye’s interest related to the sociology of religion. For example, in Gods and Men, Ghurye discusses the nature of the Hindu ideas of Godhead and the relations, if any, between the climate of an age and the type of Godhead favoured.

    In Religious Consciousness, Ghurye analyses the three oldest human civilizations, viz., the Mesopotamian, the Egyptian and the Hindu, in their various aspects of mythological beliefs, speculation, cosmology, life after death, view of Godhead, temple architecture, etc. And, in the Indian Sadhus, Ghurye considers the genesis, devel*opment and organization of asceticism in Hindu religion and the role ascetics have played in the maintenance of Hindu society.

    Indian Sadhus:
    Indian Sadhus (1953 and 1964) is an excellent sociography of the various sects and religious centres established by the great Vedantic philosopher Sankaracharya and other notable religious figures. In this work, Ghurye highlights the paradoxical nature of renunci*ation in India. A sadhu or sannyasin is supposed to be detached from all castes, norms and social conventions, etc.

    He is outside the pale of society. Yet strikingly enough, since the time of Sankaracharya, the Hindu society has more or less been guided by the sadhus. These sadhus were not the lonely hermits. Most of them belonged to monastic orders, which have distinctive traditions.

    The monastic organization in India was a product of Hinduism and Buddhism. The rise of Buddhism and Jainism marked the decline of individual ascetics like Viswamitra. Indian sadhus have acted as the arbiters of religious disputes, patronized learning of scriptures and the sacred lore and even defended religion against external attacks.

    National Unity and Integration:
    Ghurye had interest in contemporary Indian situations. As a sociol*ogist, he had been extremely concerned with the concept of integration, the process of national unity in India, and the contem*porary challenges to the situation. This concern became apparent even at the time he wrote Caste and Race in India in 1932 and The Aborigines-so-called-and their Future in 1943.

    However, this concern with the present ‘disturbing trends’ in Indian society has come back in a big way in the later writings of Ghurye (Pramanick, 1994). There are three books of Ghurye, known as his ‘triology’ in this field, which are relevant in this connection.

    These are Social Tensions in India (1968), Whither India (1974) and India Recreates Democracy (1978). In these books he has developed a theoretical framework to explain unity at the social or cultural level. Ghurye holds that though groups play an integrational role in society, this is true only up to a certain extent.

    In modern society, there are five sources of danger for national unity coming as they do form a sense of excessive attachment with groups:

    (1) The Scheduled Castes

    (2) The Scheduled Tribes

    (3) The Backward Classes

    (4) The Muslims as religious minority groups

    (5) The linguistic minorities

    As we know, the main focus of Ghurye’s writings is on culture. He thinks that it is largely as a result of Brahminical endeavour that cultural unity in India has been built up. All the major institutions of Hindu society originated among the Brahmins and gradually they were accepted by other sections of the community.

    Though Ghurye calls it process of acculturation, it was basically a one-way flow, in which the Brahminical ideas and insti*tutions infiltrated among the non-Brahmins. It is the background of such an approach that Ghurye analyses the problems and prospects of Indian unity in contemporary India.

    Ghurye’s concept of cultural unity is new one and is not secular in orientation. He is concerned with India of ‘Hindu culture’ and uses the terms ‘Indian culture’ and ‘Hindu culture’ synonymously. He is concerned with India, he says provided an excellent normative base for maintaining social and political unity in the country. Hinduism had brought within its fold widely different groups in India.
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  3. #13
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    The various sects of Hinduism constitute vast mosaic holding together millions of people in different parts of India. First, he analysed the normative structure of Hinduism, and the teaching of sacred religious texts such as the Vedas, the U******ads, and the Brahmins etc., to show how they provide the common cultural foundation. Second, the role of such great Hindu thinkers as Panini, Patanjali, Tulsidas etc. has also been discussed by Ghurye.

    He blames the political leaders for this, because they followed a course of action, which was more or less exactly the one which should have been avoided but the foundation for this national cultural unity had been built and maintained by the Hindus for one hundred years. According to Ghurye, society is not just an aggre*gation of isolated individuals but that group life, which provides the bridge between the individual and society.

    An individual acquires social attributes and is socializes through groups. This is the integrative function of groups in society. When groups perform the function efficiently, integration is achieved. Tensions in the process of this integration in India arise today because the various groups of people have failed to transient their narrow group loyalties. Religious and linguistic minorities are the most potential source of danger to the unity in modern India. Religion and linguistic groups are the prime areas which came disintegration to India’s cohesion.

