Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Dec182007/editpage2007121741717.asp Social science research in India The decline By K N Ninan The academic ranking of world universities in 2007 compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Ton University noted that while universities and institutions from the US, UK, Europe, Japan and China figured among the top 200 in the world, Indian institutions were conspicuous by their absence. The survey was conducted using four indicators, namely, number of alumni and staff winning Nobel prizes or field medals, highly cited researchers in broad subject areas, articles published in highly rated journals, and academic performance with respect to the size of an institution. Sadly, whatever criteria or region one considers, social science research institutions in India are conspicuous by their absence which reflects the poor state of social science research in India. This is particularly pitiable considering the efforts made by the central and state governments and other agencies to promote social science research. To give a fillip to social science research the central government set up the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) under the Human Resource Development Ministry way back in 1969, which facilitated establishment of ICSSR institutes in different states. From about nine ICSSR institutes in the 70s, the number of these institutes rose to 20 in the 80s and presently there are 27 institutes. They are funded by both the ICSSR and respective state governments, apart from other agencies. Besides this, the ICSSR also funds social science projects in universities and NGOs. Most of these institutes are autonomous and registered under the Societies registration acts. A major reason which prompted the government to promote such autonomous institutes was to create an ideal environment conducive for research unfettered by bureaucratic hassles as in government and university departments. These institutes were led by eminent persons such as V K R V Rao, K N Raj, C H Hanumantha Rao and were also able to attract meritorious persons. Unfortunately, many of these institutes have become highly bureaucratic and controlled by caste oligarchies or academic mafias. Many directors are neither known for their academic scholarship nor for administrative acumen and seem to have obtained their positions based on their caste tag, personal equations, and extent of their pliability. The atmosphere in these institutions is far from conducive for scholarly work and faculty are having a declining say in the running of these institutions. Non academics such as bureaucrats, corporate gurus not known for their research or academic skills, are dictating terms as to how to conduct research and run these institutes. Academic and research merchants not known for their scholarship except their nexus with funding agencies are writing project reports like instant coffee, taking advantage of the internet and cut and paste technology. Sycophancy and mediocrity are the qualities in demand and genuine scholars find it difficult to survive in this atmosphere. Faculty are not assessed in terms of the quality of their work as evinced by citations and publications in internationally rated journals but in terms of the number of projects, reports and papers published anywhere. Money making rather than good scholarly work is now the mantra in this globalisation era. The standards in some institutes are even lower than in the universities. As per UGC norms a Masters degree in the relevant subject with minimum 55 per cent marks is an essential qualification for a faculty position in a University. But in some institutes 50 per cent would suffice. For the post of Professor, the UGC stipulates experience in guiding Ph D students as an essential qualification but these institutes either don't prescribe to this but stipulate mere “ability” to guide Ph D Students and even that, as a “desirable” qualification only. Advertisements to recruit faculty are often tailor made to suit or unsuit candidates favoured or disfavoured by the directors or managements. These institutes have become citadels of upper caste power. Promising people especially from disadvantaged groups find it difficult to enter or go up the academic ladder in these institutes. While corruption and nepotism in governments and universities receive considerable public attention, the developments in these institutes remain outside the public gaze. Some of the institutes have even rented out their premises to NGOs and private trusts started by retired professors who use the institute’s name to obtain funds but retain these funds in their private trusts. A Committee set up to review the working of ICSSR institutes under the Chairmanship of A Vaidyanathan, in its report submitted in March 2007, has highlighted the growing commercialisation of research, neglect of independent sch
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Friday 14 Dec 2007 1:06 pm, Abhishek Hazra wrote: > just curious. why weren't there any indian language books in this list? > reading this made me think of my childhood which was spent reading books in > both bengali and english. and quite a lot of popular bengali children's > magazine too. Because I am a true Macaulay-putra - with my school education have been spread between Bangalore, Porbandar and Pune, with the only common language being English. not even Hindi. I was almost wholly English for much my early life. English tastes. English values. English mannerisms. Even last year when I spent a happy two weeks driving through England and Scotland I was surprised at my own euphoria at being able to understand every word that was said by anyone, and being able to read every sign anywhere. But I'm not English. At most I could be a coconut, no more. And I chose to return because there is a desi in my core. shiv
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
Abhishek Hazra wrote [at 01:37 PM 12/14/2007] : if i remember correctly, in the introduction to the Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization book, the author mentions that her parents (or perhaps other close members of the family) were actively involved in the dalit movement. and that in the course of his research many of the people he interviewed remembered him as the son of their comrade/fellow traveler. so his parents must have been your uncle/aunt? Poosibly my aunt, who's been pretty active in both the Tamil literature as well as various other political activist circles. My uncle is more into teh literature aspect of things. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
>Another cousin has also done some related work [2]. >[2] http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/subramanian/selectedwritings.htm hi udhay, if i remember correctly, in the introduction to the Ethnicity and Populist Mobilization book, the author mentions that her parents (or perhaps other close members of the family) were actively involved in the dalit movement. and that in the course of his research many of the people he interviewed remembered him as the son of their comrade/fellow traveler. so his parents must have been your uncle/aunt? do you remember talking to them about their political activism? abhishek On Dec 14, 2007 1:17 PM, Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ashok _ wrote [at 12:35 PM 12/14/2007] : > > >You mentioned that narratives for "mochis", "darjis" and "chamars" dont > exist. > >Isnt that a flimsy presumption ? Then you have gone on to to make > >various conclusions, > >why these narratives dont exist. I am sure if you included the > >vernacular many such > > narratives would turn up, not necessarily written by themselves but > >by other people. > > Injecting some possibly relevant data points into this discussion. > > A cousin of mine has done sociological studies with adivasis various > other marginalised communities. I'm not able to find good references > to her work online - [1] may lead interested parties to more data, > but can ask her to expand if needed. > > Another cousin has also done some related work [2]. > > Udhay > > [1] http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/moynihan/PersonDetail.asp?personID=200 > and http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/node/4768 > > [2] http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/subramanian/selectedwritings.htm > > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com)) > > > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - does the frog know it has a latin name? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