    Ghurye gives great importance to the role of language in the process of nation-building in India. Even, in case of tribes, tribal life and culture can be improved only when the pickup developed language of a neighbouring community. Ghurye holds the view that the regional language has a symbolic integrational value of the region. The regional languages ensure the unity of territory at the local level and all efforts should be made to improve.

    Discourse:
    During his creative period of writing, Indian sociology was engaged in the debate on tradition and modernity. Ghurye neither entered into this controversy, nor he took up the issue of the role of tradition in Indian society. He further stressed that Indian tradi*tions are actually Hindu traditions. One must know the Hindu traditions to understand Indian society.

    In fact, Ghurye created a special kind of Hindu sociology. The traditions of India are only Hindu traditions. He did not define traditions. He also did not discuss the impact of modernity. His main concern was the core of Hindu society. In this sense, the traditions of Indian society have its roots in scriptures, which is a very narrow vision about Indian society.

    It has been argued that the most of Ghurye’s works are based on textual and scriptural data. The choice of scripture and the way of writing may have bias towards one section of society to another. Ghurye further fails to recognize that qualitative change has occurred in modern India. Past is important for present.

    The question is that how much of the past is useful. Some argue that Ghurye did not have this realization as his knowledge of the India’s past, instead of helping him, stood in his way of analysis. However, Ghurye was not only concerned with the past evolution of Indian society but also with its present tensions and problems.

    The task of sociologists, according to him, is to explore the social history of past. He says, one cannot understand the present without the reference of the past. Ghurye introduced a down-to-earth empir*icism in Indian sociology and social anthropology. He was an ethnographer, who studied tribes and castes of India, using historical and Indological data. His knowledge of Sanskrit enabled him to study the religious scriptures in the context of Indian society.

    Conclusion:
    The sweep of Ghurye’s works and the wide range of his intellectual interests have had a profound influence on the development of the twin disciplines (sociology and social anthropology) in India. Like a discreet butterfly, Ghurye moved from one theme to another with equal interest, erudition and ability.

    He showed India to an inexhaustible mind where sociologists and social anthropologists could conduct endless explorations. He indicated innumerable but unexplored dimensions of Indian society, culture and social institu*tions, which would occupy social analysis for decades if they had both the desire and the ability to know.

    Ghurye’s basic discipline may be regarded as social anthro*pology, since his PhD was under W.H.R. Rivers at Cambridge (UK). The range of Ghurye’s scholarly interests and research is astounding. Exploration of diverse aspects of Indian culture and society through the use of Indological sources permeated Ghurye’s otherwise shifting intellectual concerns and empirical research pursuits. His erudition and versatility, therefore, are substantiated by the wide range of his research from Sanskrit text, through inter*pretation of Indian culture and society.

    This rare spirit of inquiry and commitment to advancing the frontiers of knowledge was one of Ghurye’s precious gifts to Indian sociology and social anthropology. His diversified interests are also reflected in the great variety of works of his research students produced on themes ranging from family, kinship structures, marriage, religious sects, ethnic groups, castes and aboriginals, their customs and institutions, to social differentiation and stratification, caste and class, education and society, the Indian nationalist movement, social structure and social change in specific villages or religions of India, and also urbanization, industrialization and related social problems in India.

    The range of Ghurye’s interests is encyclopaedic. His abiding interest is in the course of world civilization in general and in Hindu civilization in particular. He has analysed various aspects like the origin and evolution of caste, the evolution of Indo-Aryan family structures and its connections with the Indo-European family structure, and specific institutions like gotra etc. Analysis of the diverse aspects of the evolution of Indian social history and culture thus constitutes the major preoccupation of Ghurye.



    गोविन्द सदाशिव घुर्ये
    जन्म 12 दिसम्बर 1893
    Malwan, Maharashtra, India.
    मृत्यु 28 दिसम्बर 1983 (उम्र 90)[1]
    Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.[2]
    आवास Mumbai.
    नागरिकता Indian.
    राष्ट्रीयता Indian.
    क्षेत्र Sociology, Anthropology.
    संस्थान University of Mumbai.
    शिक्षा University of Cambridge.
    डॉक्टरी सलाहकार W. H. R. Rivers & A. C. Haddon.
    प्रभाव W. H. R. Rivers.
    गोविन्द सदाशिव घुर्ये (12 दिसम्बर, 1893 – 28 दिसम्बर, 1983) भारत के एक समाजविज्ञानी थे। सन १९२४ में मुम्बई विश्वविद्यालय के समाजशास्त्र विभाग के विभागाध्यक्ष बनने वाले वे द्वितीय व्यक्ति थे।
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  4. #14
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    Publications Edit
    G.S. Ghurye (2008) [1932]. Caste and race in India. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-7154-205-5.[20]
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1943). The aborigines -"so-called" – and their future. Pub. by D.R. Gadgil for the economics.
    G. S. Ghurye (1951). Indian costume, bhāratīya veṣabhūsā,. the Popular book depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1952). Race relations in Negro Africa. Asia Pub. House.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1995) [1953]. Indian Sadhus. Puopular Prakashan, Bombay.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1956). Sexual Behaviour of the American Female. Current Book House.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1957). Caste and class in India. Popular Book Depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1958). Bhāratanāṭya and its costume. Popular Book Depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1960). After a century and a quarter: Lonikand then and now. Popular Book Depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1962). Cities and civilization. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1962). Gods and men, by G. S. Ghurye.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1962). Family and kin in Indo-European culture. Popular Book Depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1963). The Mahadev Kolis. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1963). Anatomy of a rururban community. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1963). Anthropo-sociological papers. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1965). Religious consciousness. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1968). Social tensions in India. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1973). I and other explorations. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1974). Whither India?. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye; S. Devadas Pillai (1976). Aspects of changing India: studies in honour of Prof. G. S. Ghurye. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1977). Indian acculturation: Agastya and Skanda. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1978). India recreates democracy. Popular Prakashan.
    G. S. Ghurye (December 1979). Legacy of the Ramayana. South Asia Books. ISBN 978-0-8364-5760-5.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1979). Vedic India. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1 January 1980) [1963]. The scheduled tribes of India. Transaction Publishers. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-87855-692-2.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1980). The burning caldron of north-east India. Popular Prakashan.
    G.S. Ghurye (1 January 2005). Rajput Architecture. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-7154-446-2.
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  5. #15
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    Note that comments on this blog are now disabled. See: https://www.sabhlokcity.com/2018/06/on-sabbatical/

    WRITINGSVIDEOS, PODCASTSCRITICAL THINKINGVIEWS ON TOPICSRESOURCES ON FREEDOMPERSONAL NOTESPRIVACY POLICY
    16th August 2013

    Caste started with ‘race’: analysis by the father of Indian sociology, G.S. Ghurye
    Cambridge educated G.S.Ghurye (1893-1983) was the foundational figure of Indian sociology.



    Ghurye's initial training was in Sanskrit, and it was only after attending Geddes' lectures at Bombay and being selected for a scholarship that he went to England where he studied anthropology at Cambridge under Rivers and Haddon (1920-1923). He took over as Head of Department of the Department of Sociology in Mumbai University in 1924 and wrote prolifically about all sociological issues in India. His list of students reads like the ‘who’s-who’ of India’s sociology, people like Iravati Karve, Y. B. Damle and M.N. Srinivas.

    It turns out that he had strong views about caste as a derivative of 'race'. This is entirely consistent with the Sanskrit scriptures about which he was extremely knowledgeable. Note that he makes use of the "Aryan" race theory – which is a myth because (a) there are no races and (b) the idea of an entire group being "Aryan" is rubbish. But whether these people are called Aryans or just ordinary migrants (which is what I see them as), there is no doubt that at some point in India's history, some of these people struck upon a remarkably shrewd way to protect and even strengthen their privileges through the caste mythology.

    I’m extracting parts of an article by Carol Upadhya (2000) entitled, The Hindu Nationalist Sociology of G.S. Ghurye. [You can read Ghurye's book here]

    In Caste and Race in India (1932) … Ghurye concludes that the Indo-Aryans belonged to the larger Indo-European stock that dispersed from its homeland after 5000 B.C. The branch that entered India about 2500 B.C. carried with it the early Vedic religion, and the ‘Brahmanic variety’ of the Indo-Aryan civilisation developed later in the Gangetic plain, along with the caste system.