ashok _ wrote [at 12:35 PM 12/14/2007] : You mentioned that narratives for "mochis", "darjis" and "chamars" dont exist. Isnt that a flimsy presumption ? Then you have gone on to to make various conclusions, why these narratives dont exist. I am sure if you included the vernacular many such narratives would turn up, not necessarily written by themselves but by other people. Injecting some possibly relevant data points into this discussion. A cousin of mine has done sociological studies with adivasis various other marginalised communities. I'm not able to find good references to her work online - [1] may lead interested parties to more data, but can ask her to expand if needed. Another cousin has also done some related work [2]. Udhay [1] http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/moynihan/PersonDetail.asp?personID=200 and http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/node/4768 [2] http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/subramanian/selectedwritings.htm -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
>My childhood was spent devouring English books that were published from >London, New York, Toronto, Sydney and Johannesburg and it took a while for me >to start wondering why Delhi did not feature on the list. Even more puzzling >was the realization that English speakers in India probably outnumbered >Australia and Canada put together. just curious. why weren't there any indian language books in this list? reading this made me think of my childhood which was spent reading books in both bengali and english. and quite a lot of popular bengali children's magazine too. i remember the first time i visited the calcutta book fair as a kid, the sheer thrill of seeing and hearing your favourite author in person. and for me and many of my friends it was nothing unusual to have books from "London and New York" jostling for space with ones from Dev Sahitya Kutir. i also remember having big fights with this friend of mine who used to insist that Tintin reads better in the bengali translation and that "Kuttush" is any day a more adorable name for a dog than Snowy! abhishek On Dec 13, 2007 7:29 PM, shiv sastry < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 12 Dec 2007 9:25 pm, Deepa Mohan wrote: > > Ironic that English has to be the link language and is yet a sharp > > divider of the "haves" and "have-nots", whether it is a bank balance > > or education or access to information that the "haves" have. But I > > suppose that is true everywhere in the English-speaking world? > > Not having English may be a problem everywhere in the Anglosphere but I > believe India counts as a special variant of "Anglosphere". > > My childhood was spent devouring English books that were published from > London, New York, Toronto, Sydney and Johannesburg and it took a while for > me > to start wondering why Delhi did not feature on the list. Even more > puzzling > was the realization that English speakers in India probably outnumbered > Australia and Canada put together. > > Even more perplexing to me was the realization that for all the numbers, > English is spoken by perhaps 5% of Indians. > > The history of English in India seems to fit in with the frequently touted > theory that it all started with Macaulay's minute. Macaulay's minute lays > out > the exact arguments for commencing English education in India with the > idea > being to create a class of Indian who had British tastes and culture but > could serve as interpreters to the vast mass of Indians and thus help in > governance, apart from other lofty ideals. > > Macaulay also asked for stopping the funding of education in "Sanscrit" > and > Arabic. I quote his exact words because I believe they are relevant in an > interesting way today: > > "What we spend on the Arabic and Sanscrit colleges is not merely a dead > loss > to the cause of truth; it is bounty-money paid to raise up champions of > error. It goes to form a nest, not merely of helpless place-hunters, but > of > bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry against > every > useful scheme of education." > > I believe the British did succeed in creating an educated class of English > > speakers with values that the British wanted to see. Apart from speaking > English, those values included an appreciation of British style rule of > law > and a "religion-neutral" Indian Penal Code was applied to replace the old > laws (whatever they were) > > A lot has been said about what Macaulay allegedly did, but what interests > me > is what he did not do, or did not manage to do. > > If we assume that 5% of Indians speak English, then Macaulay's language > did > not reach 95%. The question is what percentage of this 95% of Indians now > belong to Macaulay's characterization of people as forming a "nest, not > merely of helpless place-hunters, but of bigots prompted alike by passion > and > by interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme of education" > > One can look at Macaulay's viewpoint in two ways: > > The less kind method is to see him as a racist ignoramus and that is how > some > people do see him. > > A kinder view of Macaulay would be to agree that from his viewpoint the > Hindus > and Muslims of India really were " bigots prompted alike by passion and by > interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme of education" > > If we remove our love or hate of Macaulay and look at his views in > dispassionate terms some questions arise. There MUST be a significant > percentage of Indians who were not touched at all by Macaulay. If we > search > for these "untouched by Macaulay" people, can we *really* find among them > a > large proportion of Indians who are bigots and who have no real innate > sense > of rule of law as per the "imposed" Indian Penal Code and prefer rule > according to whatever system they had traditionally followed? > > An empirical examination of this question suggests that the answer is > "Yes" (to me) > > We know that Muslims of India in general did not like Macaulay's scheme
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Dec 13, 2007 5:54 PM, shiv sastry wrote: > You mean I could be as right or as wrong as Daniken? > > Of course you are right. If you choose to believe Daniken, that is your > prerogative. If you don't, it's not Daniken's problem. > > Credibility does not matter a whit in the absence of valid information. > Anything goes. It is the lack of exploration and the comfortable unvalidated > "I'll stay within my box" conclusions that everyone (and that includes you > and me) can reach that seem to be hallmark of Indian intellectualism. > You mentioned that narratives for "mochis", "darjis" and "chamars" dont exist. Isnt that a flimsy presumption ? Then you have gone on to to make various conclusions, why these narratives dont exist. I am sure if you included the vernacular many such narratives would turn up, not necessarily written by themselves but by other people. I don't know much about vernacular Indian writing, apart from whats been translated, but a lot of vernacular literature has been set to film. A good example is the apu trilogy of films by satyajit ray (even his other work...) based on a series of bengali novels. These films provide narratives and strong characterizations (who can forget the character of the aging, homeless grand aunt) of different kinds of people (the cuckolded taxi driver in "abhijaan"...)