    Ghurye also reiterates the racial interpretation of varna as colour and the idea that the ‘dasas’ described by the Aryans were the ‘dark’ and ‘snub-nosed’ natives they encountered when they entered India (1969:165). Caste derives from the varna classification of the early Vedic age, which referred to skin colour and differentiated the ‘Arya’ and the ‘Dasa’. The caste system originated as an endogamous institution as the Indo-Aryan Brahmins attempted to maintain their purity by keeping themselves apart from the local population (1969:125).

    It may be taken to be an historical fact that people calling themselves ‘Arya’ poured into India through the north-west somewhere about 2000 B.C. It is equally clear … that an institution closely akin to caste has been very often described in Sanskrit books, which are the work of either the Aryans or the Aryan-inspired aborigines … We have seen that the Brahmins, who were the moral guides and legislators of the immigrant Aryans, tried to keep their blood free from any inter-mixture with the lower classes … [Ghurye 1969:117-18].

    The Aryans invaders entered India with three exclusive classes and absorbed the indigenous inhabitants who "accepted the overlordship of the Indo-Aryans" at the lowest level as Sudras (1969:172). They practiced some amount of ritual exclusivity but also displayed ‘tolerance’ by assimilating diverse peoples. The mechanism for this assimilation was caste:

    The Indian Aryans as later Hindus not only tolerated both beliefs and practices not harmonizing with their central doctrines but also assimilated a number in their own complex. Partially at least, on the social organizational side caste system was the modus operandi accommodating diversity of faiths and practices [1969:165-66].

    Because caste was maintained by endogamy and hypergamy, there is a correspondence between caste and physical type, or race (1969:173).

    The racial theory of Indian society was promoted most notably by Risley, the first Director of Ethnography for India, who took the nasal index as an indicator of the proportion of Aryan blood, which supposedly varies along the caste gradient (Trautmann 1997:183).18 Risley’s racial theory of caste simply elaborated the earlier two-race theory of Indian history, in which the dark, ‘snub-nosed’ and primitive Dravidians were conquered by, and partially mixed with, the ‘tall, fair, lepto-rhine’ invading Aryans (Risley, quoted in Trautmann 1997:202), producing the caste system. This theory was encapsulated in Risley’s famous formula: "The social position of a caste varies inversely as its nasal index" (quoted in Trautmann 1997:203).

    In Caste and Race Ghurye examines Risley’s theory in great detail through a reanalysis of the anthropometrical data. He finds that outside the core area of Aryan settlement, ‘Hindustan’, physical type does not conform to caste rank, and that there is greater similarity between brahmins and other castes within a region than among brahmins across regions. His conclusion is that the "Brahmanic practice of endogamy must have been developed in Hindustan and thence conveyed as a cultural trait to the other areas without a large influx of the physical type of the Hindustan Brahmins" (1969:125).

    While Ghurye criticises specific features of Risley’s theory and methodology, he accepts the overall framework of racial categorisation and in fact proposes new racial categories for the Indian population based on the nasal and cephalic indices (1969:125 ff.). He bases his argument on the same assumptions employed by the Aryan race theory: that the ‘Aryan type’ is long-headed and fine-nosed, represented by the people of Punjab and Rajputana , while the ‘aboriginal type’, represented by the ‘jungle-tribes’, is broad-nosed (1969:118).19 In his argument Ghurye does not distinguish clearly among race, language and culture, although he does add a diffusionist element to his argument by suggesting that brahminism and caste spread throughout India as cultural traits rather than through large-scale physical migration of Aryan brahmins.

    He also suggests that the relation between the Greeks and the Egyptians was similar to that between the ‘Aryas’ and the ‘Dasas’, except that the Vedic people had more reason to show their ‘pride and exclusivity’ because the Dasas were non-Aryan and of dark colour.

    ALSO:

    Barbara Celarent, ‘Caste and Race in India by G. S. Ghurye’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 116, No. 5 (March 2011), pp. 1713-1719

    Chapters 5 and 7 consider the relation of race and caste. Ghurye here jumps immediately into the polemic between Herbert Risley, a colonial administrator and census officer committed to “racial” theories of the origin of caste, and his predecessors Denzil Ibbetson and J. C. Nesfield, who inclined to an occupational theory. Using what were then cutting-edge methods (nasal indexes and correlational analysis), Ghurye shows that a strong race/caste correlation exists only in Hindustan, a fact he attributes to its location at the portal where the Aryan / Brahmanic peoples entered the subcontinent. Closeness to “ancestral” Aryan populations meant that Brahmanic endogamy could remain stronger in Hindustan, whereas in southern and eastern India, where contact had been longer and the “fissiparous” tendencies of intermarriage hence more dominant, caste no longer correlated with physical type. Thus was diffusionism coupled with a new view that caste endogamy was ideologically important but practically difficult. Intermarriage was perpetually creating new groups, which then had to be rationalized and systematized by Brahmanic intellectuals, even while the exigencies of material life—occupation, landowning, trades—steadily pressed against any limited or fixed notion of an occupational rationalization, even for Brahmanical writers. Ghurye’s view of caste was thus inevitably dynamic and rejected the deep, almost primeval stability sought by—indeed assumed by—many of the racial and occupational theories.
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  6. #16
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    Caste started with ‘race’: analysis by the father of Indian sociology, G.S. Ghurye
    Cambridge educated G.S.Ghurye (1893-1983) was the foundational figure of Indian sociology.



    Ghurye's initial training was in Sanskrit, and it was only after attending Geddes' lectures at Bombay and being selected for a scholarship that he went to England where he studied anthropology at Cambridge under Rivers and Haddon (1920-1923). He took over as Head of Department of the Department of Sociology in Mumbai University in 1924 and wrote prolifically about all sociological issues in India. His list of students reads like the ‘who’s-who’ of India’s sociology, people like Iravati Karve, Y. B. Damle and M.N. Srinivas.

    It turns out that he had strong views about caste as a derivative of 'race'. This is entirely consistent with the Sanskrit scriptures about which he was extremely knowledgeable. Note that he makes use of the "Aryan" race theory – which is a myth because (a) there are no races and (b) the idea of an entire group being "Aryan" is rubbish. But whether these people are called Aryans or just ordinary migrants (which is what I see them as), there is no doubt that at some point in India's history, some of these people struck upon a remarkably shrewd way to protect and even strengthen their privileges through the caste mythology.

    I’m extracting parts of an article by Carol Upadhya (2000) entitled, The Hindu Nationalist Sociology of G.S. Ghurye. [You can read Ghurye's book here]

    In Caste and Race in India (1932) … Ghurye concludes that the Indo-Aryans belonged to the larger Indo-European stock that dispersed from its homeland after 5000 B.C. The branch that entered India about 2500 B.C. carried with it the early Vedic religion, and the ‘Brahmanic variety’ of the Indo-Aryan civilisation developed later in the Gangetic plain, along with the caste system.

    Ghurye also reiterates the racial interpretation of varna as colour and the idea that the ‘dasas’ described by the Aryans were the ‘dark’ and ‘snub-nosed’ natives they encountered when they entered India (1969:165). Caste derives from the varna classification of the early Vedic age, which referred to skin colour and differentiated the ‘Arya’ and the ‘Dasa’. The caste system originated as an endogamous institution as the Indo-Aryan Brahmins attempted to maintain their purity by keeping themselves apart from the local population (1969:125).

    It may be taken to be an historical fact that people calling themselves ‘Arya’ poured into India through the north-west somewhere about 2000 B.C. It is equally clear … that an institution closely akin to caste has been very often described in Sanskrit books, which are the work of either the Aryans or the Aryan-inspired aborigines … We have seen that the Brahmins, who were the moral guides and legislators of the immigrant Aryans, tried to keep their blood free from any inter-mixture with the lower classes … [Ghurye 1969:117-18].

    The Aryans invaders entered India with three exclusive classes and absorbed the indigenous inhabitants who "accepted the overlordship of the Indo-Aryans" at the lowest level as Sudras (1969:172). They practiced some amount of ritual exclusivity but also displayed ‘tolerance’ by assimilating diverse peoples. The mechanism for this assimilation was caste:

    The Indian Aryans as later Hindus not only tolerated both beliefs and practices not harmonizing with their central doctrines but also assimilated a number in their own complex. Partially at least, on the social organizational side caste system was the modus operandi accommodating diversity of faiths and practices [1969:165-66].

    Because caste was maintained by endogamy and hypergamy, there is a correspondence between caste and physical type, or race (1969:173).