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Thursday 13 Dec 2007 7:55 pm, ashok _ wrote: > I read this book once which claimed the Incas were actually an alien > race - it began > with that assumption being stated as true, - then made various > extrapolations, and > conclusions, starting from the primary assumption. Very soon the book > had built a > formidable pyramid of proof based on assumptions being equated to > conclusions. You mean I could be as right or as wrong as Daniken? Of course you are right. If you choose to believe Daniken, that is your prerogative. If you don't, it's not Daniken's problem. Credibility does not matter a whit in the absence of valid information. Anything goes. It is the lack of exploration and the comfortable unvalidated "I'll stay within my box" conclusions that everyone (and that includes you and me) can reach that seem to be hallmark of Indian intellectualism. shiv
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Dec 13, 2007 4:59 PM, shiv sastry wrote: ><> > But there has to be a widespread self recognition that India is this way. > Only sociological studies can prove or disprove a hypothesis such as mine and > those studies do not exist AFAIK. Did someone say where's the research data? > Well you started with a conjecture then you made an extrapolation on that then you made a empirical conclusion on that...and then you made another extrapolation on that conclusion. I read this book once which claimed the Incas were actually an alien race - it began with that assumption being stated as true, - then made various extrapolations, and conclusions, starting from the primary assumption. Very soon the book had built a formidable pyramid of proof based on assumptions being equated to conclusions. I think you should write a book on this, as a follow up to the book about Pakistan. I believe there is a great market for such books :-)
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Thursday 13 Dec 2007 5:32 pm, Carol Upadhya wrote: > Blaming the IT industry, IT professionals or even BPO employees for > Bangalore's conspicuous urban problems – the rising real estate prices, > chaotic traffic, the increasing social divide, and allegedly high crime > rate – misses their real causes. Very *very* interesting take Carol. It seems to complement what I felt and indicates a very naive and child-like thought process that is accepted as the norm by a major Indian newpaper, and will presumably percolate down to several thousand readers. "Crime is because some people are getting too rich, and tempting the poor who are only waiting to be tempted by crime" How elegant and simple. Who can disprove this timeless logic? In fact India lives in myths and cliches, simple nonsense-logic explanations (I see this in medicine too) with no thought being given to the idea of science and explanations that could exist outside comfortable logic. This fits in too with a quote from Camus by Naipaul that I posted in an earlier message. This is what Camus said about Hindus and Incas: "'The problem of rebellion has no meaning except within our Western society. What is at stake is humanity's gradually increasing self awareness as it pursues its course. In fact, for the Inca and the Hindu parish the problem never arises because for them it had been solved by a tradition, even before they had had time to raise it - the answer being that their tradition is sacred. If in a world, things are held sacred, the problem of rebelion does not arise, it is because no real problems are to be found in such a world, all the answers having been given simultaneously." shiv
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Wednesday 12 Dec 2007 9:25 pm, Deepa Mohan wrote: > Ironic that English has to be the link language and is yet a sharp > divider of the "haves" and "have-nots", whether it is a bank balance > or education or access to information that the "haves" have. But I > suppose that is true everywhere in the English-speaking world? Not having English may be a problem everywhere in the Anglosphere but I believe India counts as a special variant of "Anglosphere". My childhood was spent devouring English books that were published from London, New York, Toronto, Sydney and Johannesburg and it took a while for me to start wondering why Delhi did not feature on the list. Even more puzzling was the realization that English speakers in India probably outnumbered Australia and Canada put together. Even more perplexing to me was the realization that for all the numbers, English is spoken by perhaps 5% of Indians. The history of English in India seems to fit in with the frequently touted theory that it all started with Macaulay's minute. Macaulay's minute lays out the exact arguments for commencing English education in India with the idea being to create a class of Indian who had British tastes and culture but could serve as interpreters to the vast mass of Indians and thus help in governance, apart from other lofty ideals. Macaulay also asked for stopping the funding of education in "Sanscrit" and Arabic. I quote his exact words because I believe they are relevant in an interesting way today: "What we spend on the Arabic and Sanscrit colleges is not merely a dead loss to the cause of truth; it is bounty-money paid to raise up champions of error. It goes to form a nest, not merely of helpless place-hunters, but of bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme of education." I believe the British did succeed in creating an educated class of English speakers with values that the British wanted to see. Apart from speaking English, those values included an appreciation of British style rule of law and a "religion-neutral" Indian Penal Code was applied to replace the old laws (whatever they were) A lot has been said about what Macaulay allegedly did, but what interests me is what he did not do, or did not manage to do. If we assume that 5% of Indians speak English, then Macaulay's language did not reach 95%. The question is what percentage of this 95% of Indians now belong to Macaulay's characterization of people as forming a "nest, not merely of helpless place-hunters, but of bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme of education" One can look at Macaulay's viewpoint in two ways: The less kind method is to see him as a racist ignoramus and that is how some people do see him. A kinder view of Macaulay would be to agree that from his viewpoint the Hindus and Muslims of India really were " bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme of education" If we remove our love or hate of Macaulay and look at his views in dispassionate terms some questions arise. There MUST be a significant percentage of Indians who were not touched at all by Macaulay. If we search for these "untouched by Macaulay" people, can we *really* find among them a large proportion of Indians who are bigots and who have no real innate sense of rule of law as per the "imposed" Indian Penal Code and prefer rule according to whatever system they had traditionally followed? An empirical examination of this question suggests that the answer is "Yes" (to me) We know that Muslims of India in general did not like Macaulay's scheme and tended to stick to Madrassas. So let me declare all Muslims as people untouched by Macaulay who are "bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme of education." But condemning all Muslims at 15% of the Indian population still does not explain the behavior and views of the remaining (95%-15%)=80% of Indians ostensibly untouched by Macaulay. If my extrapolation is even approximately right, it could also mean that the vast majority of Hindus in India also fall in the category of " bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme of education" The conclusion is this entire goddam country is full of bigots who have no innate sense of rule of law other than the laws that they had before the British came - either sharia or whatever else they held sacred. This conclusion makes the minority anglophone Indians, whose apparently "model behavior" is assumed to represent the real Indian is merely a coat of varnish on a rickety termite ridden chair. Even that is if we assume that the coat of varnish has completely rid itself of the faults of the chair and I am not totally sure about that. There is nobody to study whether disquieting extrapolations such as m