    The racial theory of Indian society was promoted most notably by Risley, the first Director of Ethnography for India, who took the nasal index as an indicator of the proportion of Aryan blood, which supposedly varies along the caste gradient (Trautmann 1997:183).18 Risley’s racial theory of caste simply elaborated the earlier two-race theory of Indian history, in which the dark, ‘snub-nosed’ and primitive Dravidians were conquered by, and partially mixed with, the ‘tall, fair, lepto-rhine’ invading Aryans (Risley, quoted in Trautmann 1997:202), producing the caste system. This theory was encapsulated in Risley’s famous formula: "The social position of a caste varies inversely as its nasal index" (quoted in Trautmann 1997:203).

    In Caste and Race Ghurye examines Risley’s theory in great detail through a reanalysis of the anthropometrical data. He finds that outside the core area of Aryan settlement, ‘Hindustan’, physical type does not conform to caste rank, and that there is greater similarity between brahmins and other castes within a region than among brahmins across regions. His conclusion is that the "Brahmanic practice of endogamy must have been developed in Hindustan and thence conveyed as a cultural trait to the other areas without a large influx of the physical type of the Hindustan Brahmins" (1969:125).

    While Ghurye criticises specific features of Risley’s theory and methodology, he accepts the overall framework of racial categorisation and in fact proposes new racial categories for the Indian population based on the nasal and cephalic indices (1969:125 ff.). He bases his argument on the same assumptions employed by the Aryan race theory: that the ‘Aryan type’ is long-headed and fine-nosed, represented by the people of Punjab and Rajputana , while the ‘aboriginal type’, represented by the ‘jungle-tribes’, is broad-nosed (1969:118).19 In his argument Ghurye does not distinguish clearly among race, language and culture, although he does add a diffusionist element to his argument by suggesting that brahminism and caste spread throughout India as cultural traits rather than through large-scale physical migration of Aryan brahmins.

    He also suggests that the relation between the Greeks and the Egyptians was similar to that between the ‘Aryas’ and the ‘Dasas’, except that the Vedic people had more reason to show their ‘pride and exclusivity’ because the Dasas were non-Aryan and of dark colour.

    ALSO:

    Barbara Celarent, ‘Caste and Race in India by G. S. Ghurye’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 116, No. 5 (March 2011), pp. 1713-1719

    Chapters 5 and 7 consider the relation of race and caste. Ghurye here jumps immediately into the polemic between Herbert Risley, a colonial administrator and census officer committed to “racial” theories of the origin of caste, and his predecessors Denzil Ibbetson and J. C. Nesfield, who inclined to an occupational theory. Using what were then cutting-edge methods (nasal indexes and correlational analysis), Ghurye shows that a strong race/caste correlation exists only in Hindustan, a fact he attributes to its location at the portal where the Aryan / Brahmanic peoples entered the subcontinent. Closeness to “ancestral” Aryan populations meant that Brahmanic endogamy could remain stronger in Hindustan, whereas in southern and eastern India, where contact had been longer and the “fissiparous” tendencies of intermarriage hence more dominant, caste no longer correlated with physical type. Thus was diffusionism coupled with a new view that caste endogamy was ideologically important but practically difficult. Intermarriage was perpetually creating new groups, which then had to be rationalized and systematized by Brahmanic intellectuals, even while the exigencies of material life—occupation, landowning, trades—steadily pressed against any limited or fixed notion of an occupational rationalization, even for Brahmanical writers. Ghurye’s view of caste was thus inevitably dynamic and rejected the deep, almost primeval stability sought by—indeed assumed by—many of the racial and occupational theories.
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  7. #17
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  8. #18
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    G. S. Ghurye.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye.jpg
    Born 12 December 1893
    Malwan, Maharashtra, India.
    Died 28 December 1983 (aged 90)[1]
    Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.[2]
    Residence Mumbai.
    Nationality Indian.
    Citizenship Indian.
    Alma mater University of Cambridge.
    Spouse(s) Sajubai Ghurye.
    Scientific career
    Fields Sociology, Anthropology.
    Institutions University of Mumbai.
    Doctoral advisor W. H. R. Rivers & A. C. Haddon.
    Influences W. H. R. Rivers.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (12 December 1893 – 28 December 1983) was an Indian professor of sociology.[3] In 1924, he became the second person to head the Department of Sociology in the University of Mumbai.[4]