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On 12/12/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Todays Hindu says in a headline (which I was unable to find online this > morning) > > "How IT has changed the city's crime scenario: > The economic divide created by the IT boom has forced many youth from poor > families to take to crime" > > How cosy and comfortable. The problem is described and the answer revealed > right at the top of the page before the text of the article. Shiv-- I couldn't agree with you more. I have just written a response to those silly pieces in The Hindu with my colleague AR Vasavi, which I paste below, in case they don't publish it! Certainly the impact of IT and rapid growth on the city is an important issue, but the media seem to excell at framing the questions in the most simplistic way. Want to respond to some of your other points, but at a later time. Here is our take on this: Response to Public Eye, 13 December 2007 >From Iconisisation to Vilification The essays on IT and the city (The Hindu, Dec 12th 2007) portray IT professionals and their lifestyles as responsible for the recent spate of crime, increasing cost of living, rising consumerism, etc, in Bangalore. Over the past few years, the popular media have mostly celebrated and promoted the IT industry, its leaders, its triumphant global march and its growing economic prominence. But suddenly, IT workers/professionals are being blamed for the array of woes facing the city. Just as the celebration and the iconisisation of IT distorted and misrepresented the reality, so also is the new vilification of IT professionals a distortion. For one, the IT industry may have been a prime driver behind Bangalore's boom, but its multiplier effects are much wider. People with high disposable incomes are not all from IT. Many cities in India, including second and third tier towns, now have enclaves of the 'booming economy' and its attendant consumer culture, including upscale malls, pubs, posh eateries, beauty parlours, theatres, discos etc. Those who patronise these new sites of entertainment, leisure and consumption are not only, or even primarily, from the IT /ITES sector, but include the new and the old business classes, people from the growing retail and financial sectors, real estate development and other service industries, and many others who have prospered from the growth in the private sector as well as the rural landed elite. Second, it is common for media reports to conflate IT (or software) professionals with ITES or BPO workers. This is highly problematic, for it is the younger BPO employees rather than software engineers who are more likely to be participants in, and consumers of, this global culture. Far from being voracious and fashion-oriented consumers, most IT personnel are cautious spenders and savers and espouse fairly conservative middle class social values. It should also be noted that the IT professionals are themselves workers, who in their own industry are overworked and exploited. Blaming the IT industry, IT professionals or even BPO employees for Bangalore's conspicuous urban problems – the rising real estate prices, chaotic traffic, the increasing social divide, and allegedly high crime rate – misses their real causes. If economic liberalisation spawned the IT industry, it has also led to a decline in the state's role in promoting equitable economic development and in the regular provision of key services. If housing and infrastructure woes beset the average middle class person, what then is the predicament of the working poor? Our urban woes cannot be attributed to specific individuals or groups, but must be traced to larger systemic political and economic changes and the inevitable distortions that are caused by an enclave high-growth economy such as Bangalore's. In all this, the media needs to play a key role in documenting the fast-changing urban scenario and in stimulating constructive public debate. Blaming 'the poor' for crime, based on little evidence, rather than seeing them as the primary victims of Bangalore's uneven development pattern, is an example of irresponsible reporting. Similarly, simplistic representations that vilify IT people and make them scapegoats for much larger social and economic problems are dangerous and unwarranted. A.R. Vasavi Carol Upadhya National Institute of Advanced Studies IISc Campus Bangalore-560012
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Dec 12, 2007 7:15 AM, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But a question that has always puzzled me is whether anyone has > ever done a caste distribution study of Indian immigrants in the US. I > suspect, without proof, that they are likely to be predominantly Indians of > forward caste descent. If there is a correlation between Indian > English-speakers and forward caste, we may be hearing a narrative of India > that excludes the 95% of Indians by virtue of their lack of English that also > correlates with a complete absence of serious information about the state of > lower castes, non English speakers and the poor. Vijay Prashad's books[1], especially 'The Karma of Brown Folk'[2] deals with the question of "forward" and "backward" caste Indian minority in the US. Also see 'A Sacred Thread: Modern Transmission of Hindu Traditions in India and Abroad'[3] Edited by Raymond Brady Williams. Thaths [1]http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Vijay+Prashad&ots=Lkgm6bw5N3&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en [2] http://books.google.com/books?id=3h5WIQAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Vijay+inauthor:Prashad&ei=cyBgR_ajHYKAsgOyhs2AAg [3] http://books.google.com/books?id=3VV0VntTpvMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sacred+thread&ei=WyBgR5LHBpKetAPxxZ34AQ&sig=N8z1ffcYQg3q5sPVcPEJMirkuyw -- Bart: I want to be emancipated. Homer: Emancipated?! Don't you like being a dude? -- Homer J. Simpson Sudhakar ChandraSlacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Dec 12, 2007 8:45 PM, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 12 Dec 2007 1:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > With the unbridled faith in science, technology and economic growth that > > seems to have gripped the middle classes, some critical reflection on > > India's current development trajectory is in order -- which is precisely > > what sociologists (and others) are supposed to be good at. Yet they do not > > often enough air their views, or their knowledge, in public. > > Carol your study was itself an eye opener. You showed how the IT boom was > restricted largely to the forward castes. You were bold enough to mention the > unmentionable "R" word that can earn you a fatwa -"reservation!! > > As you pointed out (and as was mentioned in an article that I Googled) Engilsh > rules the airwaves. People who use English in India get heard the most and > their views are echoed and amplified by the dominance of the anglosphere > courtesy the US of A. > > I have often felt (with no proof whatsoever) that the old (pre-independence) > cliches about India, many of them negative, were based on interaction of > foreign visitors and invaders with the upper castes of India. If you exclude > ancient Indian literature, the narratives of India that exist are the > narratives of the upper castes of India and their attitudes and habits. You > will not find, for example, a narrative of a "chamar" or a "bhangi", or even > a "mochi" - a word that caused recent uproar for being used in a Bollywood > song. I have no way of verifying this theory- there is no independent > corroboration that I know of. > > But if that is true, it only adds on to another possible anomaly that can be > verified if someone bothers to do that. > > I spoke of the way the views of the Indian anglophones are propagated and > amplified. But a question that has always puzzled me is whether anyone has > ever done a caste distribution study of Indian immigrants in the US. I > suspect, without proof, that they are likely to be predominantly Indians of > forward caste descent. If there is a correlation between Indian > English-speakers and forward caste, we may be hearing a narrative of India > that excludes the 95% of Indians by virtue of their lack of English that also > correlates with a complete absence of serious information about the state of > lower castes, non English speakers and the poor. > > In other words, there may be a complete dysjunction between what is said and > discussed in the English media and issues on the ground in India. I would > consider this a serious social anomaly. > > shiv That was very thought-provoking and I am going to mull that over...this perspective had never occurred to me before...who the chroniclers were, and are... Ironic that English has to be the link language and is yet a sharp divider of the "haves" and "have-nots", whether it is a bank balance or education or access to information that the "haves" have. But I suppose that is true everywhere in the English-speaking world? Deepa. > > > > >
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Wednesday 12 Dec 2007 1:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > With the unbridled faith in science, technology and economic growth that > seems to have gripped the middle classes, some critical reflection on > India's current development trajectory is in order -- which is precisely > what sociologists (and others) are supposed to be good at. Yet they do not > often enough air their views, or their knowledge, in public. Carol your study was itself an eye opener. You showed how the IT boom was restricted largely to the forward castes. You were bold enough to mention the unmentionable "R" word that can earn you a fatwa -"reservation!! As you pointed out (and as was mentioned in an article that I Googled) Engilsh rules the airwaves. People who use English in India get heard the most and their views are echoed and amplified by the dominance of the anglosphere courtesy the US of A. I have often felt (with no proof whatsoever) that the old (pre-independence) cliches about India, many of them negative, were based on interaction of foreign visitors and invaders with the upper castes of India. If you exclude ancient Indian literature, the narratives of India that exist are the narratives of the upper castes of India and their attitudes and habits. You will not find, for example, a narrative of a "chamar" or a "bhangi", or even a "mochi" - a word that caused recent uproar for being used in a Bollywood song. I have no way of verifying this theory- there is no independent corroboration that I know of. But if that is true, it only adds on to another possible anomaly that can be verified if someone bothers to do that. I spoke of the way the views of the Indian anglophones are propagated and amplified. But a question that has always puzzled me is whether anyone has ever done a caste distribution study of Indian immigrants in the US. I suspect, without proof, that they are likely to be predominantly Indians of forward caste descent. If there is a correlation between Indian English-speakers and forward caste, we may be hearing a narrative of India that excludes the 95% of Indians by virtue of their lack of English that also correlates with a complete absence of serious information about the state of lower castes, non English speakers and the poor. In other words, there may be a complete dysjunction between what is said and discussed in the English media and issues on the ground in India. I would consider this a serious social anomaly. shiv
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Wednesday 12 Dec 2007 1:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > A perennial conundrum for Indian sociology has been figuring out the > correct frame of analysis; if all the theories and categories of sociology > are imported from the West, how can they help us to undestand India? On the > other hand, it has tended to be insular, looking only at India, without a > sufficient comparative perspective. An unresolved debate ... and there are > many others. Sociology in India is heaven for people like me. I can say what I like and there is nobody to contradict me. But I don't believe I am firing random shots. My first impression that Indians are peculiar and different from observing myself, but was reinforced by Naipaul who characterized India as a "stupefied" nation I will quote from Naipaul's "An Area of Darkness", Penguin, pp 208-209 Quote: ... The British pillaged the country thoroughly; during their rule, manufactures and crafts declined. This has to be accepted and listed against the achievements listed by Woodruff: a biscuit factory is a poor exchange for gold embroidery. The country had been pillaged before. But continuity had been maintained. . With the British, continuity was broken. And perhaps the British are responsible for this Indian artistic failure, which is part of the general Indian bewilderment, in the way that the Spaniards were responsible for the stupefaction of the Mexicans and the Peruvians. It was a clash between a positive principle and a negative; and nothing more negative can be imagined than the conjunction in the eighteenth century of a static Islam and a decadent Hindu India. In any clash between post renaissance Europe and India, India was bound to lose. (Naipaul follows this passage with a footnote that is informative, and I continue quoting from the footnote) If I had read Camus's The Rebel before writing this chapter I might have used his terminology. Where Camus might have said "capable of rebellion", I have said "positive"[]; and it is interesting that Camus gives, as examples of people incapable of rebellion, the Hindus and the Incas. 'The problem of rebellion has no meaning except within our Western society. [...snip..] What is at stake is humanity's gradually increasing self awareness as it pursues its course. In fact, for the Inca and the Hindu parish the problem never arises because for them it had been solved by a tradition, even before they had had time to raise it - the answer being that their tradition is sacred. If in a world, things are held sacred, the problem of rebelion does not arise, it is because no real problems are to be found in such a world, all the answers having been given simultaneously. Metaphysic is replaced by myth. There are no more questions, only eternal answers and commentaries, which may be metaphysical. end Quote The longer I observe Indian society the clearer it becomes to me that Indians including every one of us have inherited weird (Probably Hindu, and some islamic) cultural characteristics that are unique. We tend to superimpose these characteristics on learned behavior that we acquire from the West or elsewhere and often produce a grotesque parody that does not convincingly correlate with what we aim to produce, but openly shows the really weird and different "Hindu" heritage in behavior. And nobody has bothered to really understand or unravel that complex Hindu behavioral heritage. Modernity (or should I say "modernism"?) and political correctness prevent us from acknowledging caste related influences. It is very difficult to openly point out behavior in an Indian that is plainly a vestige of the caste system for fear of arousing needless passion, but those vestiges are there all around for us to see. Ajit Mani, whom former CiXers will know, and who unsubscribed himself from Silk has a long list of linguistic vestiges of the caste system that Indians often use and perpetuate unconsciously and innocently, with absolutely no idea that they are doing it. Even Indians who are ostensibly sophisticated and "world citizens" who take umbrage at being associated with the India they have "left behind" in favor of modernity often unconsciously display open biases and hints of attitudes that are unique to India. It is often very difficult to point this out, because of a reaction called "cognitive dissonance" that tends to cause anger and denial when uncomfortable facts are pointed out. If Sociology departments suddenly bloom in every town and city in India, it will still be 150 years before India and Indian behavior is anywhere near being sussed out and sorted out intelligently and scientifically. The problem is that most developed nations understand the value of sociology. Indians, are babes in the wood, muddling through human evolution in fits and starts. shiv