    Contents
    1 Education
    2 Personal life
    3 Career
    4 Publications
    5 References
    6 Further reading
    7 External links
    Education
    Ghurye was born on 12 December 1893, at Malwan, in Maharashtra.[2] His early schooling was at the Aryan Education Society's High School, Girgaum, in Mumbai and then at Bahadur Khanji High School, Junagadh, in Gujarat.[2] He joined Bahauddin college at Junagarh, in 1912, but moved on to Elphinstone College, Mumbai, after a year, and received his B. A. (Sanskrit) and M. A. (Sanskrit) degrees from there.[5] He earned the Bhau Daji prize with his B. A., and the Chancellor's gold medal with his M. A. degree.[5] After completing his M. A., Ghurye received a scholarship for further studies in England, and earned his PhD from Cambridge University in 1922.[2] Ghurye was deeply influenced by W. H. R. Rivers, who was his PhD guide.[6] After Rivers' untimely death in 1922, he completed his thesis under A. C. Haddon.[6]

    Personal life
    Ghurye was married to Sajubai of Vengurla, a town near Malwan.[2] His son, Sudhish Ghurye is a Mathematician and Statistician, and daughter Kumud G. Ghurye was a barrister.[7]

    Career
    Ghurye was appointed as Head of Department of the Department of Sociology in Mumbai University in 1924, and retired in 1959.[8] The department was founded by Patrick Geddes in 1919.[9] However, when Ghurye took it over, it was on the verge of closure. The department came alive once again with Ghurye, and now, Ghurye is regarded as the real founder[10] and "shaped" the study of sociology there from then on.[11] He also founded the Indian Sociological Society and its newsletter, Sociological Bulletin, and served as head for both.[12] He also headed the Bombay Anthropological Society for some years.[13] After retirement, he served as Professor Emeritus for Mumbai University and at least three festschrifts were produced in his honour, of which two were during his lifetime.[14] He guided a total of 80 research theses and authored 32 books and a number of other papers.[15] Later, at least two theses were written on him.[16] Among his students were personalities like noted social reformer and intellectual Dr. Uttamrao K. Jadhav,[17] A. J. Agarkar, Y. M. Rege, L. N. Chapekar, M. G. Kulkarni, M. S. A. Rao, Iravati Karve, Y. B. Damle, M.N. Srinivas, A. R. Desai, D. Narain, I. P. Desai, M. S. Gore, Suma Chitnis and Victor D'Souza.[18] He also had the opportunity to see the "Dr. G. S. Ghurye Award" being instituted in his honour.[19] His book Caste and race in India is regarded as a classic in the field.[20]

    Publications
    G.S. Ghurye (2008) [1932]. Caste and race in India. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-7154-205-5.[20]
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1943). The aborigines -"so-called" – and their future. Pub. by D.R. Gadgil for the economics.
    G. S. Ghurye (1951). Indian costume, bhāratīya veṣabhūsā,. the Popular book depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1952). Race relations in Negro Africa. Asia Pub. House.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1995) [1953]. Indian Sadhus. Puopular Prakashan, Bombay.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1956). Sexual Behaviour of the American Female. Current Book House.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1957). Caste and class in India. Popular Book Depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1958). Bhāratanāṭya and its costume. Popular Book Depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1960). After a century and a quarter: Lonikand then and now. Popular Book Depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1962). Cities and civilization. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1962). Gods and men, by G. S. Ghurye.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1962). Family and kin in Indo-European culture. Popular Book Depot.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1963). The Mahadev Kolis. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1963). Anatomy of a rururban community. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1963). Anthropo-sociological papers. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1965). Religious consciousness. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1968). Social tensions in India. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1973). I and other explorations. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1974). Whither India?. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye; S. Devadas Pillai (1976). Aspects of changing India: studies in honour of Prof. G. S. Ghurye. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1977). Indian acculturation: Agastya and Skanda. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1978). India recreates democracy. Popular Prakashan.
    G. S. Ghurye (December 1979). Legacy of the Ramayana. South Asia Books. ISBN 978-0-8364-5760-5.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1979). Vedic India. Popular Prakashan.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1 January 1980) [1963]. The scheduled tribes of India. Transaction Publishers. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-0-87855-692-2.
    Govind Sadashiv Ghurye (1980). The burning caldron of north-east India. Popular Prakashan.
    G.S. Ghurye (1 January 2005). Rajput Architecture. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-7154-446-2.
    References
    Notes