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
Thanks Carol, Abhijit. I just ordered it. Should have it by tomorrow. Adit. On Dec 12, 2007 2:11 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Aditya -- > This book can be easily purchased in India, it's published here -- any > good bookseller. If you're in Bangalore, try Premier. > > Carol > > > - Original Message - > From: Aditya Kapil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:33 pm > Subject: Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India? > To: silklist@lists.hserus.net > > > I would certainly not find this boring. Can I buy it in India? Or > > do I have > > to Amazon it. An ethnomethodologist friend is visiting, I'd like > > to buy him > > a copy too. > > Adit. > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > May I recommend a recently published book -- Anthropology in the > > East> edited by Patricia Uberoi et al (Permanent Black, 2007). > > It's a collection > > > of articles about important figures in the history of Indian > > sociology / > > > social anthropology, and one of its purposes was to make a > > beginning at > > > trying to understand the reasons for the sorry state of the > > discipline, by > > > tracing its history. I also have a piece in this volume, in > > which I try to > > > understand certain aspects of the discipline by looking at the > > work of one > > > of the founding 'fathers', GS Ghurye. But you might find such a > > tome rather > > > boring! > > > > > > Carol > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- ...But always remember that irritation is what allows oysters to create pearls. Thank goodness for oysters because ulcers make crappy necklaces [Scott Adams]
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
On Wednesday 12 Dec 2007 1:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, from the resident sociologist on silklist. Thanks for the reply Carol. I have dozens of unanswered questions and nobody is even thinking about asking them, leave alone finding answers. I have mentioned dome things on this list on and off, and most deal with unconscious behavior of Indians in general that make them say and believe certain things without any real questioning of belief. And when I say such things - people on a forum or list sometimes feel personally targeted. Perhaps they recognize themselves in the behavior I describe - but while I mean no harm, I feel compelled to say some things. Todays Hindu says in a headline (which I was unable to find online this morning) "How IT has changed the city's crime scenario: The economic divide created by the IT boom has forced many youth from poor families to take to crime" How cosy and comfortable. The problem is described and the answer revealed right at the top of the page before the text of the article. But the text of the article tells a different story. Most of the crime is extortion by "real estate agents" . Only one line says "Police have found youth from lower income groups involved in robberies" In fact an empirical examination seems to show that the people involved in crime against "IT" people are hardly "poor" by Indian standards. Most appear to be reasonably well off. I would call them "middle class" based on a definition of Indian "middle class" as earning Rs 5000 a month, owning a scooter/moped and a TV. We constantly employ some really poor people - our "servants" for whom only the most enlightened among us (excludes me) would give a day off in a week. These really poor people are not involved it seems. But a national newspaper, a stuffy and serious one at that, writes a headline that blames poor people for crime. It's not just the newspaper. The belief runs among wealthy Indians too. Poverty==crime. He is poor, therefore he is corrupt and takes bribes. He is poor therefore he is tempted by my money. Even a cursory examination of the idea does not support the correlation as some kind of general rule that should be splashed as a headline, to be read and internalized by the elite as they down their morning capuccinos. Oh but the editor of the Hindu does not think of that. If I ask him, he will ask me for research papers. And if I look for research papers there are none. The answer that suggests itself in Kannada is "Helorilla. Kelorilla" "No one to ask. No one to tell". That itself becomes a comfortable truth drop the subject with a laugh. Indian society in my opinion mentally lives as it did 500 years ago, with a veneer of modernity, but with no real sense of the kind of movement and evolution that Western societies underwent. That just will not do. I have other questions, but I will state them as they occur to me - as they do frequently. shiv
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
Aditya -- This book can be easily purchased in India, it's published here -- any good bookseller. If you're in Bangalore, try Premier. Carol - Original Message - From: Aditya Kapil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:33 pm Subject: Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India? To: silklist@lists.hserus.net > I would certainly not find this boring. Can I buy it in India? Or > do I have > to Amazon it. An ethnomethodologist friend is visiting, I'd like > to buy him > a copy too. > Adit. > > On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > May I recommend a recently published book -- Anthropology in the > East> edited by Patricia Uberoi et al (Permanent Black, 2007). > It's a collection > > of articles about important figures in the history of Indian > sociology / > > social anthropology, and one of its purposes was to make a > beginning at > > trying to understand the reasons for the sorry state of the > discipline, by > > tracing its history. I also have a piece in this volume, in > which I try to > > understand certain aspects of the discipline by looking at the > work of one > > of the founding 'fathers', GS Ghurye. But you might find such a > tome rather > > boring! > > > > Carol > > > > > > >
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
Hi -- I'll forward your message about the website to Rukun Advani, I'm sure he'll appreciate the feedback. Yes, Permanent Black has been cornering many of the best social science / history publications recently. I have also sent them my book proposal, on none other than IT Bangalore! Carol - Original Message - From: Abhishek Hazra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:56 pm Subject: Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India? To: silklist@lists.hserus.net > thanks carol for the post. > yes, i have been waiting to get my hands on this volume. > and of late, Permanent Black has been coming out with so many > interesting titles... > i just wish they update their website to include more of the past > volumes.http://permanent-black.blogspot.com/ > i thought that this site gives a better feel for the titles than > the catalogue > > they had a slim volume on South Asian scholars in the west [1] - which > was more of a collection of personal recollections by scholars like > Appadurai, Gyan Prakash, Partha Chatterjee, tracing their own > intellectual history and how they see their engagement with the > "western academia". so though they were not strictly academic papers, > they nevertheless gave you a sense of how these practitioners have > framed their engagement with their respective discipline - history, > anthropology, cultural studies. > > [1] At Home in Diaspora : South Asian Scholars and the West > by Jackie Assayag and Veronique Benei > http://www.biblio.com/details.php?dcx=7349674&aid=frg > > > On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, from the resident sociologist on silklist. > > > > Shiv is quite correct -- sociology is a tired, underdeveloped, > nelected, and largely irrelevant discipline in India, despite the > fact that (I think) it produces more PhDs than any other. There > are many reasons for this, and I would not like to bore members > with a long discussion of these. It has to do with the history of > the discipline in India, institutional problems, and many others. > The language problem is also acute -- most of the 'good' sociology > is carried out in English, with little link to debates going on in > regional/ Indian languages. > > > > But there are nonetheless some sociologists around who are doing > relevant and interesting work (in a few good centres such as DU > and JNU), and who are also concerned about this problem -- hence > the frequent lamentations from sociologists themselves about the > state of the discipline. (To its credit, sociology is probably the > most reflexive discipline around; we do a lot of navel gazing.) > And quite a few sociologists do actually carry out important > policy-related research, sit on government committees, submit > reports on current issues (never read!) and so on. But there is > much more that needs to be done. > > > > There is some research funding available from ICSSR and others > bodies, even Tatas and others do cough up money sometimes; but > most of us seek outside sources of funding (ie, outside of India). > > > > Another problem is that many of the best social scientists have > flown the coop, and teach in western universities (I am a reverse > migrant!), so we are not reproducing outselves. But now we see > some returnees, coming back as fresh PhDs or with a few years of > teaching -- this may change the picture ... > > > > A perennial conundrum for Indian sociology has been figuring out > the correct frame of analysis; if all the theories and categories > of sociology are imported from the West, how can they help us to > undestand India? On the other hand, it has tended to be insular, > looking only at India, without a sufficient comparative > perspective. An unresolved debate ... and there are many others. > > > > Thanks to Shiv for highlighting this issue, since the general > public, including intellectuals, seem to think that disciplines > like sociology are quite irrelevant and unimportant. With the > unbridled faith in science, technology and economic growth that > seems to have gripped the middle classes, some critical reflection > on India's current development trajectory is in order -- which is > precisely what sociologists (and others) are supposed to be good > at. Yet they do not often enough air their views, or their > knowledge, in public. > > > > May I recommend a recently published book -- Anthropology in the > East edited by Patricia Uberoi et al (Permanent Black, 2007). It's > a collection of articles about important figures in the history of > Indian sociology / social anthropology, and one
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
thanks carol for the post. yes, i have been waiting to get my hands on this volume. and of late, Permanent Black has been coming out with so many interesting titles... i just wish they update their website to include more of the past volumes. http://permanent-black.blogspot.com/ i thought that this site gives a better feel for the titles than the catalogue they had a slim volume on South Asian scholars in the west [1] - which was more of a collection of personal recollections by scholars like Appadurai, Gyan Prakash, Partha Chatterjee, tracing their own intellectual history and how they see their engagement with the "western academia". so though they were not strictly academic papers, they nevertheless gave you a sense of how these practitioners have framed their engagement with their respective discipline - history, anthropology, cultural studies. [1] At Home in Diaspora : South Asian Scholars and the West by Jackie Assayag and Veronique Benei http://www.biblio.com/details.php?dcx=7349674&aid=frg On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, from the resident sociologist on silklist. > > Shiv is quite correct -- sociology is a tired, underdeveloped, nelected, and > largely irrelevant discipline in India, despite the fact that (I think) it > produces more PhDs than any other. There are many reasons for this, and I > would not like to bore members with a long discussion of these. It has to do > with the history of the discipline in India, institutional problems, and many > others. The language problem is also acute -- most of the 'good' sociology is > carried out in English, with little link to debates going on in regional/ > Indian languages. > > But there are nonetheless some sociologists around who are doing relevant and > interesting work (in a few good centres such as DU and JNU), and who are also > concerned about this problem -- hence the frequent lamentations from > sociologists themselves about the state of the discipline. (To its credit, > sociology is probably the most reflexive discipline around; we do a lot of > navel gazing.) And quite a few sociologists do actually carry out important > policy-related research, sit on government committees, submit reports on > current issues (never read!) and so on. But there is much more that needs to > be done. > > There is some research funding available from ICSSR and others bodies, even > Tatas and others do cough up money sometimes; but most of us seek outside > sources of funding (ie, outside of India). > > Another problem is that many of the best social scientists have flown the > coop, and teach in western universities (I am a reverse migrant!), so we are > not reproducing outselves. But now we see some returnees, coming back as > fresh PhDs or with a few years of teaching -- this may change the picture ... > > A perennial conundrum for Indian sociology has been figuring out the correct > frame of analysis; if all the theories and categories of sociology are > imported from the West, how can they help us to undestand India? On the other > hand, it has tended to be insular, looking only at India, without a > sufficient comparative perspective. An unresolved debate ... and there are > many others. > > Thanks to Shiv for highlighting this issue, since the general public, > including intellectuals, seem to think that disciplines like sociology are > quite irrelevant and unimportant. With the unbridled faith in science, > technology and economic growth that seems to have gripped the middle classes, > some critical reflection on India's current development trajectory is in > order -- which is precisely what sociologists (and others) are supposed to be > good at. Yet they do not often enough air their views, or their knowledge, > in public. > > May I recommend a recently published book -- Anthropology in the East edited > by Patricia Uberoi et al (Permanent Black, 2007). It's a collection of > articles about important figures in the history of Indian sociology / social > anthropology, and one of its purposes was to make a beginning at trying to > understand the reasons for the sorry state of the discipline, by tracing its > history. I also have a piece in this volume, in which I try to understand > certain aspects of the discipline by looking at the work of one of the > founding 'fathers', GS Ghurye. But you might find such a tome rather boring! > > Carol > > > - Original Message - > From: shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:15 pm > Subject: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India? > To: silklist@lists.hserus.net > > > I don't mean to hurt anyone, although it is possible that people > > may feel
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
At 2007-12-12 13:32:06 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Can I buy it in India? Permanent Black is an Indian publisher. See https://www.orientlongman.com/permanentblack.asp -- ams
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
I would certainly not find this boring. Can I buy it in India? Or do I have to Amazon it. An ethnomethodologist friend is visiting, I'd like to buy him a copy too. Adit. On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > May I recommend a recently published book -- Anthropology in the East > edited by Patricia Uberoi et al (Permanent Black, 2007). It's a collection > of articles about important figures in the history of Indian sociology / > social anthropology, and one of its purposes was to make a beginning at > trying to understand the reasons for the sorry state of the discipline, by > tracing its history. I also have a piece in this volume, in which I try to > understand certain aspects of the discipline by looking at the work of one > of the founding 'fathers', GS Ghurye. But you might find such a tome rather > boring! > > Carol > > >
Re: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
Hello, from the resident sociologist on silklist. Shiv is quite correct -- sociology is a tired, underdeveloped, nelected, and largely irrelevant discipline in India, despite the fact that (I think) it produces more PhDs than any other. There are many reasons for this, and I would not like to bore members with a long discussion of these. It has to do with the history of the discipline in India, institutional problems, and many others. The language problem is also acute -- most of the 'good' sociology is carried out in English, with little link to debates going on in regional/ Indian languages. But there are nonetheless some sociologists around who are doing relevant and interesting work (in a few good centres such as DU and JNU), and who are also concerned about this problem -- hence the frequent lamentations from sociologists themselves about the state of the discipline. (To its credit, sociology is probably the most reflexive discipline around; we do a lot of navel gazing.) And quite a few sociologists do actually carry out important policy-related research, sit on government committees, submit reports on current issues (never read!) and so on. But there is much more that needs to be done. There is some research funding available from ICSSR and others bodies, even Tatas and others do cough up money sometimes; but most of us seek outside sources of funding (ie, outside of India). Another problem is that many of the best social scientists have flown the coop, and teach in western universities (I am a reverse migrant!), so we are not reproducing outselves. But now we see some returnees, coming back as fresh PhDs or with a few years of teaching -- this may change the picture ... A perennial conundrum for Indian sociology has been figuring out the correct frame of analysis; if all the theories and categories of sociology are imported from the West, how can they help us to undestand India? On the other hand, it has tended to be insular, looking only at India, without a sufficient comparative perspective. An unresolved debate ... and there are many others. Thanks to Shiv for highlighting this issue, since the general public, including intellectuals, seem to think that disciplines like sociology are quite irrelevant and unimportant. With the unbridled faith in science, technology and economic growth that seems to have gripped the middle classes, some critical reflection on India's current development trajectory is in order -- which is precisely what sociologists (and others) are supposed to be good at. Yet they do not often enough air their views, or their knowledge, in public. May I recommend a recently published book -- Anthropology in the East edited by Patricia Uberoi et al (Permanent Black, 2007). It's a collection of articles about important figures in the history of Indian sociology / social anthropology, and one of its purposes was to make a beginning at trying to understand the reasons for the sorry state of the discipline, by tracing its history. I also have a piece in this volume, in which I try to understand certain aspects of the discipline by looking at the work of one of the founding 'fathers', GS Ghurye. But you might find such a tome rather boring! Carol - Original Message - From: shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 8:15 pm Subject: [silk] Failure of Sociology in India? To: silklist@lists.hserus.net > I don't mean to hurt anyone, although it is possible that people > may feel > hurt. > > I apologize in advance for any hurt I may cause as I post > opinions. > > What I write below are OPINIONS. Not research findings. > > Using Google it is easy to find references that point to the > failure of > Sociology in India. One paper spoke of sociology in India being a > "tired" > specialty. Another spoke of failure to address really big issues. > > My life revolves around talking to people and hearing their > innermost secrets > and I am faced with a whole lot of questions. Sometimes, answers > to those > questions seem come by chance when I am reading Western > literature. At other > times people make serendipitous observations that seem to have > truth in them > > I tend to think that India has a very narrow base of scholarship. > In the last > 60 years the entire country has rushed headlong into technical > education and > the humanities have been badly neglected. Day to day issues > affecting Indian > society are not addressed at all by the miniscule body of Indian > sociologists. Some questions have no answers except the chance > observations > by Western sociologists studying India and Indians. Neither the > government > nor corporate bodies come forward as far as I can tell to fund > research in > departments of
[silk] Failure of Sociology in India?
I don't mean to hurt anyone, although it is possible that people may feel hurt. I apologize in advance for any hurt I may cause as I post opinions. What I write below are OPINIONS. Not research findings. Using Google it is easy to find references that point to the failure of Sociology in India. One paper spoke of sociology in India being a "tired" specialty. Another spoke of failure to address really big issues. My life revolves around talking to people and hearing their innermost secrets and I am faced with a whole lot of questions. Sometimes, answers to those questions seem come by chance when I am reading Western literature. At other times people make serendipitous observations that seem to have truth in them I tend to think that India has a very narrow base of scholarship. In the last 60 years the entire country has rushed headlong into technical education and the humanities have been badly neglected. Day to day issues affecting Indian society are not addressed at all by the miniscule body of Indian sociologists. Some questions have no answers except the chance observations by Western sociologists studying India and Indians. Neither the government nor corporate bodies come forward as far as I can tell to fund research in departments of sociology, and I suspect that the little sociology there is in India is funded by meager grants from some NGO or the other. I don't really know for sure. I believe that sociology in India is "massive work waiting to be done". None of the major issues that crop up have been addressed at all even though they stare you in the face or hit you between the eyes. I saw one reference that said that India had 15,000 sociologists, but only 1700 had registered with the association, and the number of papers being published was far fewer than that from a Finland. The blame for that is laid on the forced need for English and th lack of English competence among Indian sociologits, with no mechanism for them to write in their mother tongues. Is sociology neglected or not in India?