    Pillai, S. Devadas. Indian sociology through Ghurye, a dictionary, "Bhau Daji Lad was a scholar and reform-activist, a nationalist of Bombay [Mumbai] in the second half of the 19th cent."[2]
    Dhirendra Narain, The legacy of G.S. Ghurye: a centennial festschrift, "Mrs. Sajubai Ghurye is one of the early authors on cookery, a little too flourishing and profitable a branch of writing these days. Her book in Marathi, my wife tells me, is very good—very accurate in measurement and very systematic in its directions."[21]
    Pillai, S. Devadas. Indian sociology through Ghurye, a dictionary, "The Bombay Univ instituted an annual Ghurye Award (qv), during his lifetime, to encourage authors in sociology and anthropology."[22]
    Citations

    Momin 1996, p. 28.
    Pillai 1997, p. 101.
    Momin 1996, p. 4; Pillai 1997, p. 13.
    University of Mumbai.
    Pillai 1997, p. 101; Tikekar & Ṭikekara 2006, p. 106.
    Momin 1996, pp. 2–3, Chapter author:M. N. Srinivas; Momin 1996, p. 20 Chapter author:Dhirendra Narain
    Pillai 1997, p. 102; Momin 1996, pp. 15, 27, Chapter author:Dhirendra Narain; Momin 1996, pp. 37 Chapter author:Sadanand Bhatkal
    Pillai 1997, p. 102; Pillai 1976, pp. 27–28; University of Mumbai & _.
    Pillai 1997, pp. 119–123; University of Mumbai & _.
    Pillai 1997, pp. 119–123.
    Srivastava, Vinay Kumar; Chaudury, Sukant K. (2009). "Anthropological Studies of Indian Tribes". In Atal, Yogesh. Sociology and Social Anthropology in India. Pearson Education India. p. 60. ISBN 9788131720349.
    Pillai 1997, pp. 102, 123–124; University of Mumbai & _.
    Pillai 1997, p. 102.
    Pillai 1997, pp. 14, 102–103; University of Mumbai & _.
    Pillai 1997, pp. 103, 126-; Pillai 1976, pp. 29–40 (a discussion of Ghurye's works, see list on p 40); University of Mumbai
    Pillai 1997, pp. 103, 392; University of Mumbai & _.
    Jadhav, Uttamrao (1972). Is Capital Punishment Necessary?. Mumbai: Anand Publications.
    Pillai 1997, pp. 111, 270; University of Mumbai & _.
    Pillai 1997, p. 124.
    Pillai 1976, p. 29.
    Momin 1996, p. 30.
    Pillai 1997, p. 103.
    Bibliography

    Srinivas, M. N.; Bhadra, R. K.; Bhatkal, Sadanand; Bose, Pradip Kumar; et al. (1996). Momin, A. R., ed. The legacy of G.S. Ghurye: a centennial festschrift. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-7154-831-6. Retrieved 7 October 2011.
    Pillai, S. Devadas (1997). Indian sociology through Ghurye, a dictionary. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-7154-807-1. Retrieved 7 October 2011.
    Pillai, S.D. (1976). Studies in Honour of Prof. G.S. Ghurye. Popular Prakashan. ISBN 978-81-7154-157-7. Retrieved 9 October 2011.
    Tikekar, Aroon; Ṭikekara, Aruṇa (2006) [1984]. The cloister's pale: a biography of the University of Mumbai. By Popular Prakashan for The University of Mumbai. ISBN 978-81-7991-293-5. Retrieved 10 October 2011.
    University of Mumbai (_). "Department of Sociology:About the department". Archived from the original on 23 September 2011. Check date values in: |year= (help)
    Further reading
    Venugopal, C. N. (2013). "G. S. Ghurye on Culture and Nation-Building". In Modi, Ishwar. Readings in Indian Sociology: Volume X: Pioneers of Sociology in India. SAGE Publishing. ISBN 978-8-13211-844-2.
    External links
    Professor G.S. Ghurye (1893–1983)
    Malvancity: Dr. G S Ghurye
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  9. #19
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    cccccccccccccccccc
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


  10. #20
    कर्मठ सदस्य dkj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    आयु
    57
    प्रविष्टियाँ
    3,418
    Rep Power
    50
    मैसूर नरसिंहाचार श्रीनिवास
    अगर हम कहें और वो मुस्कुरा दें
    हम उनके लिए ज़िंदगानी लुटा दें


Page 2 of 4 प्रथमप्रथम 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •